, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Today we continue our thread dealing with the “critical to understand” distinction between Modernism and post-Modernism.

In our last post, this humble blogger tried to pin down this distinction, the understanding of which is, in the opinion of this humble blogger, the key to the full RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST.

Quickly summarizing, if we as Catholics understand that the FrancisChurch is a post-Modernist construct, then anything that emanates from the FrancisChurch, whether oral or written is MEANINGLESS.

And it’s MEANINGLESS by its very nature and by definition!

Case in point…

Today this humble blogger directs you, his dear and loyal reader to the entry page for Post-Modernism of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. (see here)

On this page, the following appears:

  1. There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.

What this passage is saying is that in the post-Modernist reality, 2+2 can and does equal 5 or any other number for that matter. In other words, math is a social construct.

And if math can be seen as a social construct, then other sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium such as theology, the social sciences and the physical sciences can likewise be dismissed as mere figments of a collective imagination.

And we know who’s imagination, don’t we?

Hint: White. Male. Patriarchy.

This brings me to the point of this post and the LAW.

If everything is a imagined construct, then surely so is the Legal foundation on which society rests.

Case in point. Let’s assume that the legal concept of “diplomatic immunity” for the Vatican in the US rests on the premise that its US Dioceses are independent of Vatican oversight. Yet at the USCCB’s conference, the situation was quite the contrary. At the said conference, it was the Vatican that exercised direct control over the US Bishops’ Conference by ordering them not to vote on the resolution to create an oversight body which would deal with the INTRISICALLY DISORDERED sex abuse and seminary grooming gang problem that has popped up recently.

Which raises the issue of a violation of one of the laws of thought (logic) namely the Law of Non-Contradiction which posits that: nothing having a given quality also has the negative of that quality (e.g., no even number is non-even).

So what the issue for the FrancisChurch can be reduced to is the following: will the US government’s Justice Department adopt a post-Modernist precedent and allow the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference to claim that the US Diocese are independent of Vatican control and at the same time WITNESS the Vatican exercising direct control over the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference, i.e. the US Dioceses.

In other words, will the post-Obama Justice Department go full post-Modernist and allow the FrancisChurch to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction?

What do you think dear and loyal reader?

Because if the DOJ doesn’t go full post-Modernist, the FrancisVatican will have to pay out sizeable judgements from the US Diocesan coffers as will the FrancisVatican from its FrancisStash, i.e. KIRCHENSTEUER.

What a pleasant thought!


And we will have another instance of a Virtual Reality being reconciled with an Objective Reality.

Just like Stan had in the clip at the top of this post.

Below is an article that appeared on Breitbart about just this…


Pope Francis Undermines Vatican Diplomatic Immunity with USCCB Intervention

In ordering the U.S. bishops to abstain from voting on measures aimed at addressing clerical sex abuse, Pope Francis may have inadvertently performed the most consequential and costly act of his papacy.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) intended to vote on two measures responding to the ongoing sex abuse crisis in its annual fall meeting, which concluded in Baltimore on Wednesday.

A last-minute intervention, however, from the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops instructed the USCCB to stand down and to await a meeting of global episcopal conference leadership convoked by Pope Francis for February.

The Vatican’s direct intervention into the bishops’ governance would seem to undermine the Holy See’s prime pillar of legal defense when charged with negligence in dealing with sex abuse, namely, the relative independence of Catholic dioceses from Vatican oversight.

When the 2010 suit O’Bryan vs. the Holy See sought to depose Pope Benedict XVI in a U.S. court, Vatican lawyer Jeffrey Lena employed a tightly reasoned argument before the U.S. district court in Kentucky, which hinged upon demonstrating that the Vatican was not responsible for the U.S. bishops’ policy on protecting children, and nor was it responsible for day-to-day operational policy.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer William McMurray believed that his case had class-action potential, hoping it could also benefit the thousands of victims of child sex abuse across the whole of the United States, seeking enormous sums in damages directly from Rome.

Ordinarily, under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments have immunity from prosecution in U.S. courts. However, there are nine exceptions to this immunity, one of which is the so-called “tort exception” clause.

Two years before the Kentucky hearing, a federal appeals court had said that the case could proceed under the tort exemption to the 1976 act, if it could be demonstrated that U.S. bishops were following official Vatican policy.

This is what makes the Vatican’s eleventh-hour intervention in Baltimore so potentially momentous. It seems to willing wave aside the carefully crafted legal boundaries that the Vatican has energetically used to defend itself from international prosecution.

The failure of the U.S. bishops to challenge the order from the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops suggests that the bishops are indeed answerable to the Holy See on operational matters dealing with sex abuse policy.

This tacit admission will almost certainly have massive ramifications in future litigation.

Considering the rise in abuse claims facing the Church in the United States, it is difficult to imagine that the Vatican will not see a dramatic increase in legal actions, which could open the Holy See to billions of dollars in claims.

The O’Bryan action was withdrawn in 2011, in part because 243 abuse victims had already reached a direct settlement with the Archdiocese of Louisville and in part because of the precedent of earlier court rulings recognising the Holy See’s immunity from prosecution.

According to research compiled by Bishop-Accountability.org, to date 15 U.S. dioceses have been declared bankrupt following the post-Boston settlements, with post-1980s settlements totaling over $3 billion.

The Vatican’s apparent abandonment of a long-standing principle of legal defense has potentially game-changing consequences for the future.

The direct Vatican intervention in the U.S. bishops’ response to the sex abuse crisis could easily be the most consequential act of Pope Francis’ papacy, which is not precisely the legacy his followers would wish.