Saturday, December 3, 2016

James Larson examines the Dubia

"What has been missed in almost all of the critiques of Amoris Laetitia is that it is indeed constituted as a direct attack on the concept of Charity and Sanctifying Grace."

Paul confronts Peter by Rubens

[Editor: Another view of the Dubia Incident, from our friend, Mr James Larson.]

What Really Is At Stake?
The Letter of Four Cardinals to Pope Francis Concerning Amoris Laetitia
by James Larson

On November 14, 2016, four Cardinals (Walter Branmuller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffara, and Joachim Meisner) released a letter which they sent to Pope Francis on September 19, along with five “Dubia” (“doubts” or “questions”) in reference to the teaching of the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and requesting that these dubia be answered and clarified by the Pope himself.
The letter went unanswered, and thus these Cardinals decided to publish both the letter and Dubia, along with a Foreword, and also an Explanatory Note which further elaborated on the five dubia, to the general public. This composite of documents they titled Seeking Clarity. A Plea to Untie the Knots in “Amoris Laetitia”.
The four Cardinals introduce their analysis and explanation of the five dubiawith the following words:
“Let’s get to what is concretely at stake”.
It is my contention that, while the dubia and the analysis presented by the four Cardinals are indeed perceptive and true as far as they go, they do not at all reach to the true depths of “what is concretely at stake”.
Let us first look at these five dubia:
The first dubium deals directly with the issue of those married persons who have obtained a civil divorce and are now living in sin with a second partner. It asks “whether, following the affirmations of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person ‘more uxorio’ (in a marital way) without fulfilling the condition provided for by ‘Familiaris Consortio’, n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by ‘Reconciliatio et Paenitentia’ n. 34 and ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ n. 29. Can the expression ‘in certain cases’ found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live ‘more uxorio’?
Dubia two, three, four, and five, on the other hand “are about fundamental issues regarding the moral life”
The second asks whether, after the teaching of Amoris Laetitia, there are still “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?”
The third asks whether, after Amoris Laetitia, it is still true “that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery, finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin?”
The fourth asks whether, after Amoris Laetitia, the Church still needs to regard as valid the teaching “according to which ‘circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
And the fifth dubium asks whether, after Amoris Laetitia, the Church’s teaching still “excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?”
All of these questions are being asked, of course, simply because Amoris Laetitia does indeed appear to contradict the perennial teachings of the Church (and of Holy Scripture) in regard to these issues. As the Explanatory Note of the four Cardinals puts it (very mildly, I think), “the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life”.
But it is much more than a “way of life” that is at stake here. It is, rather, the entire structure of our understanding of Christian Revelation – of Who God is, and of who man is – which is being denied by Amoris Laetitia. And if this be true, then the entire brunt of the Cardinals’ letter to the Pope, which consists of requests for clarification in regard to these dubia, noble and courageous as it certainly is, is an exercise in futility. The fact is that, in the minds and hearts of such men as Jorge Bergoglio and Joseph Ratzinger, the entire philosophical and theological structure of the faith has necessarily undergone a radical alteration which necessitates this contrasting approach to the Christian way of life. In other words, there can be no clarification because Pope Francis fully believes he must do what he is doing. From his perspective, the dubia of these four Cardinals is equivalent to the death cries of theological dinosaurs destined for evolutionary extinction. They therefore must be ignored.

Read the whole article here.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Sycophants on Parade

Vincent Nichols in clerical garb

Could someone please put a gun in his hand?
Beady-eyed Kevin Farrell
Donald Wuerl sporting his brand new dentures
Playground bully or prelate.  You pick.
Pinto puts a whammy on four bad guys.....and the Church
Is that you, Holy Spirit?

This is almost comical.  The Catholic Church has become a parody of a classic giant corporation where the head of the company surrounds himself with fawning yes-men and sends to janitor duty those who question some of his decisions.

I have heard scoffing from some who refuse to believe such a thing. But isn't this exactly where the Church is now?

Some would say the Church has always been that way, that those surrounding the Pope would be no more than toadies doing the bidding of the Big Man.  Some Orthodox believe that, I know. But was it true?

There have always been sycophants, courtiers, cliques, flatterers buzzing around men in high places. Even in the Church.  Great Popes dreaded these types, for they knew that blind slavishness was a very bad idea and they would fight it whenever it reared its ugly head.  The effect of these hangers-on was muted when a great Pope was in charge.  These saintly pontiffs would keep such men in check and make efforts to see that their influence was minimal.  For them it was an ordeal but a job that had to be done.  Great monarchs also had these problems, the greatest of them doing yeoman work to keep the lap dogs under control.

But in 2016 AD we have a somewhat new problem.  Old but new.  Now we have a Pope who is - how shall I say it? - a bit bizarre.  A living, breathing teenager in an 80 year old body.  A martinet who decries discipline in the Church but who is in fact the very worst kind of disciplinarian, the kind that refuses to listen to counsel or reconsider his views.  An egotist who, like John Paul II, craves the limelight, the cheering crowds and the approval of the mass media.  A child who has just been given the biggest toy train in the world and is having  a grand time playing with it.

And as of this moment a man who has not yet realized his awesome responsibility: to transmit the Faith whole and entire to those under his care.  Those under his care include every human being upon earth.  One can see in his face a disinterest in what he has inherited.  My first clue that there was something askew in his mind was that incident early in his papacy when he was walking down a hallway with his entourage and spotted a young altar boy with his hands together as if in prayer.   In a show of ignorant heartlessness he visibly yanked the boy's hands apart.

That incident spoke volumes about what would be coming.

And coming it has.  I will not bore my well-read readers by recounting the scandals this man has caused.  We are all getting sick and tired of them.  What I will do is express my astonishment at the sorry collection of mediocrities, sycophants, dullards, idiots and poofs who have all circled their wagons around this awful Pope.

What a Rogue's Gallery of shameless episcopal reptiles, whose collective intelligence hardly reaches the level of The Three Stooges.  If they had any intelligence, let alone self-respect, they might come to the realization that the Pope is uttering dangerous nonsense on many subjects (not all, of course, but many) and would take him aside and try to show him the realities.  But most of his lackeys are, frankly, worse than him when it comes to the salvation of souls which is the chief effort of the one, true Church.

Yes, these men need to be insulted even though some of them are too obtuse even to understand they are being insulted.  We don't insult the cloth they wear; we insult the men who disgrace that cloth.  It is because I respect the cloth that I call out those who bring bring shame upon it. This approach is, I know, not encouraged by many good people in the Church.  For these good people respect, understandably, should be the order of the day no matter how cretinous some of them are. But as good as that approach is, which I do not for a moment condemn, how respectful can one be to some of these wreckers of the Church?  Is not a bit of tar and feathers, at least the keyboard kind (for now), appropriate in dealing with some Churchmen who are deliberately and with malice aforethought trying to deform the Church into something worse than Protestantism or Judaism, a Protestantism that tinkers with dogma or a Judaism that rejects our Lord outright?  Is that not in fact what some of these characters are engaging in?  And worse. Some of these prelates are openly supporting sodomy.  Sodomy.  Has the import of that really sunk in to our skulls? Moreover, some of them are condoning adultery.  Where are we?  Are we in The Twilight Zone?

I am very willing to entertain arguments about the rightness or wrongness this approach if anyone cares to comment.  I like to keep my head by encouraging commenters who disagree with some of the ravings on this internet stop.  One learns by an exchange of ideas.

This blog is called The Eye Witness not only in honor of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton but as an actual eye witness of crucial events.  An eye witness watches oily traitors like Kasper or truckling incompetents like Cupich or buffoons like Dolan paying court to a dictator and reports on them.  It is truly a rotten job to have to do.  We take no pleasure in writing about these monstrous people. And while other internet sites and blogs do it better than here this writer would feel somehow unclean by not openly stating that the Church is crumbling before our very eyes.

If there is any good at all in the snivelling idiocies coming from the mouths of these men it is a reminder that - especially to this writer whose allotted time on earth is coming to an end soon - it is time for reflection on why it is that our sins have brought this upon our heads.  War is a punishment for sin so it has been said.  And so is the infliction of bad clerics.

And Advent, among other things, is a good time to reflect.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Again, the "babies being stabbed in their incubators" bull is being trotted out again

Every time the usual forces of chaos want to gin up propaganda, be it against the Kaiser, Saddam Hussein or now Basher Assad, we have to endure another round of the "babies being killed by those evil bad guys".  Tears and videos abound.  [Funny that those behind all these supposed atrocities against children see nothing wrong with abortion.]

So here we go again:

Syria is making gains in eliminating the head-chopping US/Israel proxies in their land and so, in panic, they have to trot out stuff like this.   And so many will fall for this....again.

From Consortium News:

"Late in the day, on Nov. 15, one week after the U.S. elections, the lame-duck Congress convened in special session with normal rules suspended so the House could pass House Resolution 5732, the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act” calling for intensifying the already harsh sanctions on Syria, assessing the imposition of a “no fly zone” inside Syria (to prevent the Syrian government from flying) and escalating efforts to press criminal charges against Syrian officials.

HR5732 claims to promote a negotiated settlement in Syria but, as analyzed by Friends Committee for National Legislation, it imposes preconditions which would actually make a peace agreement more difficult.

The West Front of the U.S. Capitol
The West Front of the U.S. Capitol
There was 40 minutes of “debate” with six representatives (Ed Royce, R-California; Eliot Engel, D-New York; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida; Dan Kildee, D-Michigan; Chris Smith, R-New Jersey; and Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida) all speaking in favor of the resolution. There were few other representatives present, but the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the resolution was passed “unanimously” without mentioning these special conditions.
According to Wikipedia, “Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives … such as naming Post Offices…” In this case, however, the resolution could lead to a wider war in the Middle East and potentially World War III with nuclear-armed Russia.

Most strikingly, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for the United States to impose a “no fly zone” inside Syria, a sovereign nation, an act of war that also would violate international law as an act of aggression. It also could put the U.S. military in the position of shooting down Russian aircraft.

To call this proposal “non-controversial” is absurd, although it may say a great deal about the “group think” of the U.S. Congress that an act of war would be so casually considered. Clearly, this resolution should have been debated under normal rules with a reasonable amount of Congressional presence and debate.

The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without meaningful debate was articulated by the bill’s sponsor, Democrat Eliot Engel: “We cannot delay action on Syria any further. … If we don’t get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one.”

The current urgency may be related to the election results since President-elect Donald Trump has spoken out against “regime change” foreign policy. As much as neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist allies are critical of President Obama for not doing more in Syria, these Congressional hawks are even more concerned about the prospect of a President who might move toward peace and away from war."

Read the whole article.                              

Monday, November 28, 2016

"Western laws now clash with the moral nature of man"

An interview with Patriarch Kirill.


Wouldn't be nice to hear a Pope of Rome talk like this once in awhile?

Wake me when this is over

His Immense Eminence, Cardinal Lou Costello, is really a shining star in the Church firmament.

The Church's Clown Prince is again making a complete ass out of himself and demeaning the honor of the Church...again.

I know I am living through an awful recurring nightmare.  If I am wrong, please God, escort him out the door and out of our lives.

[h/t Dymphna's Road]

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Beginning of our salvation

What pleases me about this recording is that the voices begin at the far distance and slowly grow in volume, signifying the coming of Christ, closer and closer.  It is the song of hope.  I've mentioned this recording before on the blog but I can never tire of recommending it.

This music portends the beginning of our salvation.  It is a fine way to reflect upon Advent.


Thursday, November 24, 2016


The opening sequence of David Lean's 1948 film Oliver Twist is so striking, so evocative of the time and the place and so gripping that the viewer, even a casual one, cannot look away for the rest of the picture.

We see deep storm clouds gathering in a bleak sky, the silent but growing rumbling of thunder is heard on the soundtrack.  Dead tree branches twist in the rising wind.  Over to the top of a high hill emerges the tiny figure of a woman walking, struggling with each step.  Closer views reveal her to be a young woman who, we soon discover, is now in labor, lost on the wild moors.  Director Lean shows us a close shot of her in pain then cuts to a shot of a thorny branch stretching in the growing wind, which makes the audience experience her pains.  Flashes of lightning accentuate her suffering.  She stumbles forward, hopeless, every step a struggle, her mind filled with anxiety not knowing how she and her unborn child can possibly survive this ordeal.

Finally she glimpses a light coming from the window of a building off in the distance.  In agony she finds the strength to make it there.  It is the parish workhouse.  She rings the bell pull as the rain breaks and drenches her.  At last she is let in.  In the following scenes we see she has given birth to a boy and after kissing her newborn dies in bed.

That description does not do justice to the cinematic power of the combined abilities of Lean, his editor, his cameraman and his designer.  It must not be written about; it must be seen.

Oliver Twist is the finest screen version of this Dickens story and is, perhaps, Lean's greatest film. After that brilliant opening sequence we are soon plunged into the darker world of Victorian poverty as we witness the growth and adventures of a young child born out of wedlock, thrust into the tender mercies of the masters of the workhouse, escape and finding himself lost in London, falling into the clutches of the sinister Fagin and his band of child thieves and finally, after a life of fear, hunger and intrigue, is finally taken in by a family who loves him.

Art Director John Bryan's sketch for the opening sequence.

British films reached their summit in the 1940s and with a very few exceptions never again reached such heights of art and craftsmanship so evident in films like Oliver Twist.  Lean went on in future years to make three-hour-long epics but never again equalled his earlier achievements, especially in his two Dickens adaptations (the other one being the superb Great Expectations of 1946).  What makes this film so memorable is its exact depiction of life among the lower classes in England at that time.  Dickens himself was appalled at what he saw around him when he wrote his novels and in those writings he drew the world's attention to the pitiful state of the poor and children - especially children who were forced for one reason or another to do hard, brutal labor. This Lean depicts with simple clarity, with the exquisite black and white photography the perfect medium for expressing it. Color film (readily available in films from the late 1920s) would not have worked at all. It would not have had the same dramatic effect; it had to be in black and white, and it had to be photographed by cameramen who understood black and white, as most cinematographers did in those great days. [Today's cameramen, oblivious to the possibilities of monochrome photography, usually botch the job terribly on those rare occasions when black and white is used.  Put more prosaically, they don't know what they're doing.]

The other thing the British film industry had going for itself in those days was a rich supply of the finest acting talent available anywhere, before or since.  Modern audiences accustomed to the mugging and miserable acting so common (and so accepted) today will be quite shocked at the rightness, the quality of the performances in this film.  There are far too many perfect performances to discuss in detail here so let us focus on the ones that occupy the most screen time.

As the notorious Fagin, leader of the band of child thieves, we have Alec Guiness in a performance so faultless that one hardly believes one's eyes.  When Guiness went to Lean and asked him for the part Lean scoffed at the idea.  He stopped scoffing when Guiness returned to present himself to him in full makeup.

His Fagin is a real living and breathing person.  It is the actor's art to make an audience forget they are watching acting and Guiness accomplishes it.  He is believable.  He brings out the villainy of Fagin yet manages to make us at times sympathetic with such a creature.  This is a difficult task for any actor even one as skillful as Guiness.  Like others in the cast Guiness imprints upon your memory a vivid character that will stay in the mind.  You won't forget him.

[Whenever discussing Guiness as Fagin one must, alas, trudge through the fetid swamp of name-calling and manufactured outrage.  His performance was denounced as "anti-semirtism" and an ignorant, vicious campaign was raised up against the film due to it.  Dickens wrote Fagin as a villainous Jew and Guiness played the part as written.  Eventually this whole denunciation was seen as the nonsense it was and the movie played as filmed all over the world, except in America.  The hoopla in America was so over-the-top that a fearful distributor sat on the film for two years and only released it after twelve minutes were cut from it, twelve crucial minutes, simply because of the unjust charge laid against Guiness and the film.  Fortunately the recent dvd release of the film restored all the cuts.]

There is no gainsaying the rightness of Guiness in this role as there is no gainsaying the rightness of everyone else in the picture.  Robert Newton is the villain Bill Sykes.  It is his special brand of bulging hatred that makes Newton's role so compelling.  Nasty, brutish, cunning, all these come out with great force in Newton's delineation of the character.  The scene of Sykes' murder of the prostitute Nancy is a powerful one.  I will not spoil it by describing it in detail but will say that it does not sink to the level of sadism so common in today's movies, ones made by sensationalists and incompetents like Scorcese or that overblown amateur Quentin Tarantino.  It is all the more powerful for avoiding the splattered blood of which today's directors are so fond. But it is powerful.

Newton as Bill Sykes
Can such a dark, powerful film be considered entertainment?  Yes.  But it is not time-wasting entertainment.  It will leave viewers profoundly affected by its story and will be genuinely unforgettable to those who experience it. It will stay on the mind and be the catalyst for fascinating discussions.  Some may, happily, turn to the book. Some will reflect on its theme.  Most will find it, I believe, a rewarding experience.

Why is this film so remarkable?  Because it was made by artists and craftsmen, artists and craftsmen whom we should name:  the sets (so crucial to the picture) were the work of designers John Bryan and Wilfred Shingleton, it's camera work and lighting by Guy Green who was fortunate to have such superb sets to photograph, its editor Jack Harris who knew a thing or two about putting films together, its score by Sir Arnold Bax so well suited to the visuals.  The sets which one can never tire of praising were built in what is called "forced perspective" so that one is actually drawn into them. They are complemented by the shooting of them with low camera angles in order to emphasize this perspective, this vastness.  It is what gives the movie its striking look.

This is art and artifice of the choicest kind, the kind that has all but vanished  from the screen.  If you want to see how movies were once made by men with skill and imagination and originality, you could do no better than to see this one.  It is a pity that there are no theatrical showings (at least in this country) of the film on a big screen which would give it its best effectiveness.  Second best, of course, is the dvd.  If you do plan to view it on dvd I suggest finding a quiet evening, watching it on the largest tv screen available and with the telephone off the hook.  Watching this film, according to film critic Leslie Halliwell, is like reading the book in a particularly fine binding.

Lean and his writers have somewhat simplified the story but without losing any of its power. Charles Dickens would I am sure be proud.

I bring up this wonderful film as an antidote to the cinematic Dark Ages now upon us, an age which is incapable of making such a fine thing as this.  It cannot be recommended highly enough both as entertainment and as an experience worth having.  Give it a look.

John Howard Davies as Oliver Twist

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The Dance of the Modernists continues...

When Pope Paul VI of tragic memory was preparing to inflict upon the Church his Novus Ordo Missae permanently in 1968 he and his advisers made a very smart move.  To tamp down or eliminate the firestorm of protest that they knew would come by the illegal suppression of the Ancient Rite they created as it were a preemptive strike to gain worldwide sympathy for them, thus blunting the reaction against the suppression of  a Rite organically developed from the time of Christ.

That preemptive strike was the issuance of Humanae Vitae.  In issuing this encyclical worldwide respect and admiration for the Holy See jumped to the high heights virtually guaranteeing that any criticism of future papal actions would be minimal.  Cynically, they never intended to enforce the encyclical as was immediately evident when prominent Churchmen and priests publicly decried it and subsequently ignored it, confident in the knowledge that Rome would never take them to task. But the impression made upon Catholic minds was the important thing, and Pope Paul was regarded thenceforth as a hero - even while he, without fanfare, connived to bring about the most egregious abuse of episcopal power in all Church history, namely: the "abolishing" of the holiest thing on earth, the Mass of all time.

This two-step "dance" has been a Vatican favorite for five decades now and almost every time it has worked like a charm.  John Paul II was a great practitioner of this subterfuge.  First the faithful are lulled by a benevolent, sensible papal speech, encyclical or action and then promptly knifed in the back by the drivers of the real agenda.  Thus, following some wonderful words from Rome we would get Assisi, or craven apologies to Christ's enemies for the "evils" the Catholic Church has inflicted, or the installation of terrible men to high positions.  Every Pope since Paul VI has been doing this, if we want to honestly admit it.

This strategy is now being trotted out again - and then some - by the current regime.  After a number of benevolent gestures toward the Society of St Pius X, the Pope has now minimized the atrocious crime of abortion, downplaying its seriousness not only in clumsy papal interviews but by making it "easier" to be forgiven for this crime.  In what many call an act of mercy, the Pope has granted all priests the faculty of forgiving this mortal sin rather than the extremely solemn, dreadful meeting with a Bishop.  The fact that the forgiveness of this abominable act was left to the hierarchy underlined and emphasized its awful seriousness.  Now one can go to Confession - or what passes for Confession these days - and chat up the priest about not helping out the wife enough with family chores or losing one's impatience over the misdemeanors of the kids.  Imagine Mom in the Confessional (sorry, "reconciliation room"!) reciting a few minor offenses and then saying, "Oh by the way, I also had an abortion."   Your average priest today, sadly, will slough it off as just another offense, maybe adding a few not-too-stern words, and then giving her the Three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys penance.  Yes, of course she will receive absolution (provided the priest does his job) but isn't the gravity of the offense sort of minimized by this approach?

Not so, according to Msgr Fisichella who explains in this article from Vatican Insider.

The Pope’s decision to make the ability of priests to absolve the “grave sin” of abortion permanent, means Canon Law is to be updated too. Francis had granted priests this power as an exception during the Jubilee Year. The man in charge of co-ordinating the Holy Year of Mercy, Mgr. Rino Fisichella, explained this in his presentation of the pastoral letter “Misericordia et Misera”, with which Francis concluded the Jubilee that ran from 8 December 2015 to 20 November 2016. 

 “Canon Law currently stipulates that absolution for the sin of abortion is a faculty that lies with the bishop of the diocese concerned and in some instances, the bishop may delegate some or all priests in his diocese to absolve this sin,” explained the President of the Pontifical Council for New Evangelisation. “During the Jubilee, Pope Francis had granted all priests the power to absolve this sin, as a concrete sign that God’s mercy is boundless. Therefore, even people who commit this sin – which the Pope reiterates, is extremely grave – will have no trouble obtaining God’s forgiveness if they are repentant. Canon Law is a body of laws and whenever the Pope introduces a measure that alters the dictates of the law, the article that specific measure concerns, necessarily needs to be changed”. More specifically, Fisichella explained, responding to journalists questions, “a latae sententiae excommunication is revoked”. The provision, Fisichella added, does not only apply to women but also to “doctors, nurses and those involved in carrying out the abortion”, as long as they repent: “The sin applies to everyone, so forgiveness of this sin also applies to everyone practically involved.” 

 But isn’t the Pope concerned about the criticisms? “I don’t see why granting the faculty of absolution for a sin like this to priests, who are ministers of reconciliation and forgiveness, should give cause for any concern,”

Well, it concerns many of us, Monsignor.

It is gratifying to hear from Msgr Fisichella that the Pope considers abortion a "grave sin".  I wonder, though, if he has considered that making it much easier to be absolved from it (similar to his desire to see marriages dissolved also much easier) he hasn't trivialized it somewhat.  I don't know.  I have long given up trying to decipher what is in Pope Francis' mind.

Thanks to the poor job of catechizing the Church has been doing since the late 19th century too many Catholics really have no idea of the nature of sinfulness, and this ignorance plays well with the program of the revolutionaries.  The notion of sin for many has become a dead letter not only to the people in the pew but far too many priests.  And Bishops, too.  Moreover, when was the last time you heard someone in the Vatican use the words "mortal sin"?   We have become essentially protestantized: "yeah, I guess sin does exist, but we're pretty much forgiven so I'm not going to lose a whole lot of sleep over it".  Ergo, Confession is a minority taste in today's merciful Church where in some parishes there is not even a regular time set aside for the Sacrament of Penance.

The Pope shows kindness of a sort to the SSPX and then drops this bomb.  In his own mind he may sincerely believe he has done well.  But we must never forget that Bergoglio, too, is one of the Great Uncatechized.

There is nothing new under the sun especially in a Rome deeply infected with Modernism.  Prudence therefore demands that the next time a kindly papal gesture is offered to long-suffering Catholics we should hang on for dear life, for the stiletto cannot be far  behind.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Conservatives and the Homosexual Agenda

We would like to recommend - but not for the fainthearted - the following article over at Chronicles by Mr Jack Trotter.  Before we go on we must warn the reader that sections of this article are repulsive in the extreme, so be warned of that.

If you can get through it you will find an eye-opening account of how this particular sex perversion has found acceptance in our country.  Some conservatives will not like the answer.  But when it is read dispassionately and with an awareness of what has been going on around us for a very, very long time we believe the reader will find it to be a convincing answer to the question, "Why has this horror descended upon us so suddenly?"

The article does not get into specific religious reasons for this acceptance of aberration, but regular readers here will see clearly that the phenomenon that Mr Trotter describes is very much at the heart of the current homosexual problem afflicting the Catholic Church.  If we read Mr Trotter's article and then read how Dr E Michael Jones described the Great Indiana Sellout recently we can see that a common theme runs through both pieces [see Jones' "Hoosier Hysteria" in the May 2015 issue of Culture Wars].  It is the connivance of Big Business (among others, obviously) that is at the heart of the promotion of this unnatural vice.  That theme tells us much.  Those who uncritically support every aspect of Capitalism may be disturbed by Mr Totter's shocking article. And those Bishops who hide behind the meaningless term "sexual orientation" may also be in for a shock.

For example, Jones re the Indiana Bishop's lacklustre response to the Indiana fiasco:

If by “sexual orientation”, the bishops are referring to a tendency or a temptation, the term is completely irrelevant to the debate because the law cannot adjudicate states of mind. If, however, by sexual orientation they mean homosexual behavior—the only meaning that makes sense in this debate—then the bishops had no choice but to condemn sodomy as immoral and proclaim discrimination against those who practice that unspeakable vice as justified. Instead of doing that, the Catholic bishops, who supported the RFRA during the run-up to its passage as law in Indiana, evaded the real issue by their equivocal use of the term “sexual orientation,” which allows Catholic bishops to speak out of both sides of their mouths whenever the gender ideologues provoke a church-state crisis.

We as a nation have been the victims of yet another "color revolution", with the colors of the rainbow doing the dubious honors.  That Revolution has engulfed nearly everything even, to be sure, numerous Catholics, clerical and lay.

The Cardinal Dolan Affair from last December is the prefect example of what happens when, as Jones puts it, Bishops speak out of both sides of their mouths.

The Trotter article is here: