And it came to pass that yours truly wanted to click on this article, from the Canada Free Press, and was “warned” by the Great Nanny that the site I wanted to visit was dangerous and potentially harmful. I had to click “visit anyway” in order to read the article.
You can agree or disagree with the content of the page, but there can be no doubt that it is legitimate.
Am I very bad if I think that these kind of warnings are not due to some coding mistake or defect of security protocols, but are slapped on certain sites in order to dissuade the public from visiting them? It’s not that there is anything here that can really be seen as suspicious.
I opened the same page with another browser and there was no warning. This tells me that there are some people within Google Chrome who really don’t like the site, whilst other browsers just don’t have any issue.
Makes one think, doesn’t it?
I am not saying that this has to be a case of sabotage, and these technical matters are way above my programming pay grade (which is non-existent). Still, we live in times in which one cannot avoid thinking that there is some bad actor at play.
I think that all sites like Canada free Press should actively monitor the way all major browsers react to an attempt to contact their site, because they should not be surprised if they discovered that some SJW has decided to signal his virtue (notice here the conspicuous absence of the pronoun “they”) by playing censor. This can easily extend to all our post concerning religion, to all facets of academic speech, etc.
Beware of woke people, always. But beware of them particularly when they act as gatekeepers in the free flow of information.
We truly live in maddening times.
The blogger of Vox Cantoris, a perfectly orthodox Catholic blog mentioned here a couple of times, has been threatened with a lawsuit if eleven posts concerning the very same Father Rosica, and all of them concerning his public activity and statements, are not removed.
Bravely, the blogger has already indicated he will not comply.
I am not an expert in Canadian law, but it seems extremely difficult to imagine the letter has any chance at all of being successful.
Rather, it seems to me that here something different is at stake: a Vatican official uses a financial muscle (the threat of a very expensive, long-drawn lawsuit) to shut up a faithful Catholic blogger.
Father Rosica is, in a way, the number two of Father Lombardi, and they often appear together at press conferences. I repeat it again, none of the posts make allegations about Father Rosicas private life or affairs, and there is no trace of slander. That a man working with the press would try to silence the free expression of opinion in this way truly beggars belief.
Some questions are now, I think, ripe:
1) How long can the oh so merciful TMAHICH pretend he does not know of this? Will he stubbornly shut up as he did, and still does, in the FFI matter? (Oh well, wait! He said “soon, soon” to the old couple! An obvious lie!).
2) How can Father Rosica remain at his place if he shows such obvious contempt for the very freedoms that make his job?
3) How many dozen of other blogs will Father Rosica have to sue now? Do we want to call them, say, twenty-four, in at least half a dozen jurisdictions?
Vox Cantoris is on a “Blogger” platform. I can, therefore, not reblog his posts. I could link to them, but the link would not work if the posts are removed.
If any, ahem, “Blogger” blogger wants to reblog his posts, I think this will have the effect that the posts would remain on the blog of the “reblogger” even if they were to be removed from the original site; a decision which Mr Domet could take at any time.
Let me make clear that I would not blame Mr Domet if he decided that he wants to be able to blog in peace, and sleep at night. But I appreciate it the much more, if he decides to fight this fight for all of us.
As Mr Domet has obviously decided he wants to see Father Rosica’s cards, I invite every Catholic blogger of good will, including priest bloggers, to give vast echo to this matter and make their voice heard.
I beg of you. I implore you. If you are thinking of starting a blog, do so anonymously.
We live in strange and disturbing times.
I wish I could find an old post about the Church teaching in dealing with bad laws.
The gist of it was that first one tries everything he can to avoid the laws becoming such in the first place; if this fails, then one tries everything he can to have them repealed; if even this fails, then one tries to have them destroyed one piece at a time. But to destroy the law a piece at a time will always, for the sound Catholic, be the better choice than an unreal battle to have the law repealed, when it is just not realistic to obtain the optimal result.
Example: abortion. Catholic teaching in the matter is simple and clear: First, savage battle to avoid abortion legislation. If this partout fails, savage battle to have it repealed. If this partout fails, “salami tactics” (this is a nice German expression) which means: the targeted result is pursued, and hopefully obtained, one slice at a time. In this case this means proposing and having passed everything from higher medical standards for abortion mills, to the shortening of the periods in which abortion is legal, to the obligation to have a scanned image obtained, to longer waiting times, etc.
The thinking behind this is the solid common sense that is behind sound Catholic minds: if I can’t save – for now – one million aborted babies, I will try to save at least one hundred thousand of them. The first step will then, hopefully, lead to the second, and the third.
In this example, and in many others to which the same principle may be applied, you do not renounce to a positive intermediate result in the name of an end result that cannot, for the moment at least, be achieved at all. You do not renounce to a law shortening the time in which it is legal to abort because “this would mean to be accomplices of abortion”. What you do is: uphold Church teaching in all things (you will always be vociferous against abortion tout court; because what is impossible in this generation may be possible in the next, or the following one, and because the Church’s stance against abortion is the Truth of Christ), and take every slice of the salami you can.
Is it possible to have partial legislation against abortion? Well: go for it, for heaven’s sake! Do not condemn babies to die because the law is not beautiful enough for you! When babies are dying you save as many as you can, you do not sacrifice them to your beautiful, but unreachable ideals!
This is what the Church has always done in her dealing with secular powers, at least until Vatican II: the entire Catholic Truth, whenever I can; as much of it as I can, always. Therefore, in certain Countries She managed to be State Religion; but in those Country where she could not manage to do so (say: USA, United Kingdom), she tried to obtain as much freedom of religion for Catholics as possible. She did not say “I am not interested in freedom of speech, or of cult, for English Catholics! Either you make of Catholicism the State Religion or I am very happy to retreat in the Catacombs!”
You do not allow a secular State to push Catholics in the catacombs just because you cannot be the Religion of State. You do not allow the Church to be pushed underground just because the ideal of a Catholic state cannot be realised. You may feel more beautiful in the catacombs, but countless souls will be lost – seen from an earthly perspective – because of your quest for purity. There is no doubt that the Church in the catacombs was purer than the Church out of it. But the aim of the Church is to spread all over the world, not to stay beautiful in the catacombs.
When Constantine allowed freedom of cult to Christians, they did not refuse it because Constantine himself wasn’t even baptised. When Paul went all over the Mediterranean to gain converts to Christianity, he did not demand the demise of the Roman Empire as a precondition. When countless missionaries converted local kings and local warlords to Christianity, you can bet your hat that in many cases the thus converted King kept having a number of concubines around him. Those missionaries certainly knew it very well. They took one slice at a time. In the case of the king’s conversion, they got to pretty much the entire salami, but again if they had asked an exemplary life of him, in many cases not one slice would have been obtained.
Dreaming is one thing, doing is another. Keep dreaming if you want to. This blog is for those who prefer reality.
Does this mean that the Church must capitulate to (oh, that word) “gradualism”? Certainly not! Not, at least, if it is meant – as it was meant at the synod – compromising with the Truth.
On one hand, to uphold the Catholic teaching in its entirety is not only advisable, but absolutely mandatory. On the other hand, to have this Catholic teaching reintroduced in phases – as long as it cannot be done in one go – is the only viable way, and it is the way the Church has always chosen. Do you think Cardinal Consalvi would say to Napoleon “either you make of us the State Religion again, or we don’t care if you kill every Catholic in France”? No. Do you think he demanded from Napoleon that he starts living an exemplary Christian life? Come on. What the man instead did was to lead Napoleon to the recognition of the advantages for him in having this Church as the State religion again. I am sure he did not expect a mystical Napoleon after that. But I am rather sure he was pretty pleased with what he had accomplished anyway. By the by: Napoleon ended up dying in his bed, a Catholic, with the comfort of the Sacraments.
I could go on until tomorrow, but you get the drift.
Why do I write all this? Because this applies to our age exactly as well as to all ages before, and after it.
I get positively scared when I read commenters stating that I should not support Pell, because Pell would not pass the SSPX-Test. No he wouldn’t. Nor would Piacenza, or Mueller, or even Burke! They wouldn’t, because they are, all of them, polluted by V II, the one more and the other less. But for heaven’s sake, to discuss the merits of Mueller’s orthodoxy when Satan himself is launching all his armoured divisions against the Church seems criminally negligent to me.
We run the risk of having the Church as we know it – and be it in the largely defective V II version – wiped out of a good part of the West. We run the risk of a confusion of faithful, of a spiritual chaos like the planet has never, ever seen. Forgive me if I do not have any time for your complaints against Cardinal Pell!
The same applies, of course, to other matters, like freedom of speech. As I write this, freedom of speech is the only thing that keeps Christianity, in many Western Countries, away from the catacombs. It leaves me breathless that to defend freedom of speech would be something bad, because it does not correspond to some Catholic dream certainly not realisable in our generation, and probably not even in the next one.
At times I think that in some Catholics a mentality takes over, that in Italian is called “tanto peggio, tanto meglio” or “the worse, the better”. As if it were a matter of no importance whether in the West Christianity can reach everyone or not, or whether the West keeps as much as it can of Christian mentality and civilisation; as if it were irrelevant whether the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street, bleeding copiously, by a drunken mob, or is as strong and vigorous as can reasonably be hoped in the present, sad, circumstances.
“But Mundabor! It is good if the Bride of Christ is raped by a gang of thugs and carried on the street bleeding! Don’t you know that she will not die anyway?”
“But Mundabor! It is good if Christianity disappears from all over the West and is reduced to the catacombs: just think of how beautiful the fifteen of us will feel once we are there!”.
Please let us not joke here. Lives are at stake. Souls are at stake. The Christian West is at stake.
Thank God every day instead,and pray Him every night, for the likes of Mueller, Pell, or Burke. Pray that God send us many more of them, and be they of the V II garden variety, provided they are willing to fight against the extreme Francis variety. Pray FIRST that they may find the strenght to lead us in battle against the extremely strong army of Satan that is forming its ranks as we speak. And pray SECOND that when the battle at hand is won, a new awareness may be created about the real root and first cause of all this mess: Vatican II.
We are about to be invaded by the Wehrmacht, and we should discuss about the credentials of the only generals we found – and lucky to get them – ready to lead our army?
Don’t make me laugh.
It astonishes me how most have not understood (yet) what kind of monster we are all nurturing with our tax money.
Brussels is becoming more and more a supranational Big Brother (the dictator, of course), where the opinions about freedom prevailing at any time – and widely shaped from extremist interest groups, perverts’ lobbies, and easy populism of the day – are happily imposed upon hundreds of million of people, whilst we are told this is salutary, and for our own good.
The latest (or one of the latest) madness is the proposal of some former EU Heads of State to create a “surveillance unit” for “intolerant” citizen.
The Gestapo mentality of this is mind-boggling: no judicial control, no suspicion of criminal offence (which would require a criminal investigation; which is not what this is about): a purely administrative surveillance machine, spying on the lives of all those they don’t like and tarnishing them with the official EU stamp of “intolerance”.
How seriously incapable these people are of understanding freedom is shown at the very clear words of the report:
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
This thinking is the democratic understanding of people raised in Communist states (a number of the proposers actually are). The very principle of tolerance demands that, whenever tolerance is offered – and it must not be offered in everything – it protect everyone, including the intolerant; then otherwise it is not tolerance at all.
The second part of the statement quoted above shows all the absurdity of the thinking: if freedom of expression is not tolerated there is no freedom of expression, period.
I grew up in a country where the freedom of expression was limited only in very extreme manifestations that went against the very grain of common sense and pointed to an system of values superior to democracy (say: blasphemy, whereas this is meant as blasphemy of the Lord, not of Manitu or the Great Teapot In The Sky), but was otherwise considered the very blood of freedom; where it was normal to find publications from extreme right to extreme left; where you could – and still can – openly deny the Holocaust if you feel so inclined – which I find stupid; but it’s not for me to demand that people don’t say stupid things – without any fear of being put under surveillance by some obscure apparatchik; and where you could buy old racist, Nazi-like publications like “La Difesa della Razza” from street sellers without anyone taking scandal. I marched into the then Rizzoli bookstore in Rome and asked to buy “Mein Kampf“, just to see if I could. I could. The very courteous employee did not even raise an eyebrow.
This, my friends, is freedom.
In this XXI century, the dictatorship of “tolerance” is advancing fast; words do not mean anything anymore; “tolerance” is a one-way road, and this is openly admitted and proudly stated.
The proposers of this measure are all former Heads of State or Government, either directly or indirectly democratically elected. They are either to stupid to understand freedom, or cynically ride the tiger of “intolerance with the tolerant” to pursue their own interests. They must be really deranged in order not to see where this leads to: more power for the Gaystapo.
It tells you something about the erosion of the very concept of freedom that is taking place in the minds of the people; an erosion positively driven by supranational entities (like the UN, and the EU) presenting themselves as the good teachers slowly raising us kids to correct understanding. There is no tell you what a danger this creates, as measures adopted in one single country would cause immediate suspicion in many others, whilst the EU allows Brussels committees to work as incubators of illiberal policies that are then imposed on all countries as a European policy by way of decisions of organs whose degree of representativeness can be defined laughable at its best, and too far detached from the people of the European Union anyway.
The European Union is a diabolical construct. What started as a way to improve commerce and economic relationships – a worthy aim on its own – has long become the political project of a Big Nanny superstate with the same respect for thre freedom of its citizen of a Leonid Breznev. This is not about a better economic environment anymore, or about closed ties making wars more difficult.
Your own freedom is at stake. Not in the obvious manner of, say, an Anschluss, but in the far more subtle way of having your brain moulded, since a child, according to the wishes of a small clicque of people who have nested itself in the vital centres of power (the organisations and lobbies and donors who influence the appointments to key places) and, from there, steer the immense herd of stupid cows – yes, you – into believing absurdities like “there is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In fact, the very fact that such proposals are aired and proposed a EU policy by certainly influential people show the fullness of the decay of the concept of freedom in Europe, and how Brussels is the perfect incubator for every threat to it.
The EU must die.It must be killed as a political project and be scaled back to what is sensible: the easing of commerce, the opening of markets, the economic benefits deriving from the (sensible) standardisations of common goods, from screwdrivers to potatoes and from gherkins to car tires.
The best way to vote in the upcoming elections for the EU Parliament (a misleading expression anyway; in no European democracy the organs of the Executive have so much power as in Brussels) is to give contributions to the dismantling of this immense repressive apparatus.
I have written not many weeks ago about the excellent intervention of Rowan Atkinson in defence of basic freedom of speech in the face ot the erosion of liberty caused by an increasingly more oppressive nannyism and dictatorship of obligatory niceness.
Since Atkinson’s intervention the Government – being a motley crew of oppressive cretins and friends of the perverts – has decided not to change the line of militant political correctness, but the Crown Prosecution Service has today made a big step in the direction of freedom of expression by announcing their support to the scrapping of insulting expressions as criminal offences.
This will cause another problem for our sodo-government, as the combined pressure of both increasing sectors of the public opinion and the return to sanity of the CPS will expose even more their oppressive nannyism and, in time – perhaps after another scandal or two, see the “gay horse” of the article – force them to cave in.
Kudos to the CPS for having the nerve to react to the oppressive climate of mandated political correctess Cameron & Co. Would love to impose on all of us.
You can find here the content of an E-mail complaint sent to the University of Illinois concerning the teaching activity of Dr. Howell. This is apparently not from the anonymous student who gave origin to the contention, but it would appear that the two have the same forma mentis and are perhaps friends; the attached E-mail (not showed) might well be *the* one.
Let us examine the highlights of this E-mail, because it gives numerous clues about the way these people (don’t) think. I will not make the joke that they can’t think straight.
1) The author of the E-mail never assisted to Dr. Howell’s lessons. He refers what he has heard. This is the worst possible start for a complaint. The author is blissfully unaware of that.
2) The core of the complaint is that Dr. Howell would say “things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith”. The expectation that a system of belief should be taught in a way that is “sensitive” to people of a different faith is downright absurd. If Islam says that I have to be converted or pay extra taxes or die I can be angry at Islam, not at the fact that I am informed of this. Most people have problems with other faiths. This is why they don’t belong to them.
3) The author goes on saying “I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable”. Well no he is – a gay activist, I mean; I have my doubts about his sexual orientation, too – and in pure activist style he introduces the term “hate speech” without giving one example, one phrase, one word to support his assertion. “My friend says the chap is inflammatory” is the only support. This is an opinion out of hearsay, not an argument. Again, the boy is blissfully unaware of this.
4) “It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes”. Here the mask falls off entirely. The problem is not how Dr. Howell teaches Catholicism, but that Catholicism is taught. How one can teach Catholicism without people learning it or its values being perpetuated is a mystery to me. But perhaps the author knows better.
5) “Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation”. It gets worse. Catholicism being taught is confused with the University “having a religious affiliation”. It gets more and more obvious that the problem of whining homosexuals is that there are Catholicism lessons.
6) “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another”. This is again very confused and shows that the boy needs a course of introduction to Catholicism. That homosexual acts violate the natural laws of men is – beside being evident to every right-thinking man free from sexual perversions – part and parcel of Catholic teaching. Always was. Always will be. The objection is therefore a contradictio in adjecto.
7) “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course”. Here we are again. I might feel uncomfortable at a course about, say, Hindu or Buddhist spirituality. But this would be entirely my problem. I don’t have any right to feel comfortable. These people are pampered boys refusing to accept that they’ll meet people whose opinions they don’t like. Besides, following this line of thought one shouldn’t teach that it is a sin to rape children, because “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a student convicted for child rape would feel if he/she were to take this course”.
8 ) “I am a heterosexual male”. Not very credible, old boy. Heterosexual males aren’t homo activists and homo activists aren’t heterosexual males. Whatever they may think about it.
9) “My friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma”. It gets more and more absurd. A dogma is, by definition, something which does not allow any room for opposition. You accept the dogma (then you’re Catholic) or you don’t (then you aren’t). Again, the man needs an introduction to Catholicism himself, sharpish.
10) the “founder of the queer studies major” has been copied. The author is acquainted with him. This is the man saying he is not a homo activist. Go figure.
We are still waiting for the decision of the University of Illinois about what to do. Dr. Howell’s lawyers have given today as the deadline to reintegrate him or face litigation.
Still, I thought I would give you my thoughts about this to illustrate the confusion reigning in these people’s minds and their absurd demands that nothing be taught which offends their sensitivity. How very intolerant, how very absurd and, well, how very effeminate.