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

I’m back from the mountains…

… and in one piece.

Today we pick up the discussion of Francis, the infantile relativist of Rome, his latest in a long line of heretical statements, this time made on his recent trip to the Middle East and the festering problem of the “resignation that wasn’t”.

Now, my colleagues on the Catholic blogosphere, not to mention upper level Catholic management (see here),  have been really hitting it out of the park on this one, of note are Ann Barnhardt (see here) and the Non Veni Pacem blog (see here). These two bloggers, along with the From Rome site (see here) and our friend Dr. John Lamont via the Rorate Caeli blog (see here) have been really explaining in minute detail the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the FrancisChurch Anno Domini 2019.

And then this humble blogger came across this post at the Vox Cantoris blog (see here). The issue is the “resignation that wasn’t”, and Vox made this very prescient and OBJECTIVELY TRUE observation:

On this point, they are both wrong. Bergoglio cannot bind his successors and one Pope filled with the prayer of “zeal for Thy house, O Lord,” and filled with the Holy Spirit can and will undo all the damage of Bergoglio. He will do it and he can do it in one day. Whatever this Bergoglio is, Pope, Antipope, apostate or heretic, his actions have been evil, make no mistake about that, he cannot succeed no matter how bad it will look, no matter what happens. That which he creates will ape the Church, it will be a fraud, it is a fraud. One holy pope can and will fix this. He will do it in one day. Those who do not follow the Truth will simply find themselves outside of the Truth and those who remain faithful, will know who to follow to find their way to the Lord. Mickens and Fernandez are both wrong.

What this humble blogger noticed in this short paragraph is a theme common to the Deus ex Machina blog, i.e. the nature of Truth is OBJECTIVE.

So why is this point so important, once again in the humble opinion of this even more humble blogger?

The reason is that once a “FULLY” Catholic Pontiff ascends to the Throne of St. Peter, he can very easily straighten out the mess that not only Francis made but that mess made by the entire Ionnian/Pauline papal line. All that Roman Pontiff will need to do is reaffirm the supremacy of NATURAL LAW as the order created by God to govern His creation, and the rest will follow.

And why would this Roman Pontiff be interested in make such a reaffirmation?

Well, because of something that Michael Voris also noticed, and that is: most of the Catholic hierarchy have lost their supernatural Faith, provided that they had it in the first place.

And why is this issue so important to understand?

Well, because speaking to them on a metaphysical level philosophically, not to mention supernatural level theologically, will do no good. In other words, they will not understand because they don’t believe in a metaphysical reality, not to mention a supernatural reality.

So the working assumption of this blog is that using philosophical or theological arguments about what in essence is the OBJECTIVE REALITY in which the Catholic Church finds itself at present is ineffective. 

Think of it this way, it’s like telling “Fr.” James Martin BLTSJ about the dangers of his soul spending eternity in hell. One’s not going to get too far with that argument. And we have ample evidence to this effect.

So then the question becomes: how does one get through to these people?

Well, these people will no doubt be familiar with what one can call “a psychological reality”. They will be aware of psychological reality since most of what they learned at the seminary was… wait for it… psychology.

One other reality that these clerics will be all too familiar with is the economic reality. By brining the economic argument into the debate, well…. now heads turn. See below:

So now that we have identified FrancisChurch’s Achilles Heel, i.e. MONEY, we infer that FrancisChurch sole mission on the face of this earth is to accumulate resources.

And what is the most effective manner in which to raise funding in order to keep these “clerics” living in a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?

Well, a good marketing campaign supported by the latest PSYCHOLOGICAL tools at the disposal of the firms being paid to come up with these marketing campaigns are just what the doctor ordered.

In this case, just what the archbishop ordered…

So using an approach based on the latest trends in the academic discipline of psychology might just be the best way to get through to these folks. Which is why this humble blogger liberally uses the work that appears on youtube by Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Therefore, working under this assumption we highlight a video that appeared on Dr. Petersons website recently. In this website, Dr. Peterson speaks with Stanley McChrystal, a retired Army General and all around useless leftist hack. Yet for our purposes, some of McChrystal’s observations confirm assumptions attributed to Dr. Peterson.

What I have done is transcribe a short bit of the interview. It contains another OCCURANCE of what I call a Peterson “Catholicism Is The One True Faith” Moment. This PHENOMENON, where Dr. Peterson, out of nowhere, will bring Catholicism into an unrelated discussion as an example of something that the Catholic Church, over the years has done right.

Today we have another sighting of a “Catholicism Is The One True Faith” Moment. In this passage, we are also informed that Friedrich Nietzsche was a great admirer of the Catholic Church.

Who would have thunk?

I will leave off here for now. The though that I would like to leave you dear and loyal reader with is the following:

if a “c”atholic cleric doesn’t believe in the Catholic interpretation of the divine Revelation, maybe he will understand a clinical psychologist’s, Jordan Peterson in this case, interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche.

It’s a thought but it just might work…



Jordan Peterson: I’d like to talk to you about what you’ve seen as necessary to help immature young people mature and become responsible citizens and what all that means. Why it’s advantageous, why it’s necessary and how it can be done. And why we’re not doing a particularly good job of it as far as I can tell.

Stanely McChrystal: Yea, I feel very strongly about this … so thanks for bringing it up. I think if we talk about advantages, if we look at you or I and we get to a certain point in life, if we can get feeling superior, we’ve successful because we’ve worked hard or whatever, we started on third base and we thought we hit a triple. And we did because,… I had two parents that I admired who loved me and they put structure. I was one of six kids and there was structure and I didn’t like all of it at the time, but the reality is … they didn’t talk about values, they demonstrated values. They forced us to live within a certain left and right limit we would call it. And at the time, I wouldn’t have come up with that but they did that. The education I received also gave me a pretty solid set of foundation stones that I can stand on. I think what has happened is, we’ve weakened those, we’ve weaked the family in America, we’ve weakened some of the things we ask or demand of our young people to do, or give them the opportunity to be a part of. Certain structured things that I think help.

You know, it was funny. I entered the Army in the 1970’s, I came out of West Point. The Army was still struggling post-Vietnam. And some of the best senior sergeants, non-commissioned officers I’ve ever worked with, sergeants majors, had come from really terrible backgrounds. I mean, single family or no parents, or missed or no opportunity, but they’d come into the Army and the Army had put in front of them a set of values, pretty admirable values and they’d looked at that and they’d said ‘Ok I accept that’. And they embraced them. And in some ways, they’d embraced them better than the officer corps, came out of colleges, was a little more nuanced,  thought through. These guys and gals just literally said ‘that’s right and that’s wrong’. And when you were serving with them, it was amazing. Sometimes we were handwringing over what we should do, and one of these people would go ‘Hey, there’s a right and a wrong here. What are we talking about’. And they were always right. And so, when it comes back, I think we owe young people the experience… I think we learn from experience, because we don’t learn through civics class what works. We learn through things we do and so if we can give young people the opportunity to be part of a team where they’ve got to subordinate some of their uniqueness, they’ve got to sometimes shut up and row because that’s how society, all of us have got to spend some of our time doing that, they have to respect other people, they have to live by a set of values that gives everybody else their opportunity to succeed as well. Then I think is what you do is create an opportunity for them to learn, I call it citizenship, but learn the way to fit in that gives them a much greater opportunity maybe to be successful.

JP: Ok, so that’s… that’s real interesting to me because one of the things I learned when I was reading Friedrich Nietzsche in particular, he was a great critic of Christianity but also a great admirer of the Catholic Church . And one of the things he said about Catholicism was that over the centuries of its unfolding, that it required all of its practitioners to adopt a particular disciplined ethos and to explain the world within the confines of a single coherent system, and then also to act that out. And so Nietzsche was also interested in the development of, let’s call it “full individuality”. But he also knew that the pathway to individuality was through the rigors of a disciplinary structure.

And I think this is something our society hasn’t discussed well because it’s useful for us as people who believe in individual sovereignty, to concentrate on individual uniqueness, but it’s naïve of us to fail to understand that part of that unique individuality is developed as a consequence of subordination of some disciplinary structure. Right? Before you can become “full-fledged”, you have to become something and might be something narrow, you have to pick a path of some sort  and commit to it. Whatever that path is. And I’ve been telling young people, especially in my lecture that if they’re lost, they need to commit to something, even if they don’t know what that optimal something should be. They have to lose themselves in it to some degree, and that seems to go against that individualist ethos, but it’s actually a precursor to it.