“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture”.
This is not a joke, but what has happened in a university in Florida. Apart from the fact that the “assignment” reminds one of kindergarten exercises (without the blasphemy) one truly wonders what goes in the twisted minds of certain people.
I will not spare you the very easy, but very true remark that the genius who thought this did not consider using, say, a Mohammed Cartoon as stomping material. I am sure he knows why. A shame, really, because if one wants to “discuss the importance of symbols in culture” I can barely imagine a more fitting starting point.
Still, the problem here is much vaster than stupidity. This episode shows not only a total lack of Christian feeling, but also the complete absence of every regard for Christianity as a religion. In a Christian country like the United States, this is an obvious indication of a degree of Anti-Christian militancy speaking volumes about the degree of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance” of the blaspheming classes.
The University has apologised, after the fact. The question remains what kind of University it is that employs geniuses like the one who thought this. Personally, I also wonder what kind of kindergarten is this, where people cannot start a discussion about “the importance of symbols in culture” without stomping like little children.
If this is the level of higher education in the United States, decline and fall cannot be very far away.
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the other side, the call for the end of the debate would be deafening, and every opposer treated as an undemocratic nazi.
Or let us examine the legislative part of the battle, the arena where the homos try to transform their clear minority in the country in a majority by attracting representatives of the people ready to please them in exchange for favours. Well it turns out that this year they have already lost in Maryland and Rhode Island, and only won in New York; it’ 2-1 on the legislative front then, but there are at least other six states – let us count them: Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania preparing themselves to reinforce marriage as the only…. marriage, or to reverse past decisions favourable to the homos.
Not persuaded yet? Look at a liberal state like California, where the homos have lost several times through either popular vote or law initiatives, and are now trying to overturn the people’s decision through an homosexual judge living together with his lover (or mistress, I suppose; or both; no idea what disgusting “arrangements” these people make).
Or perhaps you think that wherever homosexual so-called “marriage” legislation is passed, the situation is irreversible? Think again! Iowa and New Hampshire are two points in case, California is another example of sort (with the victorious Proposition 8 being the people’s answer to pink judicial activism). Wherever you look, people don’t sit and say “oh well, it had to happen I suppose”, but they react.
This, mind, even before the massive Catholic machine has been mobilised. If the US bishops started to say it as it is in a way that can’t be ignored, things would change in a matter not of decades, but probably of years, and the great risk for puppets a’ la Andrew Cuomo to be wiped out would soon let them decide that it is better for them to shut up like as many children when the headmaster enters the classroom.
Thankfully, in the United States more and more people are starting to understand what your humble correspondent has been saying from pre-blog times: homosexuality is the front line of the Christian war. Re-establish a Christian attitude to this, and abortion and euthanasia will be won on the momentum created by this recovery of Christian values.
Sad as it is to say so, too many people are still numbed to the atrocity of abortion, as – as they say in Italy – “the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one”. Not so for homo “marriages”. This is a battle that every Christian can fully grasp now and the re-discovery of his Christian values in one matter will unavoidably lead to a more mature reflection on all others.
Therefore, be in good spirit and wait for 2012, when pro homo representative and senators will hopefully get a pounding (these things can be pretty brutal, look here and tell me if you’d want to be in one of the pictures) and the people will wake up to the reality that they have the right to demand a Christian country and a legislation fruit of the will of the people rather than of judicial activism, or corridor politics. When the pendulum starts to clearly swing back in the US, it will only be a question of time before the same happens in Europe. At least in Southern Europe, where the ability of the Church leaders to mobilise the masses and shape future generations would still be very high, if they did as much as to wake up.
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”.
On the Vivificat blog, this beautiful blog post about “Why I oppose same sex marriage”.
It is so pithy, beautiful and charitable (charitable in the right way), that the best thing to do is to reproduce it in its entirety, including the emphases.
There you are:
Why am I strongly opposed to same-sex “marriage”?
Because it is an offense against the institution of marriage? Yes, but not really: that institution has already been demolished by our modern Godless society.
Because it will most likely wind up forcing me, as a citizen of this nation, to in some way participate? Yes, but not really: I am ready and willing to be persecuted for my beliefs.
Because this is a democracy and most Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”? Yes, but not really: I support many things that most Americans oppose and oppose many things that most Americans support.
Because it is a slippery slope that may lead to legalized polygamy, incest, etc.? Yes, but not really: that would be like opposing abortion because it could lead to condom use (Sodomy is the greater evil)
Because it will likely lead to more disease and economic devastation in our nation? Yes, but not really: those are fleabites compared to my real concerns
Rather, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I love homosexuals. Because I do not want to see just another enticement (which is what this would be: a legal endorsement of that behavior) for them to remain in that wayward lifestyle and for young people to join that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that tears apart their souls, makes depression rampant, and motivates suicide to an astronomical degree. For the government to bless their unions with same-sex “marriage” is to say “Come and partake of this banquet, for there is nothing wrong with it. Come and appease your passions and give in to your temptations, we will bless your efforts. Come and reap the fruits of your actions, that you may spend eternity with us.” In other words, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because it turns the government into the very mouthpiece of Satan.
Is this “theocratic” of me? In violation of “separation of Church and state”? Label me as you will. My stance here is a stance of love, in obedience to the Almighty through His Church, and it will never change.
As for myself, I don’t give a hoot how many from the glitterati, the elites, Hollywood, government in all three branches give their secular blessing on this so-called same-sex “marriage”. Call me what you wish, I will never set this lie above the Truth.
Congratulations to Teofilo de Jesus and Dan O’Connor, the authors of this beautiful witness of Christian love.
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.
From the CNA, some rather interesting news for Catholic readers.
1) Countries like Norway routinely put – through the United Nations – poor countries under pressure to legalise abortion. The idea is that if you don’t allow abortion, you are infringing the human rights of the women.
Babies have, of course, no human rights in Norway. They must have learnt that during the Nazi invasion.
2) Pressure from non better identified European Countries – always through the UN – has already achieved that Nicaragua had to (well, chose to) bow to the pressure and legalise abortion after being threatened with aid cuts.
3) Next chosen victim, apparently, Paraguay.
It is nice to know that the money of European taxpayers is used to force poorer countries to adopt the nazi agenda of our oh so liberal rulers; even nicer to realise that this is done not through the usual, old channels of covert bilateral pressure, but with the convenient excuse of the “human rights” defended by our so meritorious collection of bloody and corrupt dictatorship and pro-abortion liberal lobbies called United Nations. That Norway – one of the most atheist countries on earth – be in the first row of this genocidal movement is no surprise.
When a country forgets Christ, Hitler isn’t far away.
I’d like to know how Norway will react on the – possibly not very far away – day that the United States will seriously start to reverse the pendulum on abortion. Will they denounce the US to the UN, or give them their “recommendations”?
Read here on Deacon’s Bench about the latest “inclusive” madness. It has been organised by some interfaith group or other, and everyone has been invited to participate. In short, in every one of the participating houses people from the other two religions will get in and read from their own scriptures.
Truly, it is as if the First Commandment didn’t exist anymore. These people get together and everyone appreciates how good the other’s religion is. That this should happen also in Christian churches is another manifestation of the new religion, Niceness.
Scandalously enough, among the Christian parishes adhering to this unheard-of summer sale of Christian values is one Catholic parish. Behind the initiative seems to be (as usual, I would say) a Jesuit, called Father Pat Earl.
In another example of how distant Jesuits have become from Christians, Father Pat Earl is on record with the following words:
“Just having something public is not going to be a big, big deal here, but to have someone come in and read from the Quran and to recognize publicly the existence of Islam and to reverence and respect is a good thing for the church to do,”
Truly, the Jesuits have become the enemies of Christianity and the worst defender of the moral relativism criticised by the Holy Father. This is even worse than moral relativism though, this is active promotion of other religions under the pathetic disguise of fashionable words like “reverence” and “respect”.
I can understand a certain feeling of vicinity (and a rather detached one, anyway) with our – to use the Holy Father’s words – “older brothers and sisters”, the Jews, though I’d never allow this to create any confusion whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong. But it is still not clear to me why I, a Christian, should have any “reverence” for Islam, or show any “respect” for a murderous, false religion founded by a pedophile.
I do hope that the responsible bishop stops this initiative and doesn’t allow the Catholic parish to participate. I am not holding my breath, though.
If you don’t know what the American Catholic Council is, don’t worry: you are not alone.
In short, this is one of those ridiculous outfits which claim to be Catholic whilst clearly being Protestant. From thinking that everyone should be priest, to being in favour of wymmyn priest, to encouraging the usual pervert sexual behaviour, they serve you the whole enchilada of the “dissent” madness. You may ask why they don’t become Protestant as they clearly… already are, but intelligence and logical thinking are graces clearly not given to everyone.
It so happens that this mickey-mouse “catholic” organisation holds a conference in Detroit in the next few days, featuring some of the usual heretical muppets. The event will (would; was supposed to) also host an “ecumenical mass”, which considering the ideas of the organisers screams “liturgical abuses” from very, very far away.
Now the local Archbishop is a certain Vigneron; a man who might possibly not be a sword of Catholic orthodoxy (I seem to recall his diocese being pretty harshly criticised by Michael Voris in the past; I might be wrong) but has certainly the energy to avoid tolerating such a load of manure without reaction.
Therefore, Archbishop Vigneron has made the following:
1) he has not authorised the mass, and
2) he has written a letter to his priests and deacons stating that his questions about the mass have not been answered to his satisfaction, that the whole thing screams of liturgical abuse, and that therefore any deacon or priest who should entertain the unealthy thought of participating in this liturgy runs the risk of being dismissed from the clerical state.
I can picture the “dissident” Protestants-telling-themselves-Catholics now faced with the unpleasant reality of even a “moderate” archbishop throwing around threats of laicisation for deluded feminist/homosexual hotheads, and posed in front of the unpleasant task of having to find a priest in good standing but ready to risk the soutane (if he ever wore one) for them or show that the archbishop can well and truly block them.
Alternatively, they may ask some layman to celebrate a fake mass; or some wymmyn; and what about the dog……
I think of their situation and try to feel sorry for them in their quandary.
Thankfully, I can’t.
You would think that the Jesuits had some sense of shame. Perhaps, a few have. The impression is, however, that most of them don’t. I can’t explain otherwise how a group old sixty-eighters (several of them, no doubt, homosexuals; some of them, very probably, sodomites) continue to march towards extinction as if this were a valuable end, and one worthy of pursuing.
Take this article from a magazine called – with unwanted humour – National Catholic Weekly. The author of this article wants you to absolutely know that if he is not an homosexual himself, he would so much like to be one.
Let us examine the forma mentis of our man from his way of writing:
1) He receives a letter from a reader. The reader points out to Pedro Arrupe, the former Superior General of the Jesuits, he who got the boot in 1981. (” a move that dismayed many Jesuits”, says the article’s author, and we don’t doubt it for a second). The reader points out in his letter that “so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.” I can’t see how anyone can have anything to say against this self-evident statement. Unless he is a liberal Jesuit, of course, in which case:
a) the word “fag” will hurt the oh so delicate feelings of our man (to the point that he describes the word as “not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning”). This screams “homo” if nothing else does; and
b) he will not say a word confirming that homosexuality is “filth”. To him it is, probably, just an “orientation” in the liberal sense. Like preferring vanilla to strawberry, say. Again, besides saying much about his theology, this inspires some fears about his sexuality.
2) Read this:
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enlightened culture, and exists in our church.
This is another beautiful example of homo-thinking. One would expect a religious to be worried about homosexuals within his orders, but does he spend a word on that? Emphatically, no. Instead, he throws around the favourite word of fags – and those who would like to be it – all over the planet: “homophobia”. “Homophobia” is, then: a) not compatible with an enlightened culture (read: Christianity pre-modern-Jesuits is backward and “homophobic”) and b) “homophobia” exists within the Church (which is a coherent statement, seen that “Christianity” and “Homophobia” really express the same concept). Just as an aside, note that “church” is written with the small “c”.
It doesn’t stop here. Exhibit 3) is this truly, truly disturbing statement:
Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
The brown-nosing to President Obama (he of the late-term abortion, and who considers a pregnancy a “punishment”; but our man doesn’t seem to care.. a fag) doesn’t hide the fact that here an explicitly homosexual language is used; a language which is never used by the Church in her official statements, like encyclical letters and the like. Not only does the Church never use the word “gay” (which is absurd: they just aren’t as their rate of depression, psychosomatic morbidity and suicide attests), but she obviously never uses the extremely homo-laden expression “LGBT”. This man, of course, does. He takes a certain pride in it, as you can read in the article. How very ………
It follows the most absurd attempt to smuggle some politically correct statement of the extremely liberal US bishops are….. Church teaching.
Church teaching is, if the man can read, here, where it says that homosexuality is not an acceptable option; but hey, let us not allow Church teaching to come in the way of pro-homo propaganda…
The last pearl (before I get tired) of this not-very-manly author is his oh-so-sensitive drowning in a huge wave of sympathy for the poor oppressed homos:
And shouldn’t a group of people be free to call themselves what they want?
“No”, is the simple answer.
He wouldn’t call a pedophile “Smart” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Ku Klux Klan member “Natty” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Neo-Nazi “Spiffy” if they decided to call themselves that way.
The problem is, that to this man homosexuality is so… natural, that he is even unable to see the problem and therefore writes the bollocks we have just read.
The work of cleaning of the Jesuits from the filth within them has certainly not been concluded with the kicking out of Arrupe, and one shudders at the thought of what the situation must have been at the time. Still, these Jesuits are such a public shame, that I hope the Pontiff will soon act to put an end to their antics as he has acted with the “irreligious sisters” in the USA.
He doesn’t have to call them “bunch of pot-smoking faggoty liberal idiots”. I understand that a religious will have to express himself in a less vitriolic way than an indignant layman would.
But if he gets the concept, it will be more than enough.
The Diocese of Rockford has put an end to its collaboration with the diocese of Illinois in matters of adoption, after it has become clear that they would have been forced to work with unmarried couples and even with homosexual so-called couples.
This is why Catholic Charities has stopped the collaboration with the State of Illinois. Sixty-six people have lost their job. The activity of Catholic Charities will continue – including adoption – on a private basis.
It is highly ironic that the political correct blindness of these times does not even allow to consider the religious nature of an organisation. The sufferers will be those who cannot afford the private adoption service and will be deprived of the service ranked as second-best in the state.
I hope that there will be more controversy on this in the years to come, and that the bishops in the US will energetically start to fight such absurd mentality and plead for the return to sanity; not only for the good of the country, but – though it may seem rhetorical to say so – for the good of the children.
Following to the Gallup polls showing an increase in pro-life stance in the last years, a new set of polls from NPR shows that the trend is not only consolidating, but very marked among those below 35.
As there were several questions asked, I refer you to the link. The most notable facts are the constant prevalence of pro-life supporters under 35 and the diffused misinformation about actual abortion rules.
The first fact once again seems to validate the perception that once the undertaker has taken care of the sixty-eighter potheads, things will naturally improve. The second makes clear that information on the ground is extremely important and can help changing things without having to wait for the above-mentioned potheads to kick the bucket.
Be it as it may, that in general opposition to abortion grows – at least in the US; in Europe we will probably have to wait longer – is a fact that in my eyes can’t be denied anymore and is cause of great hopes for the future.
In 50 years time, methinks, people will read of our age and wonder in disbelief how this generation could tolerate abortion.
Joe Biden met the Pope yesterday. We do not know what the Pope said to him (I hope he slapped him; someway I doubt it), but we do know what Joe Biden, the highest-ranking Catholic in name only in the land, thinks of his being Catholic. The man suffers, like many of his Catholic colleagues, of a strange form of schizophrenia. At home, Mr. Biden thinks that life begins at conception. But as soon as he goes out of the door of his house another Joe Biden takes over. This one “cannot impose his personal convictions in the legislative arena” and therefore (!) backs abortion.
I thought being a politician was about having personal convictions, but I must be gravely mistaken here: being a politician is obviously about saying what people want one to say and make a living out of it. Brilliant.
More brilliant (this time, though, seriously) is the answer given to him – some time ago, but CNA rightly reports it – from his bishop:
“No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’”
Brilliant here is not the concept (which is rather banal, and should actually be understood by every person with a bit of sense in his head), but the fact that a bishop openly exposes the hypocrisy of such cowardly – or, worse, purely fake – Catholic politicians.
One could hope – if he is in a really, really good mood – that this meeting with the Pope will lead to a change of Biden’s stance about, at least, abortion. Unfortunately and not being in such a really, really good mood I am more inclined to think that Mr. Biden is merely trying to get some headlines and polish his image among Catholics on the cheap.
There is only one abortion clinic in North Dakota. The American Papist now informs us that the local bishop, Samuel Aquila, has authorised the establishment of a chapel next door to the clinic.
The chapel is meant to
pray for women with an unexpected pregnancy, to pray in reparation for the sin of abortion and for the conversion of those who participate in abortion.
One cannot praise Bishop Aquila (which is Italian for eagle, and what a fitting name it is) enough for his open defiance of the Nazi mentality of our times. I hope that it will be possible to make the chapel not only a constant point of reference for those who gather to pray near the clinic, but also in some way visible to the women visiting the structure. The fact that it is on the third floor of a building would seem to speak against it, but if the chapel is conspicuously indicated from the street level, perhaps a certain degree of visibility will be achieved anyway.
Once again, the comparison with the bishops of England & Wales is rather depressing.
A prayer for this brave bishop is fully in order.
This is not really new anymore, but in my eyes it touches themes and a way of seeing religion that is at the same time still actual and very well argued. The comparison with the “gigantic german mouse” is powerful, the one with the carmelite nuns even more so.
Enjoy this brilliant video of Andrew Klavan.
Shocking affirmation of the newly appointed chaplain of the United States Congress; unsurprisingly, a Jesuit.
Rev. Patrick Conroy is on record saying:
I never pray in the name of Jesus — except when I’m doing something Catholic — saying Mass, for example.
This would look like a serious case of schizophrenia, if it wasn’t just a normal case of being a Jesuit. A Jesuit like the chap tolerating homo masses in Manhattan, or like the chaps leading universities with links to Planned Parenthood, or like the chap denying the existence of Hell.
Interviewed for the liberal Huffington Post and – being a Jesuit – wanting to accommodate everyone and the devil, our hero of the day basically says that he prays in the name of Jesus only when he really must because of his profession but otherwise, hey, he is far too inclusive for narrow-minded acts like……… praying in the name of Jesus.
Someone of his confreres should explain to him the origin of his order’s name. If anyone still remembers it, or was taught it in the first place.
So we have a Jesuit appointed to a prestigious and exposed position, saying that Jesus for him is confined to the realm of strict professional duty. When he prays alone, or when he talks to others, he will simply ignore Jesus and pray – who knows – some other non specified, politically correct, inclusive, huffington-post-approved deity instead.
What this Jesuit (who might or might not be a Christian, but I doubt it) is basically doing, is:
1) denying Jesus in a way which, he thinks, wouldn’t automatically cost him his habit; he might be, unfortunately, right on his assumption, though if the Jesuits were still Christians I think the matter would look entirely different.
2) making of Jesus an embarrassment that he is ready to push out of the way whenever halfway practicable; and
3) making a clear statement of Assisi-I-style religious syncretism, in which Jesus is nothing more than a badge to wear on certain occasions, a particular aspect of one way to pray; basically, an option.
Of course, one must hope that the usual clarification will now hit the computer screens, explaining to us what a horrible misunderstanding this is and how “white” has clearly being misunderstood as “white” when it is clear that it means “black” instead. Only, no one – not even one who has probably long begun to forget what Christianity is, as I bet most Jesuit are doing – could have possibly conceived such an utterance without having a very clear idea of what the implications are and without asking for the text to be modified or, failing that, issuing a clarification together with the interview.
This has not happened; which means that Rev. Conroy is either blissfully unaware of what he has said, or doesn’t care a straw.
Yep, he must be a Jesuit.
Just in case someone is confused (I am; time and again)…..
The National Catholic Register is very orthodox. Excellent bloggers like the Archbold brothers can be found there. They still belong to the Legionaries of Christ, a group that, whatever you may say of their disgraceful founder, can’t be defined as “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination. They were, last time I looked, in the process of being bought by EWTN.
The National Catholic Reporter is, on the other hand, the disgusting, openly heretical, leftist, pacifist and, well, cretin-ist publication often exposed on these pages as well as in countless other blogs. They are good to test your patience on very calm, relaxed days. They are also good to start being extremely worried should you, for a strange coincidence, happen to be of their opinion. Can’t remember it ever happening to me, though. We might agree on 2+2=4, but that’s about it.
Therefore please keep in mind: reporter= bad. Very easy to memorise, I should say.
Similarly, if you look at the “good” American Catholic you land here, a thoroughly orthodox site always good for some good reading and, at times, a good laugh.
But if you are inattentive, you may easily land on this site, a Franciscan outlet which, when it writes something right, does it purely unintentionally and on which I have read, in months past and whilst being inattentive, some of the most stinking post-Liberation Theology crap ever. Might be improving, though, as the Grim Reaper incessantly works through the ranks and files of the once-glorious Franciscans.
This should be easier, as upon seeing that one has landed on a Franciscan site the desire to click oneself away should be, actually, automatic and almost irresistible.
Think before you click, then, and be aware of the consequences. I remember serene afternoons utterly ruined at the thought of the people reading the “reporter” and leaving comments about how wrong Catholic doctrine is, perhaps ruining others in the process. Not a nice thought.
The strange almost human-looking chap above is, very probably, what will give the Pro-Life Army final victory in the battle against abortion. It is an ultra-sound machine, and it allows to see a baby in the womb with a clearness never experienced before by the vast public.
In societies like the Western ones, where technological innovations are massively applied to the field of medicine and rapidly spread to everyday life, it is unavoidable that this machine will, in time, make more and more mothers truly, emotionally aware of what happens when they abort.
Every blathering of “reproduction rights” must surely pale, when a small human being is visible on a screen not three feet away from you. Every argument of “right to choose” must surely be exposed as cruelly selfish, when it is clear that this supposed right is to choose to kill a human life clearly, indisputably existent.
This is why, says here, even Gallup recognises the rapid shift in American public opinion; a shift that, in time and much more slowly, will certainly pave its way on the other side of the Pond too; not because of a newly acquired Christian sensitivity, but because of the sheer force of the ultrasound images.
It would be a delicious paradox if the gravest controversy of the last decades were to be decided through technology coming to the help of the Conservative side, and reinforcing religious ideas previously seen as the epitome of backward thinking.
Besides, technology won’t stop. In five years’ time the images obtained by ultrasound machines will be even better than the ones visible today; in ten years’ time, resistance to abortion ban on some strangely construed “moral ground” will be futile.
Better days ahead.
Listening around to the various radio and video comments (with the usual pattern: European broadcasters cowardly fearing reprisals, American ones proudly extolling the military prowess of the operation) one element has attracted my attention: the subdued, almost shameful satisfaction of the European mood against the open rejoicing – in the street, or even with a marching band on the studio of a famous conservative commenter – experienced the other side of the pond.
Let me first point out to the fact that from a religious point of view you don’t wish death to anyone, let alone hell. You wish their repentance and conversion instead. But this is merely, so to speak, the starting position. From a practical point of view, we must deal with people who do not wish to repent, much less convert and that are in total military opposition to us.
Now I can pray for the conversion of the mad Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, the new number one of Al Qaeda, as much as I wish, but as long as this doesn’t happen (and frankly: don’t hold your breath, either) the chap is an enemy and a military objective and must be treated accordingly.
This is nothing irreligious, let alone un-Catholic. Catholics don’t “do” pacifism, nor are they ready to treat their enemies as if they were friends. When you are an enemy I can pray for you if I can, but I’ll treat you as such.
We are at war with terrorists. War means that military operations will be put in place, which are aimed at having the enemy either surrender or die. Osama was no exception. This being undoubtedly the case, it is not clear to me why the achieving of such a momentous military objective as the elimination of the commander-in-chief of the enemy camp should be welcomed with less than strong and vocal rejoicing.
On the 7th october 1571, the Christian Armies inflicted an utter defeat to the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. The rejoicing and public celebrations were, notwithstanding the heavy tribute of blood on both sides, immense. This is right so.
What has happened in the early hours of Monday morning in a residential compound in Pakistan does, admittedly, not reach the scale of the victory in Lepanto, but still has the same character: a clear military success over the main enemy of the time. In addition, the complete success of the operation – with no casualties to be lamented on the American side – makes the event even more worth rejoicing.
Is there not rejoicing when, in war-time, the sinking of a prestigious enemy ship is announced, or when the conquest of an important military post is achieved? In both cases blood has flown, but in both cases the accent is not on a kind of sadistic joy for sufferance inflicted, but rather a patriotic joy for a victory obtained. It is not unChristian in the least; on the contrary, it is the way a Christian lives the battle and supports his side.
Osama Bin Laden’s elimination is – I do not think anyone can doubt this – an extremely important symbolic victory for the West. It’s the enemy flag now symbolically planted in front of the Western military camp, and a loud and clear reminder of what happens to the enemies of the West. There’s nothing wrong or irreligious in that, nothing whatever.
It is right to rejoice. Of course it is. I envy the spontaneousness and youthful energy of a country able to get on the streets, some of them in the night and in their pyjamas, to celebrate such a momentous event.
Of course in Europe there wasn’t so much to celebrate. It being clear to everyone that Europe has cowardly chosen to depend on the US military effort in order to have more money to waste in bureaucracy and unChristian socialist policies, there was no way we could see this feat as, in some way, belonging to us too. Still, I can’t avoid thinking that old and weary Europe was more absorbed with the worry about possible future attacks, whilst the youthful and enthusiastic US citizens were bravely defying every enemy, ready for combat and certain of victory.
Ask yourself now which continent is undoubtedly the more Christian, and you’ll have all the answers you need.
In keeping with the spirit of pacifist co-existence and tolerance of every abomination, every fanaticism and every attempt to undermine or destroy Christian values that is proving so beneficial to all of us, this Andrew Klavan video helps us to reach towards the more lively among our Muslim friends; through a series of easy-to-understand steps we are guided to embrace their different values and cultural climate and are therefore effectively helped to be better prepared for a peaceful outcome of our small disagreements.
Isn’t this beautiful?
Take this as Mundabor’s little contribution to the cause of peace in this days of Holy Week 2011.
Interesting exchange of ideas (better: clash of ideology) at a UN panel promoted by the Vatican, Malta and Honduras and called “Secure Human Development: Marriage, Family, Community.”
The US delegates, Msssssss Shestack-Phipps, is on record for saying as follows:
“How can you say that you value family, community, and marriage, but not bring into the picture that both men and women have a right to a healthy life, to be able to avoid unsafe abortion, and have access to the highest attainable standard of reproductive health, and to decide how many children they should have?”
The US representative is a clear example of liberal neo-nazism at work: “men and women” (oh, how inclusive this is) have a right to healthy life; this includes, according to Msssss Shestack-Phipps, the “right” to “avoid unsafe abortion”.
This is staggering. Abortion is seen as something natural and unavoidable (like the right to, say, “avoid unsafe water”) and, naturally, as a right to have it safe. How the health of a man can profit from an allegedly safe abortion is not clear to me, but I’m sure Mssssss Shestack-Phipps knows best.
Contrast this excellent example of Goebbelsian rhetoric with the intervention of the representative of the little island state of St. Lucia:
“How do we get our fertility rate to rise? We were told we needed to reduce our fertility rate –now we have an aging population.”
This must seem to come from another world to the liberal nazis a’ la Shestack-Phipps. This little developing nation wants to be helped to increase births! What?! But it can’t be, my dear lady! You Peoples of the ohhh so good, but ohhh so exploited
third world (substitute this with the politically correct expression of your choice) nations must be educated to the fact that you need an aging population. You are, simply, not Nazi enough!
Ah, how hard is the work of the liberal Msssssssses of the world……
And so there we are. Intelligent people understand that the brake to growth is not birth, but corruption, waste and war; they realise that a relentless contraception and abortion campaign has managed to reduce birth, whilst doing nothing to fight the real causes of poverty mentioned above; they clearly understand what seems to clearly escape thge champagne-intoxicated minds of our liberal nazis: that every human lives are not only human riches, but sources of opportunity and wealth in themselves; that countries where the right conditions are given grow at such a rate that they must import people, as for example the United States have done for a couple of centuries now.
Alas, such are the way of the liberal world. They are so blind to the real causes of poverty that they can’t see the elephant in the room; they are so impervious to common sense that they refuse to see that their flawed ideological approach is nothing more than just another stupid reflex of their feminist, anti-Christian ideology; they would rather have a country flooded with condoms than dedicate all their energies to free it from corruption.
Do you want proof? Read here from the same debate:
The documents that guide this year’s Commission on Population and Development admit that most nations have achieved low fertility, yet the UN continues to ask donor nations for more and more money for family planning services and for what the UN euphemistically calls commodities: condoms, pills, and injectibles that prevent pregnancy.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, further underscored the incongruity. She has visited many medical clinics in Africa and the doctors there told her of medicine cabinets that are empty of essentials like penicillin but overflowing with condoms – so many that children have taken to blowing them up like balloons and playing with them as toys. “So much attention is given to family planning that it drains resources away from what the desperate needs are,” she explained.
Condoms in overflowing quantity, to the point of senseless waste of politically correct money, whilst the resources for medical necessities are not there.
Mssssssses of the world: wake up.
The always courageous Cardinal Newman Society has published a rather shocking report about the ties of Catholic institutions with Planned Parenthood, the No 1 genocidal organisation in the United States.
Let us read the most salient passages from the report:
Despite the Catholic Church’s unambiguous teaching on abortion and contraception, we discovered referrals to Planned Parenthood for “health” services, internships and fellowships with Planned Parenthood, seemingly boastful disclosures of employees’ past work with Planned Parenthood, and other ties to this and other “pro-choice” organizations.
The problems are spread across dozens of institutions, with occasional concentrations at highly secularized institutions like Georgetown University and Seattle University, two leading Jesuit institutions.
(Good Lord, the Jesuits again…… For more about what Jesuits are capable of, see here).
What is publicized on the Internet often indicates more extensive concerns hidden from public view, so while the information contained this report is shocking and scandalous, it is only based on a rudimentary search of college websites and likely does not capture all ties to Planned Parenthood at Catholic colleges and universities.
In no way can the work of Planned Parenthood be considered compatible with the mission of Catholic higher education or the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
(That there is need to say these things in the first place shows the extent of the lapse of Catholic reason in the realm of higher education)
There appears to be a pervasive attitude toward Planned Parenthood that regards the abortion and contraceptive agency as benign. This attitude is simply inconsistent with a genuine Catholic sensibility.
(It’s inconsistent with being Catholic, period).
We urge Catholic colleges and universities to embrace a no-tolerance position for any relationship with Planned Parenthood—including disqualifying candidates for teaching positions with previous experience working with or for pro-abortion organizations.
(How beautifully politically incorrect. Though even I would leave the door open to those who publicly recant their former position and offer allegiance to the Church’s teaching).
There are matters of Catholic identity which require discernment and which may not point to simple solutions. There is no such nuance here—Planned Parenthood is a serious danger to the health, lives and souls of innocent students. There is no place for Planned Parenthood on a Catholic campus.
It is not entirely surprising – though entirely depressing – that once again, a vast number of US bishops have been caught fast asleep, or blind from three eyes, or simply disinterested, or all of these things together.
It is also not at all surprising that Jesuit-led institutions be once again singled out as a prime source of scandal.
On a more positive note, one can only notice that such ties with openly genocidal organisation are probably not an invention of these last years, but that now at least organisations like the Cardinal Newman Society have gained enough momentum to drag this to the attention of the Catholic opinion even amid the very loud snoring of the US bishops. In the end, the CNS itself recognises that “today we are beginning to see some movement toward a renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic higher education”, though that are very clear that “serious problems remain”.
Kudos to the Cardinal Newman Society, then; and let us hope that, in time, more and more bishops will wake up and smell, for a change, a bit of Catholic coffee.
After Jones’ burning exercise, UN workers have been attacked and several of them killed in Mazar-i-Sharif, a city in northern Afghanistan.
There are several considerations to be made here:
1) The freedom of Terry Jones to burn however many Korans he wants to burn must not be put into question: I have already made this point in the previous message, but repetita iuvant.
2) The cause of the killings is very obviously – though I am sure people of slow intelligence will not get this – not Terry Jones burning the Koran, but the existence of fanatical muslims ready to take every excuse to kill people.
3) What has happened in Mazar-i-Sharif not only cannot be blamed on Jones, but makes his point in the most impressive manner.
Please listen to this interview with ABC. The rather cretinous journalist continues to pose suggestive questions to Jones, all the whilst exhibiting the most sanctimonious of tones. Jones answers to them simply like one who has nothing to do with the killings, and condemns these animals. When the sanctimonious lady throws the mask and poses the question openly (whining tone, oh so virtuous): “do you fe-eel res-po-on-si-ble?” he clearly answers that he isn’t; when she asks “how wou-ou-ld you fe-el” if someone burned a bible he gives her a lesson in democracy and civilisation; when she says to him that he “en-c-couraged” the killing (an astonishing affirmation, this, not only factually wrong but showing a breathtaking illiberal bias) Jones again keeps calm (kudos to him; I could never have achieved that) and repeats his “Islam is dangerous, see events in Afghanistan” point.
And in fact, the man is perfectly right in this: that the koran burning exercise is juts the last excuse for something fanatics want to do in the first place. You want proof?
1) Even the most moronic islamic fanatic can go on youtube and delight himself with Koran burning galore. I have already pointed out in the past to the fact that on Youtube, “every day is burn a Koran day”. Why do the chaps wake up only today? Where have they been all the time? The videos have been on youtube for years and there are many more where they come from……
2) I am not aware of any islamic fanatic ever being short or reasons why he should behave like a fanatic. If it’s not the burning of Koran it is the threat to burn Korans; if it’s not the threat to burn Korans it is a cartoon about their most famous child rapist, Mohammed; if it’s not Mohammed, the child rapist it’s the invasion of Iraq (supported by a couple of dozens Arab countries); if it’s not the invasion of Iraq it’s the presence of American boots on Saudi soil, & Co, & Co. Still, the slow of intellect will, no doubt, have problems in getting the point.
3) Even within the very liberal, champagne-sipping walls of the ABC the simple principle of responsibility of one’s actions should find application. To ask terry Jones whether he feels responsible for what fanatical asses have done in Afghanistan is not only a betrayal of common sense, but a blatant disregard of that principle.
4) As already said, the events in Kabul prove Terry Jones’ case. The more the idiots react with such fanaticism to him, the more they prove that the problem is their fanaticism, and the religion fuelling it.
Terry Jones is not a genius, but he certainly has a point.
One can safely say that Terry Jones is, well, not a genius. One is at a loss to understand how a man can decide:
1) to announce that he is going to burn a Koran
2) to announce that he will wait for signals from the Holy Ghost about what to do;
3) to announce a very broad palette of events which he would consider being the word of the Holy Ghost not to do it;
4) when no one of the events occurs, to decide not to do it anyway;
I do understand that some of our erring Proddie brothers make a great deal of what they imagine the Holy Ghost is telling to them, but from the way Terry Jones acts the Holy Ghost would seem to be rather unstable; which leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that the unstable one is, well, Terry Jones himself.
The Terry Jones saga now has a new chapter written (er….. burnt?), as the man, probably on the look for some more attention or needing some money, decided that the Holy Ghost has evidently changed his mind once again and has organised a sort of trial of the Koran (these people complain about the Holy Inquisition, I am sure…) at the end of which they, well, decided to burn it.
Let me say what I think of this specific action:
1) It is perfectly within the right of Mr. Terry Jones, or of every Mr. Joe Average, to burn a Koran. Mr. Jones lives in the Land Of The Free (USA) instead of in the Land Of The Politically Correct Cowards (United Kingdom) and he therefore has all the rights to exercise his freedom as he thinks fit.
2) The idea of staging a “trial to the Koran” is very childish. It shows once again that the man is on the look for a publicity stunt, and that his followers are certainly not picked amongst the brightest minds of that great nation.
3) The idea of burning the Koran (instead of, say, pronouncing the Koran heretical, or blasphemous, or outright idiotic and leave it at that; it’s a book, for Heaven’s sake, and it’s not even a trial!) is further proof that the man will do whatever brings him some notoriety. I am still waiting for an explanation from him about why the Holy Ghost would change His mind so often on the matter, but perhaps I’m asking too much.
In conclusion, I think that we can safely say that the man shows all the worst traits of Protestantism and is, certainly – not because of the burning of the Koran in itself, mind; but because of the ridiculous “Holy Ghost circus” and “wannabe Inquisition” habits of his – not good publicity for Christianity.
Having said that, the man most certainly has a point.
Which will be the subject of the next blog post.
The question is, my dear readers, not a rhetoric one.
One wonders whether the Jesuits should not be consigned to forced extinction before the sheer force of mortality extinguishes them; which it will do before long unless they recover sanity.
This here is the latest example. A Jesuit Catholic University decides that “domestic partners” should get the same benefits as married couples. Notice that the term of “domestic partner” is used, which might be a local particularity but might also be a clumsy attempt not to say (oh, that word…) “same-sex marriage”.
Most astonishing, though, is that such a scandalous decision is justified by the University with the allegedly Jesuit principle of cura personalis. In the nuChristianity of these deluded heretics such a principle justifies both scandal and being accessory to another’s sin; and this from an institution controlled by a religious organisation, led by a Jesuit; an organisation known the world over and therefore more easily confused by poorly instructed Catholic with authentic bearers of Christian values.
Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius would roll in their own grave at knowing that their successors disfigure their principles in the most cretinous of ways, even leaving the most elementary Christian principles out of the equation.
It is truly better that such cancerous organisations are abolished par ordre du mufti than to allow them to further sabotage the cause of Christianity.
The Church has closed long-standing institutions when they have covered themselves with such a shame that their survival could not be justified any more. The homo-seminary in Austria comes to mind, and various orders of “sisters irreligious” in the United States could soon follow the example. There is no reason why the Jesuits should be allowed to continue to sabotage Christianity in such a way. When they don’t deserve to live anymore they should die, the good ones among them (if any) moved to other orders to be properly re-instructed and the bad deprived of their habit and left to fend for themselves, as they didn’t want to fend for Christ.
Cura personalis, my aunt.
Cura te ipsum, rather.
I have often noticed in the past that when Christians hurry to help Muslims, the latter are generally appreciative of the matter only for as long as the emergency goes on; but as soon as Christians have taken them out of the shite, the help received is soon forgotten.
Take Bosnia, where a coalition of – in his absolutely vast majority – Christian countries risks lives and material to save muslims from indiscriminate carnage, without this having any long-lasting effect on the prejudice of too many Muslims towards Christianity.
Or take Iraq, when (again) the armies of Christian countries free a 28-million people from an extremely cruel dictator, from whose heel the Iraqi themselves had never had the gut to free themselves. Here too, within 48 hours the jubilations had left place to complaints because, hey, electricity has not come back yet. After six months, complaining about the Americans had become more fashionable than a drug addicted poof stylist. The simple fact that just a handful of months before everyone would have died just for complaining had already been conveniently forgotten.
In the last days, we are assisting to a new episode of this new, three-tongued, arab-muslim little game. The intervention is good in principle, but of course the way it is being made has already been criticised by a very high ranking arab official with, oh what a coincidence, political ambitions in Egypt. Chap obviously says, one day after when the news has gone through the entire Arab world, that he has been misinterpreted, so he now has both sides hedged. Inevitably, he and the Arab countries in general will end up saying that no, they were certainly not for doing things as they have been done; it will be, as always, us being very bad, imperialists, & Co.; not before the backside of the inhabitants of Bengasi has been saved by the intervention of Christian countries, of course.
And now please raise his hand who believes that Muslim countries would have risked their men and material in a military operation meant to avoid Christians massacring each others.
“Cordileone” is clearly a dialectal version of the Italian “Cuordileone”; that is: cuor di leone; that is: Lionheart.
Nomen omen, you would say as Cordileone is the name of the Bishop of Oakland, California. Bishop Cordileone is the author of the most assertive, argumented, aggressively Catholic attack to the neo-paganism en vogue among the Washington so-called elites and part of the judiciary I have ever read. The man truly is astonishing and his clear desire to tell the entire Catholic Truth irrespective of any possible accusation of “engaging in politics” (which, let us remember, in the US can have heavy tax consequences; a good excuse for cowards btw) does him great honour.
You find the link to his intervention here, but I’d like to report some excerpts for your convenience and, so to speak, as an appetiser.
It is a curious irony that in this moment of history, when people in a number of countries in the Middle East are agitating for change from dictatorship to democracy, here in our own country, the oldest democracy with a written constitution in the world, there is a movement of the ruling class toward taking more and more power into its own hands. The flashpoint for this movement? The hot-button issue of our day: marriage.
In an explicit denial of his public duty, the then attorney general of the state of California (now governor) refused to defend the law of the state in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8. His reason? He is personally opposed to it.
Irony No. 2: after decades of hearing Catholic legislators (whose job, admittedly, is to make the law, not enforce it) claim that they could not let their personal views on a public issue (in this case, abortion) influence their public role, we now have the chief law enforcer in the state doing exactly that.
When the City Council of Washington, D.C., passed a local ordinance to allow same-sex “marriage,” the citizens organized to put it to a vote so they could decide for themselves. The City Council obstructed them from doing so every step of the way. Bear in mind that the city of Washington has a very large African-American population. […]
Thus, irony No. 3: a small group of political elites (almost all of them white), in a claim to expand rights, deny one of the most fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy — the right to vote — to the masses of black citizens.
Irony No. 4: During the presidential campaign, Obama stated that he favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a change of course, he more recently had said he favors the repeal of DOMA, but asserts it should be done through the legislative process, not the courts. Now, he has taken an action that does exactly that, i.e., repeals DOMA by the decision of a federal court judge.
[……] irony No. 5: In the court case challenging the constitutionality of the legislation that allowed the revival of cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had expired long in the past, the federal district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs. With regard to the argument that the Church was targeted, he did not deny this claim (the evidence was apparently too overwhelming that we were). Rather, he argued that it is not unconstitutional to target a religious group, as long as their access to worship is not impeded. Why, then, would it be unconstitutional to target a sexual minority (which defining marriage in the law does not do, anyway) as long as their freedom to engage in sexual activity as they choose is not impeded?
The fact of the matter is, wherever “gay marriage” has become the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic process, and sometimes even goes directly against it. On the other hand, whenever the people have had the chance to vote on marriage, they have consistently affirmed it. And this, despite the proponents being outspent (sometimes by huge margins), facing opposition from the cultural elites and enduring strong media bias
Regardless of one’s position on the marriage issue, these and so many other moves by our public officials should give cause for concern about the fate of democracy in our country. I urge all of our people to inform themselves of the facts, to inform their consciences from the natural moral law and Church teaching — understanding that marriage is not discrimination against anyone, but benefits everyone and that we must treat those who disagree with us on this issue with respect and compassion — and then to take action by speaking truth to power, advocating for this fundamental good of our society and voting their conscience at the ballot box.
I so wish we had one (nay, half; nay, one quarter!) of these good men of God among our bishops.
Being so vast, the US are a country full of contrasts, where you find some of the most orthodox Catholics and some of the most desperate cases of insanity.
One of the latter has been divulged in the last days: a booklet from a self-professing “Catholic” group seriously (I think; ready to stand corrected) maintaining that a “full Catholic” position on certain marriage can be different from the one doctrinally prescribed by the Church. You couldn’t make it up, could you now?
In this matter, the “heretic but still fully Catholic” chaps and chapettes have decided for the righteousness of “marriage equality”. This, mind, doesn’t mean anything concerning the position or the dignity of husband and wife within the marriage (as I had, very stupidly and in my innocence, initially believed), but it is basically meant to mean that marriages between man and man, or between woman and woman, are “fully Catholic”. I don’t think it squares with the English language, but there you are; I suppose that everyone must throw in some “equality” nowadays as it lets one feel oh so good.
The US Bishops have punctually reacted. Now, do you think that they have said that these ideas are absurdly and openly heretical? Do you think that they have invited the people clearly responsible for such beastly ideas to backpedal or be excommunicated? Do you think that they have profited from the occasion to sound from all trumpets what marriage is?
Wrong. They have “emphasised” (ok: they actually “emphasized”) that the beastly booklet is “not in conformity” with Catholic teaching and have invited those responsible for the publication to not identify themselves as “Catholic”.
This reaction is typical of the half-diplomatic, half-cowardly approach of so many bishops everywhere in the West. They see HERESY written all over the place and they limit themselves to some polite remark, putting some dots on the “i” and hoping not to upset anyone.
Do you want evidence of ths? This group is clearly identifiable with a religious sister and a priest (I won’t do them the favour of mentioning them; well, no really, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste their names) and the US ecclesiastical authorities have needed several years of pro-homo madness (seven, to be precise) of the two before barring them from working for the Archdiocese of Washington as they were happily doing. When the two stopped working for the archdiocese but continued their evil work, the vatican needed another (get this) fifteen years before barring the two from any work with homosexuals. What has become of this ban is not entirely clear to me as it is obvious that the two – pastoral work or no pastoral work – continue to try to influence as many homosexuals as they can.
We are now informed that “serious questions” have been raised about the adherence of this bunch of nutcases to catholic teaching, thirty-three years after the group was founded.
Serious questions? You don’t say!
Notice here that Fr whatshisname and sister couldntcareless are still – at least from what transpires from the CNA article – in possession of their respective religious dress.
One truly wonders.
Hat tip to Lux Occulta‘s Shane for this beautiful Michael Voris video.
Voris’ as always very outspoken message begins with a harsh criticism of the way Mass is too often celebrated: a self-celebration that is Protestant in nature and exclusively centered on more or (more often) less entertaining clowns. “All of this emphasis on all of these humans is absolutely out of place”, says Voris, and Cardinal Burke clearly points out to the danger of losing one’s faith by allowing oneself to be contaminated by such a protestant (and very convenient, and very “do not judge”, and very “inclusive”) thinking.
“The Mass is about Jesus Christ, everything else is Protestant”, says Voris with the usual openness and one wonders how long will we have to wait until we hear such concepts expressed by our bishops as a matter of course and, most importantly, openly and assertively instead of being coded within the usual politically correct crap they feed us with.
The second part of Voris’ message is even stronger than the first and points out to the immediate danger of damnation hovering over the countless priests and bishops who have perpetrated or allowed these abuses. “How many bishops in America have allowed this”, says Voris and thinking of our own bishops in the United Kingdom one is even more afraid.
The simple truth is that from the part of Catholic hierarchy considered as a whole, a betrayal of everything that is Catholic is going on that has few precedents (and possibly: no precedent, as even in the darkest days of the IX and X century Christian feelings were certainly better protected and better transmitted among the faithful) in the history of the Church.
Whilst remaining faithful to the Church founded on Peter by Christ, we must acknowledge the simple truth that many, many bishops make the work of the devil and that their criminal neglect of Catholic Truth to favour the approval of the masses will have – bar an always welcome repentance – to be paid at the highest price.
Very rightly, SPUC’s chef Smeaton says that Archbishop Nichols’ view on homosexuality endanger children’s souls . It goes without saying (though Mr. Smeaton says that, too) that Archbishop Nichols gravely endangers his own soul, too.
These are, alas, the times we live in. We are surrounded by bishops who, when they have not completely lost the faith – which by the tone of their actions and inactions seems by far the most frequent case – have surrendered every idea of fighting the good fight and are happy to feed the faithful with inane platitudes and assorted harmless slogans. In turn, this gives us priests who, when they have not completely lost the faith – which must be a rather frequent occurrence if you just listen to what many of them go around saying – are, poor chaps, too weak to start a battle against their own bishop; a battle that would see them in the end chastised in the best of cases, and utterly ruined in the worst.
Whenever cases like the one in Thiberville happen, where a joke of a bishop like Nourrichard (yes, he is the one in the photo; seriously!) is allowed to prevail over a courageous priest and his authentically Catholic community, priests all over the planet register the event and take note.
Make no mistake, though: I am less angry at the priest who can’t find in himself the courage to willfully undergo persecution that at the bishop who can’t find in himself the courage to be unpopular. A priest is a human being too and if he is “not born with a lion’s heart” (Manzoni) he will end up merely trying to limit the damage. I am also aware that (to say it with Manzoni again) “courage, one cannot give it to oneself”. May God have mercy of the poor priests who can’t find the strenght to do what they know they should do as he will – hopefully – have mercy on me, who are also unable to do what I know I should do.
But the position of a bishop is entirely different. Besides having greater responsibility as a successor of the Apostels, a bishop is so established in a world of power and privilege that even the persecution of a seriously modernist Pope (not to be seen anywhere on the horizon, by the way) would not go beyond the loss of a diocesan position and the confinement in some very comfortable – as the Italians say – “elephants’ cemetery”, very probably still in the company of all the accoutrements of rank and prestige.
A cowardly bishop has, therefore, no excuses, let alone a faithless Bishop wilfully and actively making the work of Satan (yes, I am thinking of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and his ilk). We are all sinners of course, but there is a huge difference between being short of Jesus’ demand in one’s private life and to undermine His message in the public one.
God bless Michael Voris, Cardinal Burke and all those who fight the fight for the integrity of Catholicism in the face of the modernist, homosexualist, protestantised fifth column formed by too many bishops and, alas, still far too compact in its ranks.
From the treasure trove of Lux Occulta, another interesting vintage booklet in economic and social matters, “A Christian Alternative to Communism and Fascism”.
The book has his own little faults and read with today’s mentality, calls for administered prices and a minute description of the corporative structure do seem more than a bit naive. Still, the booklet makes a good job of explaining the basic idea of Catholic corporatism and whilst the preoccupation of separating it from Fascist corporatism – unjustly vilified and actually much more similar in his day-to-day reality to the model herein described than to the nazi-ish, totalitarian apparatus described – is evident and clearly due to the openly stated necessity of avoiding any identification with the Fascist experience, there is no denying that a lot of sound and easily doable ideas transpire from this little work.
The first is that the omnipresent State activity must be controlled if it is not to stifle the freedom of the citizen. These words were prophetic many decades ago but are tragically true today, after the advent of the “social state” (better said: socialist state) has created the idea that it be not only normal, but good that state nannyism should put its dirty nose in every activity of its citizens.
The second is the concept of subsidiarity: that the citizens should come together and create organisations meant to deal with those matters by which the citizens cannot adequately provide autonomously but do not want to leave to a pachydermic, bureaucratic, wasteful, invading State. Matters like wages, hours of work, regulation of competition, pension contribution, social care for the ill and disabled come to mind. This is a very modern concept, some aspects of which are highly developed and highly efficient in countries like Germany, and that should be given much bigger consideration today.
The third one (closely linked to the second) is the concept of proper corporativism: that such activities should be regulated by professional organisations similar to the guilds of old (and actually very similar to the corporazioni of Fascist memory), left free to regulate their own matters in a way able to make their industry at the same time competitive and worthwhile to work in. The bakers have different hours than the transport industry, but as they are all interested in the prosperity of their respective sector they will decide within their own professional guild how they want to have their own wages, working hours, pension, social security & Co. regulated, with a fair sharing of the burdens and profits making the industry attractive for both employers and employees and able to withstand the competition for skilled workforce aspiring to a decent wage and to a decent life.
All this – and this is the basic message – can be regulated and decided within the relevant guilds much more efficiently than through an all-pervasive State intervention imposing rules and obstacles (as the Italians beautifully say: lacci e lacciuoli) which are burdensome and counterproductive. If we think of Blighty, the recent proliferation of asphyxiating health and safety regulations and the even more recent tsunami of “equality” legislation are the best example of a self-serving, ever-expanding State apparatus only interested in creating jobs for their own protegees at the expense of the working – and risking – businesses of the country.
There is much to say for a wise, gradual delegation of powers to the professional organisations and to the local communities. When such systems are implemented, they tend to work well. The German health care system is broadly based on such principles and is infinitely more efficient and less expensive than the NHS Behemoth; so was the Italian health care system until the Sixties, when the cooperative-based, corporative health care system was replaced by a state monster of NHS inspiration. Professional bodies (say: for lawyers, chartered accountants & Co) have a good track record of being able to regulate themselves in a rather effective and efficient manner. Mutual help organisations like the Knights of Columbus in the United States show with what success individuals can organise themselves to provide for self-regulated social services. All this with a degree of efficiency and social justice unknown to Western European bureaucracies purely bent on creating consensus and job for potential voters who are, interestingly enough, never the ones who have to foot the bill.
There is a lot to say for this kind of Catholic corporatism. Not only from a moral and christian point of view, but also from a practical one. The reason that such a model is neglected is that – in this country as elsewhere – the citizens have been brainwashed into thinking that there is no alternative to a huge nosy aunt wanting to regulate your life and matters in the most minute details, allegedly for your good but in reality to procure jobs and favours for her own friends.
Read on the Catholic Herald the Interview with the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries,, where the latter complains that the “churches” – as she wrongly says, but laissons tomber – have left her absolutely alone in her attempt to reduce the abortion limit to twenty weeks.
Dorries’ words are beautiful and deserve to be repeated in full:
“I need religious support. It is our core support. I need the churches being more involved, and the churches have been pathetic, pathetic, during the abortion debate in their support for what I was trying to do…The only person in the Catholic Church who made any comment was Cardinal O’Brien. Everybody was silent because the churches were weak and cowardly in their position.”
Please notice the following:
1) we live in a word where a conservative MP complaints that she doesn’t have enough support from religious organisations in matters of abortion. If our grand-grandmothers knew this, they’d wonder what Christianity is this. They’d be right.
2) It is clear from Dorries’ word that she was expecting help most notably from the Catholic (that is: the only) Church, as no one in a sober state can really expect that a shop able to appoint “bishopettes” and to close three eyes in front of homosexuality can be a valid help in the fight against abortion, or in any fight whatsoever.
The funny part of the article is where its author considers it “natural enough” that pro-life groups are “cautious” in supporting pro-life initiatives, because a similar attempt was unsuccessful … in 1987! One truly wonders what people drink in the morning, if a defeat is considered a “natural enough” excuse for inaction for twenty-three years. I thought this was a nation of Empire-Builders, not whining pussycats.
I wonder whether the same journalist would consider “unnatural” that, say, homos lose more than twenty referendums in the US concerning the legal status of those given to such pervert practices ( and I do not mean that they lose most of them: they lose all of them) and still continue to insist not only on the ground, but through homo judges and activists of all kinds, talk all the time about their supposed “human rights” and generally make as much of a mess as they can. I too wish that they’d shut up for twenty-three years after every defeat but hey, that’s not how it works! If you want to get your way you must become vocal, you can’t just retire in a corner for twenty-three years and limit yourself to blabbering innocuous nonsense that doesn’t offend anyone, the job specification is rather the opposite!
Pathetic, weak and cowardly.
Yep, that about sums it up.