I have not posted lately since I am on vacation. I am spending time with the family, as per video above. However, that does not mean that I do not follow current events. A big Deo gratias for Pew Sitter website is in order here. But I digress…
The reason that I am breaking my radio silence a few days early is due to a post that appeared on the Fr. Z blog that I just couldn’t resist commenting on. The post is titled Coming Soon! The “Eleven Cardinals Book”! (see here) The reason that I am bringing this post to your attention is due to a certain name that appears as a contributor. In other words, one of these contributors is not like the others! 😉
For those who have been following this blog, you will notice it right off the bat. That cardinal is non other than the President of the Episcopate of the Netherlands Willem Cardinal Eijk, who we featured in our post titled The Neo-modernist “Theology of Death”! (see here)
And the reason that I am bringing this to your attention dear reader is for its historical perspective. Please recall that a predecessor of Willem Cardinal Eijk was the notorious Bernardus Johannes Alfrink the Archbishop of Utrecht from 1955 to 1975 and a major player at the Second Vatican Council. The manner in which Cardinal Alfrink figures into the destruction of the Catholic Church we described in two posts, i.e. Man Marking Marx – Dei Power Ball (see here) and Man Marking Marx – The Network (see here).
The significance of this development, as you can no doubt figure out, is that in the span of 50 years, the Dutch Catholic Church, whose representative lead the charge to institute the neo-modernist agenda at Vatican II, now finds itself in total disintegration. The FORCED realization of this OBJECTIVE FACT has led his successor to revert back a “more Catholic” agenda. Hence his contribution to the 11 Cardinal Book.
Below is the Fr. Z post that I am reproducing… (original see here)
The Italian site La Nuova Bussola has learned that, in advance of the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, yet another “Cardinals Book” is being released.
This time, however, its the “Eleven Cardinals Book™”!
This is sure to strike terror in the hearts of the Kasperites!
Eleven Cardinals, as the headline runs, are trying to stop the “Protestantization of the Church”.
Baselios Cleemis, Arcivescovo maggiore della Chiesa cattolica siro-malankarese e Presidente della Conferenza episcopale dell’India;
Paul Josef Cordes, Presidente emerito del Consiglio pontificio «Cor Unum»;
Dominik Duka, O.P., Arcivescovo di Praga, Primate di Boemia;
Willem Jacobus Eijk, Arcivescovo di Utrecht;
Joachim Meisner, Arcivescovo emerito di Colonia;
John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, Arcivescovo di Abuja (Nigeria);
Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, Arcivescovo emerito di Madrid;
Camillo Ruini, Vicario generale emerito di Sua Santità per la Diocesi di Roma;
Robert Sarah, Prefetto della Congregazione per il culto divino e la disciplina dei sacramenti;
Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino, Arcivescovo di Caracas, Santiago de Venezuela
The editor is the German professor of Canon Law Winfried Aymans, at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich.
It seems that Cardinals and only Cardinals are the writers. I am pleased to see Card. Sarah in the list, as well as Caffarra.
It doesn’t say anything concrete about the publisher. It doesn’t mention the title. It doesn’t say anything about the languages, though given that this is in an Italian site we can assume Italian is – at least – one of the languages.
The Five Cardinals Book (which everyone ought to have, especially every priest and bishop) came out simultaneously in five languages. HERE
Also, in the same Bussola piece there is a hint that another book is coming with contributions of 11 bishops and cardinals… all Africans!
You can guess what side of the marriage and the sodomy issues they will be on!
Today we change from our theme of the circular nature of what leftists understand as gradualism or the novelty of Francisgraduality as per Secret Synod of 2014 as we have explained (see here), and turn to the theme of the circular nature of history. For my regular reader, you will no doubt recognize this as the theme of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium post (see here) And you are correct. The following passage from this post is of major relevance:
The reason that I am drawing your attention to this passage [from the Credo] is due to the fact that when we recite the part about the …Maker […] of all that is, […] unseen, we are dealing with all the “processes” in the natural law that govern the behavior of us fallen human beings.
The reason why the above passage explains our assertion of the circular nature of history is that just as in the Santayana observation at the top of the page, the “processes” contained in natural law – et Invisibilium are universal. A better term here would be “omnipresent”. In other words, they hold in all time and in all spaces. Therefore, if the above is true, and it is true, then the question becomes one of conforming to these universal processes. Actually, the issue is really to what degree any entity possessing free will, regardless of whether we are dealing with a single individual or an organization consisting of two or more individuals, conform to the omnipresent processes contained natural law.
As a rule of thumb, we can infer that the higher the degree of conformity in the actions of the entity to natural law, the more positive will be the result. And vice verse, the lesser the degree to conformity, the worse the results. We can also infer a general principle that the degree of non conformity is positively correlated to the degree of negativity of results. For a visual representation, think of the actions of a sinner and how they relate to that sinner finding himself on the heaven/purgatory/hell continuum.
Not only can we infer that this general principle holds in the spiritual realm, but we can also infer that this same general principle holds in the here and now. In the post titled Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, we superimposed a situation that is playing itself out in the post conciliar church, and the Vatican specifically onto an economic analysis of the situation that is playing itself out in Greece presently. We can readily see that a parallel process very similar in nature is playing itself out in both these instances.
Today we take this analysis of the situation in Modernist Rome derived from the above post and try to project it into the future. We see that although the consolidated financials of the Vatican are fine, as we have laid out in our post titled Giving an Accounting to Peter (see here), we have also observed evidence of the disintegration of the universal church, or at least that part that contributes to the Vatican budget under the contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law. We have also made the observation that whereas the Vatican City State is consistently operation in the black, the Holy See operates in the red. And by using the Holy See’s results as a proxy for that part of the Vatican that is the descendant of the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”, we see that this will not end well.
Given the above, we now look to find an example of “non-conformity” in the area of national fiscal policy and economics that is more advance than that of Greece. (see here) The reason that we are doing this is to see not only what the future of Greece holds, but also to ascertain how a parallel process could look with respect to Modernist Rome. And as good fortune would have it, this sort of post-Greece situation is playing out with another regime that Francis is close to, i.e. the one in Venezuela. For reference, please see our Road Kill post. (see here)
The below comes from the ZeroHedge website and is titled Venezuela Increasingly Looks Like A War Zone (see here). I think that this post will provides a good indication of the process going forward for both Greece and the Vatican under their anthropocentric/socialist regimes. Also please keep in mind, that the country whose economic situation is the closest to that of Greece in the Eurozone (the Euro currency regime) is non other than Italy, so the comparison is timely to say the least.
And now on to the ZeroHedge post and it is…
FOR THE RECORD
Venezuela Increasingly Looks Like A War Zone
Over the years, we have repeatedly poked fun at the transformation of Venezuela into a “socialist utopia” – an economy in a state of terminal collapse, where the destruction of the currency (one black market Bolivar is now worth 107 times less than the official currency’s exchange rate) and the resulting hyperinflation is only matched be barren wasteland that local stores have transformed into now that conventional supply chains are irreparably broken.
Just this past Wednesday we showed a clip of what is currently taking place inside Venezuela supermarkets, noting that “the hyperinflationary collapse in Venezuela is reaching its terminal phase. With inflation soaring at least 65%, murder rates the 2nd highest in the world, and chronic food (and toilet paper shortages), the following disturbing clip shows what is rapidly becoming major social unrest in the Maduro’s socialist paradise… and perhaps more importantly, Venezuela shows us what the end game for every fiat money system looks like (and perhaps Janet and her colleagues should remember that).”
Unfortunately, while mocking socialist paradises everywhere is a recurring theme especially once they have completely run out of other people’s money to burn through, what always follows next is far less amusing – completely social collapse, with riots, civil war and deaths not far behind.
That is precisely what the video shown below has captured. In the clip, a demonstration against Venezuela’s poor transportation services quickly turned violent. End result: one person dead from a gunshot wound, more than 80 arrested and four shops looted on the Manuel Piar Avenue in San Felix.
What is most distrubing is how comparable to an open war zone what was once a vibrant, rich and beautiful Latin American country has become.
This is just the beginning: with the ongoing collapse of the economy, the resultant acts of social violence will only deteriorate and claim more innocent lives, until the “socialist utopia” ends as it always does: with the arrival of a military coup or a full blown civil war.
The article below appeared on LifeSiteNews and explains very nicely how BIG GENDER operates in the US.
What should be of note is that these usual suspects, i.e. the foundations were the same folks that flooded Ireland with a crazy amount of overseas money (see here) over a ten-year period in the lead up to the aberro-sexual referendum. (see here) The takeaway from the above is that these advocacy operations are global.
Given the above, what are the chances that the above suspects are also playing a behind the scenes role in the lead up to the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015?
More on this in a future post.
Here is the Life Site New post (see original here)
Foundations pouring millions into campaign to eradicate religious exemptions on gay ‘marriage’
WASHINGTON D.C. July 31, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Revelations that a half dozen well-heeled liberal foundations are pouring millions of dollars into a concerted campaign to force religious organizations to accept same sex “marriage” have defenders of religious rights warning of a new “wave” of litigation.“
Attacking religious exemptions is the next big wave,” Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League, told LifeSiteNews. “Gay rights are only the pretext. These groups won’t be satisfied till every trace of religion is erased from public life in America.”
After investigating their financial and annual reports, The Catholic News Agency has released the names of six foundations that have recently donated millions to groups and campaigns to eliminate any religious exemption under the First Amendment from federal, state or municipal human rights regulations, requiring couples in same-sex “marriages” be treated the same as heterosexual married couples.
The Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, the Gill Foundation, the Proteus Fund, the David Bohnett Foundation, the Arcus Foundation, and the Ford Foundation have contributed $4.8 million to the cause of suppressing religious rights.
According to Scott Walter, executive director of the Capital Research Center, Tim Gill, the homosexual multi-millionaire behind the Gill Foundation, was instrumental in turning Colorado from “a reliably red state to a blue state,” in the course of a decade, first using his money to win both state chambers for the Democrats, then the governor’s mansion, and finally both federal Senate seats.“
It’s called the ‘Colorado Miracle,” said Walter. “If Gill is turning his sights onto religious exemptions from same-sex marriage rights, defenders of religious liberty need to be very, very nervous. Gill has declared that homosexual rights is his number one interest. He has the money and he is incredibly effective.”
In Colorado Gill put together an alliance of like-minded donors and foundations, who funded or created public advocacy law firms, liberal financial watchdog groups, and paid for investigations and lawsuits, all without admitting their goal was getting Democrats into office.
The Catholic News Agency article quotes homosexual advocate Tim Sweeney, “a onetime program director of the Haas Fund,” as having told a conference of like-minded lobbyists early this year, “We are at a crossroads where the choices we make will mean we will fight religious exemptions for two to three years or have a protracted twenty year struggle on our hands.”
Sweeney warned the Out & Equal Executive Forum that victory was not complete with the Supreme Court decision overthrowing state laws defending traditional, heterosexual marriage. The homosexual and trans communities “face a new set of threats around religious exemptions to laws that protect us and our families,” he said.
Sweeney reportedly told his audience that state and federal religious freedom laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and judicial decisions like the 2014 Hobby Lobby case (allowing the Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby company an exemption from insuring employees for contraception) are “all about using religious liberty as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT people and others.”
But Bill Donohue of the Catholic League makes the counterclaim that organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union are fighting against religious exemptions “to use the gay issue as a lever to eliminate religion from every nook and cranny.”
Lawyer James Bopp of the James Madison Center for Free Speech agrees that what is at stake is religious liberty. “We are facing a group that will insist on conformity on anybody in the public square. Churches are especially vulnerable,” he said, “because they can be threatened through their tax-exempt status.”
If the foundations and the advocacy groups they fund get their way, Donohue warned, Christian colleges would be forced to allow same-sex couples to use their married student housing. Schools would be forced to hire or prevented from firing homosexual couples that have undergone “marriage” ceremonies.
Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, added, “The First Amendment protects more than just the freedom of religion, it protects the freedom of people to live and act according to their religious beliefs. These groups are wrongly attempting to relegate religious freedom to something that exists only in people’s churches and homes. That’s not religious freedom, it’s religious hostility.”
Peter Breen of the Chicago-based Thomas More Law Center told LifeSiteNews that states which have not pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage are particularly vulnerable to legal action restricting religious exemptions. Ironically, wherever states passed same- sex marriage laws, they included protection for religious freedom.
But states which never legalized same-sex marriage also never provided exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for Christians—whether bakers, or universities or churches with Scout troops. So States with old laws on the books intending to protect heterosexual married couples from discrimination will now cover same-sex marriages too.“
We need to alert state legislators that they are not providing the protection for religious groups their citizens want. And we need to help them draft very well-written religious protection laws.” Breen said the six foundations exposed by the Catholic News Agency “will try to stop those laws being made.”
Today we quickly look at an interesting development that has been brought to your humble bloggers attention on the Eponymous Flower Blog. (see here) But before we get into the subject matter, a few words to provide context.
In our post titled Synod of the Three Paragraphs that we originally published on the 14th of December 2014 (see here) we laid out our case, using our Pierce/Ockham methodology (see here), that the upcoming Synod of Bishops of 2015 will have as its main goal, what we termed the HIDDEN AGENDA, the changing of Catholic moral teaching regarding aberro-sexuality. Actually, we wrote that the upcoming Synod, which we dubbed the Stealth Sex Synod can be reduced to revolving around two words, i.e. INTRINSIC and DISORDERED. To be more precise, the Synod will be manipulated in order to purge Catholic moral teaching of natural moral law that states that aberro-sexual unions are INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED.
In a follow-up post titled Meet BIG GENDER from the 17th of February 2015 (see here), we established that what it behind this HIDDEN AGENDA is nothing more than the special interest groups that are lobbying for the introduction of Gender Ideology into various national legal statutes of targeted countries. In Germany, we have observed this BIG GENDER has use the German Bishops’ Conference hierarchy, i.e. Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx to introduce Gender Ideology into the Church Labor law. Furthermore, it is this BIG GENDER that is now using the German representatives to the bi-Synods as a proxy in order to change Catholic moral teaching regarding sexuality by introducing Gender Ideology into the moral teaching of the universal Church.
In a post titled So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along from the 27th of May 2015 (see here), we provide anecdotal proof that we have been correct in our assertion (hypothesis) that… well… it was the homo agenda all along. It was this homo-agenda that served as the HIDDEN AGENDA at the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 and will serve as the HIDDEN AGENDA at the upcoming Stealth Synod of Bishops of 2015. The proof that we provided was in the form of a report from a “closed-door” meeting of the FORCES that are behind the attempt to subvert Catholic moral teaching, subsequently termed the “Alternative Synod”. We noticed that the report from this secret one day meeting was exclusively focused on changing Catholic moral teaching with respect to aberro-sexuality. The other nominal issues, i.e. communion for divorced/remarried and concubinage was glanced over at best, suggesting that they are just fig leafs to cover up the HIDDEN AGENDA. We explained just this situation in our post titled Francis “Showing a Leg”. (see here)
Which brings us up to date and today’s additional evidence for our primary hypothesis that it is the change in Catholic moral teaching with respect to aberro-sexuality that is the TRUE AGENDA behind the bi-Synod of Bishop. If you dear reader recall, in a recent post titled Same-sex Union ⊂ Gender Ideology : The Cardinals Get It! from the 15th of June 2015 (see here), we laid out our observations that at least one cardinal, i.e. Card. Robert Sarah understands not only that same-sex unions are a SUBSET of Gender Ideology, but that Gender Ideology is the most dangerous of all the ideologies that the Catholic Church is fighting presently. Here is the relevant quote:
“ideologies to fight against today”[…] one of the most dangerous ideologies is that of gender,[…] that says that human sexuality does not depend on the identity of man and woman, but a sexual orientation, such as homosexuality…
Given that this is the case, it is with “amazement” that one reads the following text in the Eponymous Flower post titled Fight Against Human Trafficking, Fight for Gender-Ideology — From One the Vatican Distances Itself, the Other Not (see here): [emphasis added]
[There is] No distancing from a children’s book series which will appear in the name of Pope Francis for gender ideology. The Foundation Scholas Occurrentes, a worldwide network of schools was established on the initiative of Pope Francis in August 2013 at the Vatican. The Argentine newspaper Clarín have been publishing since spring 2015 in cooperation with the Pope Foundation in Spanish, the children’s book series, “With Francis at my side.” The children’s stories, which are now widely circulated in Spain, advertise homosexuality, transexuality and “new family forms” on behalf of the Pope. The children’s book series is promoted with the image of Pope Francis, it was photographed at the Vatican.
Furthermore, the following is written:
The driving force behind the establishment of the foundation Scholas Occurrentes was also the Argentine Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. The establishment took place in a ballroom run by Sorondo’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Both Scholas Occurrentes and the Vatican wash their hands in innocence. Nobody wants to have known something or anything to do with the contents of the children’s book series. A distancing has not taken place until today,although the book series coincides with Pope Francis’ image, stabbing Catholic initiatives in the back with the portrait, trying to clarify the aims of gender ideology and roll back their influence.
The newspaper publisher Clarín continues, meanwhile, negotiations with other newspaper publishers to translate the children’s books into other languages and spread them to other countries.
Concluding, how can one interpret this situation?
Just to briefly summarize what we are witness to:
Francis establishes the Foundation Scholas Occurrentes in 2013. The main driving force behind the Foundation initiative is Archbishop Marcelo “I hate Tea Parties” Sanchez Sorondo. This Foundation establishes a network of schools. This foundation is behind the publication of a series of children’s book that promote Gender Ideology.The Gender Ideology is promoted with images of Francis. The Vatican “washes its hands in innocence”, i.e. claims it doesn’t know anything about this situation. Yet theVatican does nothing to stop it. Proof is that in the mean time, the publisher is continuing negotiations to publish these same Gender Ideology promoting books with Francis’ image with entities for translating and distribution into other countries and languages.
On the Eponymous Flower Blog, we are provided with figures for the number of Germans who have left the neo-modernist post conciliar German Catholic Church in 2014. (see here) This figure is:
217,716
Furthermore, this figure represents and increase of people leaving the German Catholic Church of 21.76%. The protestant denominations lost more, so this trend is likewise continuing.
Once again, the relevant passage from Markus Günther which was published on December 29, 2014 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitungappeared via the Radical Catholic Blog post titled Church in Crisis: Diaspora Germany (see here):
But why are the seekers no longer finding guidance? Why are the supply and demand no longer jibing? The most popular answer to this question is: because the Church is no longer relevant to the times. She must conform more closely to the realities of the lives of modern people. Initially, that sounds plausible, but under closer scrutiny reveals itself to be idiocy. For the Evangelical church in Germany has done nearly everything which is being demanded from the Catholic Church in order to become more relevant to the times: women priests, the elimination of celibacy, liberality in moral theology, the complete acceptance of homosexuals and the divorced. If these were the real reasons for the malaise of Christendom, the Protestants should be far better off than the Catholics. But that simply isn’t the case. A second error in thinking is introduced by the popular buzzword “relevant to the times” [German: zeitgemäß, which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church]: Wherever the Church does not base herself upon timeless, incontrovertible truth, she reveals herself to be purely man-made. Political programs should be “relevant to the times,” entertainment programming, too; but a religion must take command of absolute truths – or it is no religion at all.
And now to the Eponymous Flower post and the relevant figures.
The German Bishops’ Conference has published the number of people leaving the Church in 2014. After 178,805 in 2013, 217,716 people have left the church in the following year. An increase of 20 percent!This is topped by the Protestant Church
Munich (kath.net/pm) The German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) are in the midst of silly season this Friday and the dioceses have reported the Church statistics in 2014 and again this is explosive, because the number of leaving the Church has risen significantly again. After 178,805 people left in 2013, 217,716 people have left the church in 2014. That’s an increase of about 20 percent. Church attendance has risen with an increase of 0.1 percent to 10.9 percent. The total number of priests is 12,219 (2013 12,336). The number of pastoral assistants is at 3,171 (2013: 3,140) which increased slightly as did the number of community workers at 4,526 (4,470 in 2013). Cardinal Reinhard Marx commented in a press release: “The statistics released today show that church is multiform and is a missionary force, even if we are made painfully aware of the high number of people leaving the Church, that we do not reach people with our message, there are personal life decisions behind the number of leaving the Church that in each case we profoundly regret but also respect the freedom of choice. We will strive to continue our mission credibly to gather so that we can proclaim the joy of the Gospel and many people will find a home in the community of church. The faith joy and momentum of Pope Francis has given us a great help. We want to be on the move with him ‘raising’ the church in Germany, to actively bring the people for God’s sake in community and gives testimony of the great message of the Gospel.”
The numbers leaving the Catholic Church are still comfortably topped by the Protestant church. There 410,000 people have left. According to the EPD deaths are also here included, however. They do not wish to publish exact numbers at present. Thus, the Catholic German Bishops’ Conference counted 23.9 million members at the end of 2014, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) approximately 22.63 million.
On the Polonia Christiana website, an important article appeared. (see original here) I have taken the liberty to translate it. I am sure it will only be a matter of time until Giuseppe Nardi translates a fuller version and posts in on the Eponymous Flower blog, but in the mean time, I have reproduced the PCh24.pl post below for your review.
Note bene, I have not written about strategic aspects of the upcoming Synod of Bishops lately. This has been intentional, and two reasons are behind it. First is that this blog has identified the main issue that is driving the synod, and that is the change of Catholic teaching with respect to aberro-sexuality. (see here) The driving force is the German bishops with the entire Gender lobby behind them. (see here) The other issues, i.e. communion for divorced and remarried and concubinage is just a classical “head fake”. Or as we termed it, “showing a leg”. (see here) The second reason that I have not written about strategy is that I have noticed exactly this mood change that Herr von Gersdorff wrote about in the below article. I wrote about just this in the post titled 27 of February 2015. (see here) Since I also sensed the change of mood/tactics, along with others like the guys at Rorate Caeli and Fr. Z., I did not want to raise this issue so as not to cause anyone to let ones guard down. And here von Gersdorff confirms this approach to be a valid one.
And lastly, with respect to what is at play in the upcoming Synod of Bishops, it is actually two words. The two words are “intrinsically disordered”. (see here) Whatever else happens at this Synod, it is these two words and their treatment that will be crucial, and the third week of the Synod will be key.
Without going on too much further, the below post is translated and reproduced:
FOR THE RECORD
Mathias von Gersdorff: German bishops are changing strategy
The President of the German episcopate, Cardinal Reinhard Marx said recently that achieving “pastoral” reform at the upcoming Synod will not be easy and that patience is needed. The German progressives are likely to change strategy – according to Mathias von Gersdorff.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx has suggested at the beginning of July, that during the upcoming October session of the synod, a consensus will not be reached on the “reform” promoted by the German Church. He explained that changes in marriage, family and sexuality will “not be easy” and “have a long way to go”. He added that recently, in terms of preparatory work for the Synod, he has met many disappointments. He stressed that, although one should not bow to the spirit of the times, God also speaks to us through history. The hierarch spoke at a meeting chaired at his diocese of Munich, which was held on Thursday 9 July. The “Catholic Information Agency” commented that Cardinal. Marx ‘thus lowered expectations about the upcoming Synod “.
Mathias von Gersdorff notes that if the intention of Cardinal Marx, in fact, was to “lower the expectations”, then “we are dealing here with an important change of strategy”. “The left-wing of German Catholicism hid last year nominally behind the liberal notions of Cardinal Walter Kasper, to admit remarried divorcees to Communion. But for those nominal Catholics themselves, the reforms were really about much more and began to quickly put forth more radical demands, “- writes von Gersdorff. “In their opinion, the Catholic sexual morality must adapt to the sexual revolution of 1968,” – he added. Support for such efforts on the part of the German bishops, is something new in Germany likewise.
Von Gersdorff also notes that “the delegation of the German Bishops’ to the upcoming Synod consists solely of liberals: Cardinal Reinhard Marx, archbishop elect of the Berlin Heiner Koch, the bishop of Osnabrück Franz-Josef Bode. This delegation is in no way representative of the German episcopate in the area relating to marriage and the family “. According to the German journalist, progressives decided that it was time “to push their unorthodox views on sexuality in the universal church”. For their purpose, they wanted to use the “synod in crude manner”.
Von Gersdorff indicates that such a plan provoked resistance in Germany likewise. One of the biggest critics of the liberals became bishop Stefan Oster. Against the Germans. lined up other hierarchs, including those from Africa. Success of the “reformers” at the synod is unlikely and that is why von Gersdorff thinks, that Cardinal Marx is now dampening hopes. Sensing a possible defeat, the cardinal wants the liberal environment of the German Church become consolidated.
“There has been, however, no attempt to call off the alarm: Marx, Bode and Koch clearly showed that they wish to liberalize or ease sexual morality. Cardinal Marx did not make his assertions with conviction – therefore his last speech should be seen as pure tactics, “- says Gersdorff.
Today we continue with re-posts of articles outside of our specific area of interest, i.e. issues dealing with the Stealth Sex Synod of Bishops of 2015 and the wider Catholic Church. And just to remind you dear reader, we are 98 days away from the commencement of the Stealth Sex Synod, that will begin deliberations on the morning of the 5th of October Anno Domini 2015.
Today your humble blogger ventures into a Greece based theme, or to be more precise, a theme based on the crisis that is presently raging in Greece due to dire economic situation in which that the country has found itself. This crisis in turn is due to BAD DECISIONS that former government officials and politicians have taken over the course of the past 10 years. We will focus today on the personalities of the individuals who are the players in this present Greek economic drama. Our intent is to observe behavioural traits and decision-making characteristics of these individuals and try to infer some general principles.
After reading the below, I would just ask the readers to “overlay” these observations expressed in the below post onto the players that will be driving the Stealth Sex Synod process in three months time. The similarities in the personal traits of the Catholic hierarchs should be very recognizable from the description of the players in this Greek economic drama. And the observable similarities should not come as a surprise since we are dealing here with fallen men.
And one more thought. I would like to draw your attention to the Credo (see here). For those who do not have access to the proper Catholic Mass, the Credo, or as it is more commonly refered to as the “profession of Faith”, is recited either by the priest (low mass) or by the priest and Faithful (high mass). The Credo begins with the following text:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
The reason that I am drawing your attention to this passage is due to the fact that when we recite the part about the …Maker […] of all that is, […] unseen, we are dealing with all the “processes” in the natural law that govern the behaviour of us fallen human beings.
What I mean by this is the following. Pride is a human trait with original sin at its root. Yet, through the excercise of intellect and free will, the fallen human can choose to be “guided” by pride, or he can resist as the Catholic Church teaches. The decision that this fallen human takes will naturally have consequences. The fallen human who allows himself to be guided by pride will no doubt find himself in objectively worse situations than the fallen human who makes decisions based on this understanding of his predicament and battles with this weakness. The reason that the above is a true statement is that the part of the natural order that God created, i.e. all that is unseen, is not compatible with incorrigible human behaviour.
I have plenty to say on the topic of this essay. But the most important thing I think is that I know the EU [Modernist church] is blowing up itself by trying to exert far too much influence on the very member nations [national episcopate conferences] that made its existence possible. Brussels [Modernist Rome] is a blind city. To see it blowing itself to smithereens makes me very happy.
The flipside is that it will take a lot of pain, and probably even the very wars the EU was originally founded to prevent, to figuratively burn it to the ground. But that, if you’ll alow me, is for another day:
Loads of good words published today on EC President Jean-Claude Juncker [Francis] and the Greeks, and the crop gets creamier, there’s fake Nobles winners [fake theologians and eccunamist] and all joining in, but this is not a new issue, guys, and the lot of you are quite late to the game.
Moreover, y’all Krugmans and Stiglitzes fully missed something that happened while Juncker was ‘speaking’ yesterday: Jean-Claude changed the entire game in one brilliant move. The Greeks I was with, including in Syntagma Square, didn’t notice it either.
What changed is that after Juncker’s speech[the Lineamenta], the discussion is no longer about data or numbers or facts [or doctrine] anymore (but who understands that?), because he never mentioned them.
It’s instead now about fear and fight and flight [of not being “relevant”] and various other base instincts, you name them. And that’s not a coincidence. The reason he [Francis], and the EU [Marx & co.] as a whole, resort to this ‘message’ (and no, these guys’ spin teams are not stupid) is to a substantial extent that it’s simply all they have left.
Whatever they had to present in the way of numbers, data etc. [doctrine] has already been rejected by the Greek government [Church Magisterium] 100 times. Since their data have since the start been diametrically opposed to what Syriza [Tradition] stands for and was elected on, which they knew, that should be no surprise, and indeed never was for the Troika.
If you saw Juncker yesterday [Francis lately], and it doesn’t even matter whether he was inebriated or not (does he perhaps wake up drunk, like Yeltsin?), accusing Tsipras of lying -for which he offered no proof- while telling big fat obvious lies himself (“we never asked for pension cuts”) -for which ample proof to the contrary is available-, y’all should realize that a bit more scrutiny of the man is obviously warranted.
I’ve written this story a hundred different times before already: the EU [Moderist Rome] is an organization led by people with, let’s define this subtly and carefully, sociopathic traits (Antisocial Personality Disorder), simply because the EU [Moderist Rome] structure self-selects for such people. As do all other supra-national organizations [secular Modernist Rome included], and quite a few national ones too, but let’s stick with Brussels [Modernist Rome] for now.
That such people are selected is due in great part to the less than transparent democratic [rational] acts and procedures in Brussels. Which allow for ever larger numbers of the same ‘sort’ of people [think homo-lobby?] to accumulate. No coincidence there either.
Many of you will say that you can’t s ay that kind of thing, you can’t call Juncker [Francis] a sociopath. But the fact is, I can. Who can not say it are Tsipras and Varoufakis, not in public. But I wouldn’t even want to guess at the number of times they’ve done so in private. And it’s high time we lift the veil on this. We are being governed by sociopaths, and that’s by no means just a European [Vatican] thing.
And besides, in general it’s not something that we should refrain from talking about. The reason we do is, I bet you, is because we don’t know how to recognize the traits and characteristics. But in fact, that’s not hard. Just plucked this off the interwebs in 2 seconds flat:
Profile of the Sociopath
• Glibness and Superficial Charm. • Manipulative and Conning. • Never recognize rights of others, see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. … • Grandiose Sense of Self. … • Pathological Lying. … • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. … • Shallow Emotions. … • Incapacity for Love, Compassion • Need for Stimulation.
[YES TO ALL THE ABOVE]
Anyone want to tell me that does not describe Juncker [Francis]? Still, the big problem with sociopaths -and do note how I subtly steer away from the term psychopath- is that you can not have an effective negotiation with them. Because once you’ve reached a conclusion -which’ll be hard fought and take forever-, they’ll just renege on it and come back with additional conditions. And then claim you are the one who did that.
Check Juncker [Francis]. Check the 5 month history of Greece negotiations [post Synod] with the Troika. And note that that’s exactly what they accuse Syriza of. [Here we see a parallel with statements where Francis makes remarks against gender and with in a matter of days has public audience with unrepentant sexual deviant] They claim Tsipras suffers from the very disorder they do. That too is typical. It’s a pattern, an MO, it’s how these minds function.
The main one for me is the lack on empathy, compassion [pasty-faced Christians]. That got 1000s killed in Ukraine, and in the Mediterranean, and now in Greece [here the parallel is souls lost]. All deathly dramas Brussels could have prevented, and chose not to. In Brussels and Berlin, it’s more important that countries [clerics] toe the line than that their citizens actually survive [hell].
Europe [Catholicism] has moved, at a very rapid clip, from a union of 28 different sovereign states [doctrine based on the teaching of Our Lord], each with their own governments and political views and directions, to one where a top heavy bureaucratic structure, hand-puppeted on by a mere handful member states and systemic banks, dictate what each member state, both its politicians and its citizens, may do or not do. [Here the parallel is a Roman nomenklatura and German interests funding the Vatican] Or think. Electing a left wing government [Card. Burke at the last Synod], for instance, equals asking for trouble.
[And from here on, I will allow you dear reader to make the necessary corresponding comments…]
There is no democracy left in Europe, people have no direct say anymore, there’s just a two-pronged dictatorship: there’s Merkel and Hollande, who in the Greek crisis have proven themselves to be mere tools to vested interests, and I’m being extremely kind now, and there’s Juncker and Tusk and Dieselflower, who are really just inconsequential sociopathic wankers that could at any moment be replaced by other hammers and screwdrivers.
In that light, it can only be a fitting irony that it was Juncker in his speech yesterday who said:
“Playing off one democracy against 18 others is not an attitude which is fitting for the great Greek nation.”.
He could have easily followed up with:
Because that’s what we in Brussels have a monopoly on.”
The EU is a club led by people with mental disorders, that panders to special interests. It’s not a union of sovereign nations that hold meetings on how to find common ground. That common ground is now supposedly a given, and no matter what any nation thinks about that matters one bit anymore. Unless it’s Germany or France, and even then. The EU has superseded the nations that formed it. And that can never have been the idea of the people of these nations. As I started writing a few hours earlier today:
It won’t be a surprise anymore that I am not a fan of the European Union. That is to say, I like the idea but not the execution of it, and certainly not the clowns who execute it. However, what happened yesterday is something that even I couldn’t foresee. The Troika volunteered to self-immolate, though the three-headed beast is undoubtedly too full of hubris to understand what it did. Good.
Still, I’m looking at this, thinking: really guys? You really think deliberately sparking chaos in an EU member state on the eve of a democratic referendum is something that will help your case in the long term? Have you thought this through at all? I’m guessing the overriding notion is that threatening and bullying as a model has worked for Brussels so far; but I’m also guessing that the approach has its limits.
Like with many things, there may well be a gaping hole between what can be considered legally justified and what morally justified. But be that as it may, you can’t rule over 28 different sovereign nations with no morals whatsoever. That’s coming back to bite you in the face.
For the ECB to freeze ELA for Greek banks is the biggest blunder it has ever made, and arguably the biggest one it is capable of making in its present mandate. For one thing, it’s a purely political move, and the ECB has no place in politics, or politics inside the ECB.
That the Eurogroup added to the insult a refusal to grant Greece a one-week extension so preparations for the referendum could be executed in peace, tells us loud and clear what it thinks about democracy: it’s a mere afterthought.
Bullying sovereign nations gets old, fast. What you guys are at the moment doing to Greece, you won’t be able to repeat against Italy or Spain. They’ll have you for breakfast.
The EU, which is made up of 28 democratic and sovereign nations, is being run like some absolute kingdom, ostensibly led by a 24/7 drunk. How long do you think that can last?
The very minimum the ECB should have done this week is to issue an explicit guarantee for all Greek bank deposits up to and including the July 5th referendum. To make sure there would be no bank runs and line ups at ATMs leading up to the vote, which merely represents the purest form of democracy. That is hasn’t speaks volumes. And it can’t possibly have been a monetary deliberation; what happens now is far more costly for the bank, and for European taxpayers, than such a guarantee.
I love that the EU does this, and the Troika with it, because they ensure their own demise. What I don’t like is the people who will fall victim in the interim, starting with the ones here in Greece. If this is the best the EU can do on a human scale, it has no reason to exist. And everyone better get out while they can.
Europe can form a great union, peaceful and prosperous and happy. It has many many wise and smart people who can make that work. But those people are not in Brusssels, where the decisions are being taken. And there’s a reason for that.
In closing, a final thought for those who have gotten to this point. As per Proverb 16:18
“Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall.”
This must be the case with Brussels as with Modernist Rome.
It can’t be any other way.
And we can rest assured that the above is the case since we recite it at every Mass:
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Today is another busy day, so I have selected a very interesting article for your review. (see original here)
I have reproduced this piece in light of a statement that Justice Antonin Scalia made in the recent Obamacare case dissent in the King v. Burwell case where the SCOTUS majority decided that federal subsidies were available on state Obamacare exchanges, even though the text of the so-called Affordable Care Act said that such subsidies were only available on “State” exchanges. (see here) Here is the text
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” he wrote.
“Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
So what we are left with is an activist court that in just making stuff up. And if they can make stuff up regarding “State” exchange, then they can make stuff up about aberro-unions, a decision that came out the next day.
And if the US Supreme Court can make stuff up, why should this be an issue for Francis and the Synod Manipulators? After all, they have been making stuff up for 50 years now.
I will leave off here. Please read the below at your leisure.
The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.
As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.
For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”
We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”
In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.
Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.
Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.
These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.
For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.
Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.
In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.
As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.
Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.
Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.
Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?
It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.
This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.
Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.
And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.
It has been realy busy at work and at home, so excuse your humble blogger for not posting regularly over the last week.
Today is a short post about something that I have been thinking about for a long time. The issue is the future of our indefectible Faith. To be more precise, the issue is how the Catholic Faith will be organized the near future. For a long time, actually for most of my adult life, I recognized that the “spirit of Vatican II” has completely changed the lay of the land with respect to the function that Christianity, and here I mean Catholicism, will play in Western Civilization going forward. It is due to this situation on the ground, that I realized early the immense value that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (ora pro nobis) has provided to the Catholic Church and its future structures. And here, the Benedict Option, as per Rod Dreher is probably the most likely way forward and dovetails very nicely into what the SSPX has been able to achieve thus far. Therefore, I am republishing a post written by Fr. Longnecker for your review since I think it is a good starting point for this process. (see original here)
One further thought at this time. If we look a wider picture, what we are presently a witness to is a fight by the “leftist” establishment with natural law. The manner in which the “leftist” elites have been able to subvert the natural order is through money. Lots and lots of money. On the one hand, this “leftist” elite has been able to corrupt various individual who hold key decision making positions, such as Justice Anthony Kennedy. These individuals can force an artificial order onto a particular society. What they can’t do is make that artificial order sustainable. Proof of this last point can be observed in the situation in Greece. Here, natural law is reverting the “leftist” elite’s ideology back to a naturally sustainable state in the wider Euroland. To see this process in action, here is a link with a good explanation about how the “leftist” elite is losing its fight with MATH. It is a bit technichal, but bear with it. (see here)
So for now, please read through the below at your leisure. And remember, Our Lord promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Is It Time for the Benedict Option?
St. Benedict is depicted with a cross and a scroll stating ‘Vade Retro Satana’ (‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’), which is abbreviated on the St. Benedict Medal.
– public domain
The poet T.S. Eliot predicted that, after the disintegration of Western society, civilization would be conserved and restored by a new monastic movement. He was referring to the events at the end of the fifth century, when Benedict of Nursia abandoned the decaying Roman Empire and established small communities of men and women dedicated to prayer, work and study.
In Benedict’s day, the once-great Roman Empire had collapsed into chaos. Through economic disaster, famine, plague, moral decadence and political corruption, the society was enervated and vulnerable. Barbarians invaded from the north and east, sensing lucrative spoils to be had.
In the face of the moral and social disintegration, Benedict established core communities of intentional disciples, and the seed of his life and work eventually blossomed into the strength and glory of Christian Europe.
Eastern-Orthodox journalist Rod Dreher has been writing for some time about the collapse of Christianity in the West and has been predicting and calling for what he calls the “Benedict Option.” He envisions a grassroots movement that echoes the witness of St. Benedict. Dreher writes:
“In our time, the Benedict Option does not offer a formula (at least not yet), but it does call for a radical shift in perspective among Christians, one in which we see ourselves as living in the ruins (though very comfortable ones!) of Christian civilization and tasked with preserving the living faith through the coming Dark Ages.”
This radical shift in Catholicism has been spoken of by others. Most famously, Pope Benedict XVI predicted:
“From today’s crisis will emerge a Church that has lost a great deal. … It will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity. The reduction in the number of faithful will lead to it losing an important part of its social privileges. It will start off with small groups and movements and a minority that will make faith central to experience again. It will be a more spiritual Church and will not claim a political mandate flirting with the right one minute and the left the next. It will be poor and will become the Church of the destitute.”
Others have noticed the end of “casual Catholicism” and the necessary rise of “committed Catholicism.” Important books on the New Evangelization, like Sherry Weddell’s Forming Intentional Disciples, call for a new kind of mission for existing Catholics.
The Benedict Option requires a radical shift away from the easygoing, open-ended, cafeteria Catholicism prevalent in much of suburban America to an intentionally informed and aware Catholicism. All will be welcome, but they will be welcomed to join what will be more like an elite fighting force than a religiously themed country club.
If Dreher is right, then the Benedict Option will not be imposed from the hierarchy. Instead, it will emerge from below. Such a movement would be strongly traditional, while at the same time living out many of the principles of the Second Vatican Council.
A “Benedict Option” would undermine clericalism in a positive and creative way. There would be natural renewal of worship, religious education and service based on the needs of the local community rather than top-down “good ideas” by diocesan bureaucrats.
What might a “Benedict Option” parish look like? The pastor and people would decide priorities based on the immediate needs of the parish members. As hostility grows from those outside the Church, relationships of trust would be developed within the family and parish. If an aggressive secular agenda is promoted in public schools, the parish school and religious-education program will become a main priority. As classical education disappears, the parish school will become a repository for the ancient learning. As such, a “Benedict Option” parish would see itself as countering, rather than accommodating, the surrounding culture. Such a community would be distinctive and clear in its purposes and principles — even odd. Members might be distrusted by those outside the community — including other Catholics who have compromised with the prevailing culture.
Is the Benedict Option the way of the future? I believe it is already here. Even now, we are seeing a separation evolving in the Catholic Church in the United States. Large numbers of Catholics are already more American than Catholic. They see no problem with divorced and remarried couples coming to Communion, and they accept same-sex “marriage” and want the Church to “get with the times” over many other issues.
Parishes go with their pastor’s guidance along the path of accommodating and accepting the current cultural trends.
Meanwhile, other pastors lead congregations that are uncompromising and clear in their Catholicism. No longer loyal to geographical parishes, Catholics are voting with their feet, and “Benedict Option” parishes are emerging — not aware that they are part of a growing movement.
These parishes of intentional disciples are part of another trend identified by George Weigel in his book Evangelical Catholicism. He recognizes that such people and parishes are vibrant in their commitment to the fullness of the Catholic faith. They are made up of well catechized and committed Catholics who are alert to the signs of the times and ready to live out their faith in the midst of impending crisis. Weigel sees this development as a positive surge of faith and renewal in the Church.
And I agree.
Follow Father Longenecker’s blog, browse his books and be in touch at DwightLongenecker.com.
Below is a repost of a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio program. The subject is a responce by Cardinal Wuerl to a comment that Rush Limbaugh made on his show pertaining to the recent encyclical that was published by the Vatican. (see here)
For some reason the title of this encyclical has slipped my mind, but then again, it would appear that I am not the only one. (see here) But I digress…
But back to the story. What I found interesting in the below transcript is that it represents another observation of a theme that readers of this blog will find very familiar. This theme can be termed as the clash collision of OBJECTIVE REALITY as represented by Rush Limbaugh and VIRTUAL ( or ALTERNATIVE) REALITY as represented by Cardinal Wuerl. Now I understand that politicians need to create their own reality to sell to voters and ideologues need to create their own reality to espouse to their followers. However, and being congnizant of the fact that neo-modernists need to create their own reality to feed the small “c” catholics, it is still very sad to observe when a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church is caught out being downright dishonest.
And if this episode can be turned into a teachable moment, it is that the next papacy should not be a papacy of neither mercy nor justice nor even catholicity, but rather one of HONESTY.
Because it is HONESTY that is the most lacking in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council.
Cardinal Takes Your Host to the Woodshed on the Pope’s Encyclical
June 22, 2015
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Cardinal… I’m not even sure how to pronounce his name. I did not see the episode. We’ll hear the sound bite in just a moment.
Cardinal Wuerl. W-u-e-r-l. You know the Fox News people called us on Friday and asked to use a clip from this program from earlier in the week. I said, “Yeah, yeah. It’s not the best clip, by the way. I mean, I said a lot of things later in the week that added to that, made it even better.” They said, “No, no! this is exactly what we want!” Okay. So I knew they already had their segment planned and they wanted to use a clip from me on Tuesday.
And since it was Fox, I granted them permission to do so. It was the sound bite where I — in analyzing the papal encyclical — suggested that what it essentially was is a commandment to vote for the Democrat Party. So Chris Wallace played that sound bite for Cardinal Wuerl and asked him to reply to it. We have that coming up. Also the… Let’s see, what else? Oh, I have learned, ladies and gentlemen, something I did not know.
The pope actually has a climate advisor working on his staff and he is a genuine lunatic. He’s a German. What did I do with it? I just printed it out, here. I’ll have to find it somewhere in one of these stacks here. But I really… When you look at some of the language that’s being used in the papal encyclical on climate change, it really does come from the leftist political world, all of the phrases that the pope uses.
I’m really beginning to wonder if this whole thing wasn’t put together by a committee that may have, essentially, just hijacked the Vatican by this. I mean, that’s what the left does. They move in, they corrupt things. Just have to see.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Fox News Sunday yesterday, this is what I talked about in the previous half hour. They called, they wanted to use an excerpt from this program. They didn’t tell me why. I mean, they didn’t tell me who their guest was gonna be, said it didn’t matter. It’s Chris Wallace, it’s Fox News Sunday, I’ve had nothing but pleasant experiences with them, I trust them, so I said go ahead, use it. Here’s the first bite.
WALLACE: While the pope has bigger things on his mind than American politics, some American conservatives say he is choosing sides. Cardinal, forgive me, because this is gonna get a little salty.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Essentially what this papal encyclical is suggesting is that every Catholic should vote the Democrat Party. How in the hell else do you interpret it when the pope comes out and sounds like Algore on global warming and climate change?
RUSH: Okay, so now the cardinal, whose name is Cardinal Wuerl, is asked to respond. Chris Wallace says, “I never thought I’d ask you this, how do you respond to Rush Limbaugh?”
WUERL: (whispering) Well, this is one of the great — one of the great blessings of America, isn’t it? We’re all allowed to speak our mind. Even if we don’t have all the facts, even if we don’t have a clear view of what the other person is saying, we’re all allowed to speak our mind, and that’s what he’s doing. Ah, I think what the pope is doing is something very, very different from that. He’s saying, “Why don’t we all discuss this? Why don’t we all come to the table, and before we start eliminating other people from the discussion — before denouncing them or even ridiculing them — why don’t we listen to them and see what they’re saying and see where we really ought to be going as a human family?”
RUSH: Now, I do not know Cardinal Wuerl. I don’t know his diocese, it’s not identified, I didn’t bother looking it up. The Cardinal is attempting to do two things here. He’s attempting to be polite and also to belittle me while being polite. Because I think the Cardinal — and he may not be aware, but many in the Catholic Church are profoundly aware of how strongly they are supported on this program and by me each and every time they come under cultural attack dating back to the early nineties and ACT UP storming into St. Patrick’s cathedral and throwing condoms and so forth during Cardinal O’Connor’s mass.
I was a guest of Cardinal O’Connor’s at his home on several occasions. My support for the Catholic Church during any number of things is well documented. The Cardinal here of course has to stand up for the pope. But here’s the problem with this. That’s not what the pope said. Now, I’m gonna say this with all due respect, and I’m gonna be as gracious as I possibly can to Cardinal Wuerl. But the pope, in his encyclical, does not say, “Why don’t we all discuss this? Why don’t we all come to the table and before we start eliminating other people from the discussion or denouncing them or ridiculing them, why don’t we listen to them and see what they’re saying.”
That’s not what the encyclical says. And, in fact, it’s not what happened. At the same time Cardinal Wuerl was on Fox News Sunday claiming that while I was practicing my God-given right to say what I think, that it’s wonderful even when people don’t know what they’re talking about, was this story. It had already been published the day before in the Washington Post:”
How Climate-Change Doubters Lost a Papal Fight — Pope Francis was about to take a major step backing the science behind human–driven global warming, and Philippe de Larminat was determined to change his mind. A French doubter who authored a book arguing that solar activity — not greenhouse gases — was driving global warming, de Larminat sought a spot at a climate summit in April sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences.”
In other words, the pope convened a meeting. Somebody who does not believe in manmade climate change because of greenhouse gases wanted to attend. He was denied his request. The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences was not interested in his point of view. “Nobel laureates would be there. So would UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, US economist Jeffrey Sachs and others calling for dramatic steps to curb carbon emissions.” There wasn’t one doubter.
“There wasn’t one person there who disagreed with the consenus of the worldwide left on manmade climate change due to fossil fuel creation of greenhouse gases. But it gets better than that. “After securing a high-level meeting at the Vatican, he was told that, space permitting, he could join. He bought a plane ticket from Paris to Rome.” This is the Frenchman. “But five days before the April 28 summit [on global warming], de Larminat said, he received an e-mail saying there was no space left.
“It came after other scientists — as well as the powerful Vatican bureaucrat in charge of the academy — insisted he had no business being there. ‘They did not want to hear an off note,’ de Larminat said.” They didn’t want to hear anybody that disagreed. Now, the papal encyclical does not “suggest that we, as a human community, sit down and discuss this.” The papal encyclical does not “welcome anybody and everybody” to the so-called table to discuss this. In fact, people who disagree or have an opposing point of view were uninvited, after having purchased plane tickets, were told not to show up.
You were only permitted to attend the Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting on man-made global warming in advance of the papal be encyclical if you read with what the pope was going to say. Now, listen again to Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. This is yesterday on Fox News Sunday (again, just to rehash) people that disagreed with this consensus of man-made global warming stemming) from fossil fuel fuels and carbon dioxide poisoning were not permitted.
This Frenchman wanted to go, had his plane ticket purchased and was all set to go and was uninvited, as was everybody else who had an opposing view. Yet Cardinal Wuerl said this yesterday…
WUERL: (whispering) Well, this is one of the great — one of the great blessings of America, isn’t it? We’re all allowed to speak our mind. Even if we don’t have all the facts, even if we don’t have a clear view of what the other person is saying, we’re all allowed to speak our mind, and that’s what he’s doing. Ah, I think what the pope is doing is something very, very different from that. He’s saying, “Why don’t we all discuss this? Why don’t we all come to the table, and before we start eliminating other people from the discussion — before denouncing them or even ridiculing them — why don’t we listen to them and see what they’re saying and see where we really ought to be going as a human family?”
RUSH: You know, there’s further irony: That’s all I was doing. I was simply expressing my opinion about what the papal encyclical is, and it could have been written by anybody in the upper levels of the Democrat Party or the American environmental movement. So here’s Cardinal Wuerl saying, “No, no! The pope said we all need to sit down and talk about it.” Well, that’s not what happened! They did not permit people that didn’t agree with the pope’s consensus on this.
BREAKTRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I finally found it. The pope’s chief scientific advisor… This according to the UK Independent, which has, by the way, a scathing story. The UK Independent today with a scathing story on two things that are linked, that are creating massive worldwide problems. One of them is the European Union, just the very idea that it was tried and what a disaster it is and how that’s affecting Greece. The other problem that this man identifies — it’s a writer at the UK Independent — is the “fantasy world” the pope is living in.
His words, not mine. But it’s in that story that the pope’s science advisor is identified. I’m just gonna read you the passage from the UK Independent. “How forlorn in light of all this looks that would-be well-meaning 300-page document in which the Pope, under the spell of his chief scientific adviser, a fanatical German climate activist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, calls for an end to use of the very fossil fuels which keep the Vatican’s own lights on. In asking us to pray for that global climate treaty, Pope Francis solemnly trots out all those familiar plaints about ‘melting polar ice caps,'” which are not melting, “‘rising sea levels,'” which are not rising, “unprecedented droughts, ‘extreme weather events’ and the rest of that greenie litany which has no basis in honest science whatever.”
A “fanatical German climate activist.”
Not even a scientist! [...]
Yep, not even a scientist.
It used to be said that “honesty is the best policy”.
