HAMISH FRASER SAW THE DANGERS OF 'INTEGRAL HUMANISM'

I am once again indebted to Anthony Fraser of Scotland, whose publication APROPOS is essential reading for those wanting to understand what is going on in Church and State (and can be subscribed to here), for allowing me to place here an article written by his esteemed father, Hamish Fraser.

Anthony's publication from time to time reprints articles from his father's brilliant APPROACHES publication which ceased publication after Hamish's untimely death in 1986.  Anthony has however taken up the cudgels since then and his superb APROPOS is a publication I, for one, cannot do without.

Here is Hamish Fraser's article Integral Humanism which his son re-published recently in APROPOS.




(The following article by Hamish Fraser appeared in Approaches 47-48 in
February 1976. Unfortunately, it was prescient in seeing the rise of a
Zapatero type regime in Spain.)


‘Integral Humanism’ and Education


'If I was the Devil', stated Alban Stolzin 1845, ‘and the people chose me
as their Member of Parliament I would make one motion, one only, that
would procure the greatest possible number of clients for Hell - I would
propose the complete separation of school and Church’.


The most insidious influence of 'integral humanism' is to be seen in
the demoralising effect it has on Catholic nations, particularly
through its impact on Catholic education.

Once a people no longer believes in the justice of its cause, its cause
is doomed. And once Catholic education begins to inculcate the
idea that Christ’s empire does NOT include Princes, Presidents and
Prime Ministers, that even in Catholic countries governments are
under no obligation to insist on respect for the social rights of
Christ the King, and that legislation need not conform to Catholic
social principles, Catholic universities, colleges and schools become
subversive of both Church and State.


Hotbeds of Subversion


Under these circumstances, instead of rearing valiant warriors on
behalf of the social kingship of Jesus Christ, Catholic universities,
colleges and schools become hotbeds of 'social modernism' by
persuading the sons and daughters of those still solidly Catholic in
faith and morals that it is perfectly licit and may be meritoriously
'broadminded' and 'forward-looking' to consider that the socialist
revolution may be an instrument of social progress.


Catholic Socialism


When this happens, this is but the first stage towards apostasy. For
if ever a truth was proved to be self-evident by subsequent
experience it is the truth enunciated by Pope Pius XI in
Quadragesimo Anno, 'Religious socialism, Christian socialism are
expressions implying a contradiction of terms.

'NO ONE CAN BE AT THE SAME TIME A SINCERE CATHOLIC AND A
SOCIALIST PROPERLY SO CALLED.’1


For a Catholic Who on the one hand is sound in faith and morals
but on the other hand espouses a socialist ideology is by that very
fact at war with himself.


Either, Or


Unless such a Catholic comes to realise that his social ideology is
incompatible with his faith, and that 'Catholic social doctrine is an
integral part of the Christian conception of life' (MATER ET MAGISTRA,
222)2, the logical demands of his social ideology will sooner or later
impel him to jettison his faith, and from social modernism he will
progress towards apostasy.


Subversion in education, with social modernism and apostasy as its
fruits: such are the inevitable consequences of 'integral humanism'.
Such have been the consequences 'integral humanism' particularly in
the Catholic nations of both Europe and Latin America. Such indeed
have been its consequences everywhere.


Education’s Key role


Even if the other institutions of a Catholic nation are in reliably
Catholic hands, once its educational institutions become infected


Footnote 1 [If we read Mater et Magistra (MM) we find that Pius XI’s definition of
socialism could equally apply to the beliefs of political parties which
allegedly eschew socialism. John XXIII advises us thus: ‘Pope Pius XI
further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and
Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to
moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine
of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any
objective other than that of material well-being.’ (MM. 34). Most modern
secular political parties also have such a doctrine of society. Editor,
Apropos]
Footnote 2 [Unfortunately, Catholic Social Doctrine, like all aspects of the Church’s
life has been corrupted by post-Conciliar departures from the traditional
doctrine. It too must be interpreted according to the traditional doctrine of
the Church. Editor Apropos.]
with the virus of liberal Catholicism (and 'integral humanism’ is simply
liberal Catholicism3 at its logical worst), it is but a matter of time
before such a Catholic nation is plunged into chaos.
Needless to say, it is the universities which are the key educational
institutions, in that it is they which ultimately determine, the tone of
the entire educational system. But of all a Catholic nation's
universities, it is the seminaries which matter most.


If the seminaries are sound, the universities will also probably
remain sound (though not even this can be taken for granted). But
once the seminaries become nurseries of liberal Catholicism the
entire educational system soon becomes a gigantic time-bomb that
sooner or later will devastate the entire social fabric and may even
imperil the nation’s survival.


It was this which happened in Portugal; it is this which may also
prove the downfall of Spain. It is thanks to this too that Italy has far
so long been hovering on the brink of the Communist abyss. And if
in Latin America chaos has for so long seemed endemic it is for the
simple reason that there, as in Europe, chaos follows inevitably in
the wake of liberal Catholicism.


The key role of education is very well understood by the enemies of
the Church, but alas! by surprisingly few Catholics. Now, indeed,
even many of the clergy are opposed to Catholic education in
schools, colleges and universities. Hence why so many of them are
now coming out in favour of 'integrated' education. The fact remains,
however, that the future of any nation is determined by whoever
controls its schools, and above all its universities.


Before Vatican 2


‘Integral Humanism’ had begun to make an impact on Catholic
nations long before Vatican 2. Long before it had become
respectable at Roman Congregational level, 'integral humanism' had


Footnote 3 As one writer said: ‘Liberalism has as its principle an equal respect for all
opinions.' The 'liberal' State is in theory neutral. In effect Pontius Pilate was
the first liberal, when having asked: 'What is Truth?' he proceeded to wash
his hands of Truth Incarnate prior to having Him crucified.

already been accepted by a considerable proportion of the Catholic
intelligentsia, both clerical and lay, and this was reflected among the
staffs of universities and seminaries, even in conservative Catholic
countries, where the episcopate too was still basically conservative.
It was not for nothing that in Humani Generis, his encyclical letter
concerning 'False Trends in Modern Teaching', published in 1950, Pope
Pius XII found it necessary to warn against those with ‘a burning
desire to break down all the barriers by which men of good will are now
separated from one. another.... . who embrace a policy of appeasement
which would fain put on one side all the questions that divide us.......so as
to achieve a compromise of opinion, even where matters of doctrine are
concerned.'


Pope Pius XII also made it clear that it was the teaching profession
he had particularly in mind. And he specifically mentioned ‘those false
evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that absolute or fixed or
abiding in human experience' which he said, had ‘paved the way for a
new philosophy of error.'


After Vatican 2


But it was once Vatican 2 had succeeded in making 'integral
humanism' the new orthodoxy that the rot became manifest. And
for the last decade we have seen this new orthodoxy reflected in
episcopal appointments. Now that bishops must offer their
resignation on reaching the age of 75, in practice this has meant the
obligatory retirement of all conservative bishops as soon as they
reach the age of 75 and their replacement by 'post-conciliar', 'forwardlooking'
'integral humanist' prelates who are prepared to stand no
nonsense from anyone who would foul up oecumenism by insisting
on the social rights of Christ the King.


Effect on Catholic nations


Needless to say, this shift to the ‘Left’ was not long in making its
weight felt, especially among the Catholic nations.


If Rome itself is now in imminent danger of seeing a Communist
regime take over Italy, this is in no small measure a consequence of
this post-Conciliar shift of emphasis.


This policy has however been particularly marked in Spain. And now
that General Franco has at last gone to his reward, the future of
Spain is anyone’s guess. One thing at least is certain however
Whereas in 1936 the Revolution was directed against the Church
from outside, in 1976 the Revolution will have no shortage of
sponsors from within the Church.


Hamish Fraser.

[Postscript by Editor of Apropos


There is no clearer manifestation of integral humanism in action that
the action of Polish Bishops following the proposal by 46 deputies of
Polish Political Parties (The League of Polish Families (LPR), the
Conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, and the Peasants' Party
(PSL))to have Jesus Christ proclaimed King of Poland. According to
an AFP press release on 21st December 2006, Polish clerics were up
in arms. ‘Christ doesn't need a parliamentary resolution to be the king of
our hearts. This kind of action, although it may stem from good will,
sounds a bit like propaganda,’ said Monsignor Tadeusz Pieronek, a
member of Poland's episcopate and rector at Krakow's Papal
Academy of Theology. He added: ‘These lawmakers would do better
to look after their constitutional prerogatives and let religious institutions
and the church do our work’. Archbishop Tadeusz Goclowski of
Gdansk said: ‘Let parliament deal with passing better laws that we need.’
Archbishop Slawoj Leszek Glodz said the lawmakers should ‘pray
and do penance -- it would do them good’. While Lublin’s Archbishop
Jozef Zycinski rejected the proposal as ‘totally unacceptable.’ The
news agency also reported that 33 percent of Poles supported the
proposal and 51 percent were against it.


One can well understand why these proposals are ‘totally
unacceptable’. They are totally opposed to the mindset of the
modern Church. They would foul up the ecumenism pursued by
post-conciliar clerics. They are redolent of a Church and view of
society wholly inimical to Modernist clerics. And what are these
clerics rejecting? Pius XI advised us: ‘That once men recognise, both
in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive
the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and
harmony. Poor Poland betrayed yet again! ]

THE POST-CONCILIAR DANCE

 Christian Order is a publication that should be on the bookshelves of Catholics around the world.   It's editor, Rod Pead, is one of those observers who never fails to get right to the heart of the matter.  I consider it essential reading, and I encourage everyone who is looking for sensible and realistic writing on what matters in the Catholic Church today to subscribe to it.  Their website can be found here: http://www.christianorder.com/

Here follows a rather brilliant editorial, from its April 2012 issue.

                        
                                 DANCING WITH THE DEVIL

"[F]inally the Church has confirmed the Neocatechumenal Way as a Christian initiation, in its doctrine, liturgy and its stages."

- "Kiko", 20 January 2012

"This new Church, even though it does not preserve the scholastic discipline and rudimentary form of the old Church, will (nevertheless) receive canonical ordination and jurisdiction from Rome."

- Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga The New Montinian Church, 1977

One dolly step forward; two giant strides back... The postconciliar dance with the devil swirled on last January as recent advances to restore the continuity, precision and gravitas of Catholic worship were negated by further concessions granted to the Neocatechumenal Way [NCW].

Pope Benedict's regressive January quickstep with the spooky Francisco "Kiko" Arguello, founder of the NCW, baffled the blogosphere. Torn between righteous indignation and papolatory, neo-conservatives failed to see that Benedict's sowing of Mr Arguello's cultish Lutheran seed in the Catholic vineyard does not contradict and counter his much vaunted liturgical "reform of the reform" and "hermeneutic of continuity." In fact, it merely re-confirms the analyses contributed to these pages over many years by James Larson on the "progressive" mindset and underlying intentions of the present pontiff. In particular, his overriding "vision," embodied in Assisi III, which views all through a Teilhardian-ecumenical lens; not least the liturgy. Amid a deluge of online comments, at least one blogger cut to the chase:

The most worrying trend is that of the Pope himself, who appears to believe in a kind of Teilhardian evolution of the liturgy. At best, he sees the Traditional Latin Mass as the point of reference for fixing up the Novus Ordo. But at worst — and this is a fear many have had since Summorum Pontificum — he really does think that the DIY/fabricated liturgies of the Novus Ordo, and now the Neocatechumenal Way (!), can be merged with the TLM. How can His Holiness seek to stem Novus Ordo abuses when he gives a carte blanche — beyond the Novus Ordo — to the ultimate make-it-up-as-they-go-along Neocats? Perhaps the best said for this shambolic policy is that it may amount to "let a thousand flowers bloom" — although a Pontiff should not actually being sowing the tares!

But will it fertilise "a thousand flowers"? Or just launch a thousand more disputes: about Trojan Horses in the City of God and the "diabolically disoriented" popes who lower the drawbridge — even while decrying the "auto-demolition" of the Church!

HeresyThere is no need to list here every Protestant heresy espoused by Mr Arguello and his Neocat brethren. Nor to repeat all the appalling liturgical, doctrinal, methodological, spiritual, psychological and sociological consequences flowing from their errors. We have detailed them elsewhere. I particularly recommend the translation of the late Fr Enrico Zoffoli's objective and thorough evaluation of the authentic NCW manuscripts (Orientations) which form the basis of their "catechesis." 

Suffice to recall that according to this Thomistic scholar, what the Vatican finally accepted as "an itinerary of Catholic formation" is, on the contrary, a comprehensive instruction in Lutheranism. Sounding like Martin Luther incarnate, Kiko typically states that: "Man is a slave to the devil and the devil manipulates him as he wishes… we are at the mercy of our concupiscence" [Orientations p.130]. Along with a laundry list of such heresies proclaimed by the founder, the testimony of former NCW adherents, including Catechists, also attest to their induction into Luther's negative and pessimistic view of man — whereby man cannot and should not resist sin because he is incapable of co-operating with God's grace. On page 17 of the Catechists' typed notes for their 1988 National Convention in England, for instance, one finds Kiko's erroneous doctrine imbibed and elaborated as follows:

Jesus Christ has given his life for the sinners. He has loved the sinners and this is a great revelation because this means that when I commit a sin or when I commit thousands of sins I know that Jesus Christ does not reject me at all since my sins cannot separate me from God. Your sins do not have the power to separate you from God.

Similar shockers pervade The Neocatechumenate: A Christian Initiation for Adults, by Neocat Father Piergiovanni Devoto. Authorised by Kiko and his NCW co-founder, ex-nun Carmen Hernandez, the book contains previously unpublished passages from their writings. One reviewer commented that "the passages that correspond to writings of the founders of the Way, contain not only absurd inventions regarding liturgical history, but also statements that can be considered heretical, such as praise for Luther's view regarding the Eucharist, and criticism of Transubstantiation, deemed in the writings as an inadequate 'invention' to describe what happens during Mass, because the idea of Transubstantiation, according to the writings, proceeds from 'the Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of substance, which is foreign to the Church of the apostles and the Fathers'."

This false appeal to antiquity, to justify stripping Catholic worship and doctrine bare, is known as "archaism." A subset of subjectivism, its liturgical dimension was condemned by Pius XII in 1947.(1) Having embraced this false idea, Mr Arguello naturally considers that the true Church founded by Christ came to an end with the Pax Constantinia and did not resume its course until the Second Vatican Council, having remained frozen and in error for about 1600 years! Consequently, he views the Council of Trent as one of the greatest catastrophes to befall the Church. In this vein he writes that "The notion of sacrifice entered in the Eucharist by condescension for the pagan mentality ... At the beginning of the Church, in the theology of the Mass, there was no sacrifice of Jesus, no sacrifice of the Cross ...." 

Deceit And so on and so forth. We are expected to believe, however, that after years of close examination of NCW teachings by the Vatican everything is now hunky dory. Really? In the first place, the resulting 2,000 curial corrections and corrective references made or added to the NCW Catechetical Directory is the reddest flag the Church has seen since Luther's 95 Theses: one that signalled an urgent need to dissolve the NCW and spurn Kiko, not tango with him! Secondly, for the curia to conclude that its salvage operation has purged all heresies, heterodoxy and heteropraxis is wishful-thinking of the worst culpable kind, since deceit and arrogance define the cult. Don Gino Conti encountered these traits during a 2 June 1992 meeting with Neocat leaders in Rome, held to discuss their hitherto secret, error-strewn Orientations:

We [Fr Gino and Fr Zoffoli] told them, "we're going to record this meeting so we can document everything that is said. You can then have a tape we will take the other two tapes." They replied, "No, we will not be recorded!" "Why not?" we asked. They never want any sort of documentation made. ... When we said, "Your texts contain errors in dogma!", they smirked. We asked them, "Are you willing to recognize that there are these errors (we had made a list of them)? Are you willing to sign a declaration of faith?" They replied, "Yes, Father. We are willing. Get it ready and we will sign it immediately!" I interrupted him and said, "Sir, I don't need your signature ... I need the signatures of Kiko and Carmen because you're not going around preaching your ideas. You're preaching the beliefs of Kiko and Carmen."

In other words, the NCW leadership will agree to whatever is required to advance their cause, then orchestrate what they like. The 20 January decree of the Pontifical Council of the Laity extolled by Mr Arguello is a case in point. While sanctioning any practices of a Lutheran sect within the Church is bad enough, the decree only approved a para-liturgical celebration linked to NCW catechesis (i.e. prayers, reflections, etc.). Yet this limited approval was predictably seized on and interpreted by Arguello as a blanket approval of their bizarre liturgy. As a result, the next day a "Vatican official" had to explain that "With respect to the celebrations of the Holy Mass and the other liturgies of the Church," communities of the Neo-Catechumenal Way must "follow the norms of the Church as indicated in the liturgical books — to do otherwise must be understood to be a liturgical abuse."

It was the mother-of-all futile correctives. Not least because the Vatican has not enforced its liturgical directives for 40 years! The NCW is no exception. For example, Article 13.3 of the NCW statutes approved by Rome allows for the distribution of Holy Communion "under the two species" which the "neocatechumens" can receive "standing, remaining at their place." Yet even that concession to an outrageous practice is brazenly ignored. NCW "communities" everywhere still receive Communion at their "Eucharistic Celebrations" sitting — despite it being forbidden.

Apart from this singular lack of governance, Vatican calls to correct and dignify the unholy pastiche that passes for NCW "liturgy" fall on deaf ears because the Neocat hierarchy — early disciples of one Annibale Bugnini — are simply not bothered by rules and rubrics. Colourfully described as "nothing but the ideas and ways of Archbishop Bugnini on steroids: the Novus Ordo to the power of ten!", the NCW liturgy is an abomination. Behind closed doors, Kiko's egoistic "spirituality" rules. Among much else, his requirements include leaving out the Creed; the suppression of the Orate, Fratres (because it mentions sacrifice and he denies the Mass is a sacrifice); and the omission of the Agnus Dei because it refers to taking away "the sins of the world." 

Even if such abuses were rectified, the NCW "Mass" remains a facilitator of Eucharistic sacrilege par excellence, as their reckless manner of receiving Communion clearly reveals. "When you see the particles of the Blessed Sacrament all over the floor at their Masses, that tells you all you need to know," blogged one critic.

Japanese experience True to mendacious form, all criticisms and charges based on primary evidence and personal experience of the NCW are routinely denied by the two-faced leadership and their hapless rank and file. But as we have said and documented before, their real face is readily found in "control and manipulation, secretiveness and deception, Gnostic sectarianism and archaism, intimidation and exploitation — and the trail of familial and parish disunity and acrimony they have left in their wake." Hence the recent attempt by the Japanese bishops to expel the NCW from their country. 

It was in December 2007 that Archbishop Okada of Japan first informed the Holy Father that the "powerful sect-like activity of Way members is divisive and confrontational" and causing "sharp, painful division and strife within the Church." Further talks led to the closing of the NCW seminary in Takamatsu in March 2009. By December 2010 the Archbishop had asked Kiko directly to cease NCW activities in the country for the next five years. In the event, the inordinate power and influence wielded by the NCW in Rome saw Benedict overrule the Japanese bishops. Nonetheless, Archbishop Okada's criticisms confirm all we know.

He described the NCW's presence in Japan's small Catholic community as "a serious problem" and difficult to resolve, involving issues related not only to authority but also to the way the Mass is celebrated. Their clergy "made a lot of trouble in the Takamatsu Diocese in many areas," he said. Citing their duplicity and deceitfulness, he stated: "They say they want to be obedient to the bishop in whose diocese they work, but they don't do it, not completely, anyway, not sufficiently or in the proper way." Alarmed by their operating as a church-within-the-Church, he said: "They use everything they have according to the spirituality of Kiko, which is very, very different from our culture and our mentality." Alluding to their gnosticism, he added that Neocats promote their liturgies as superior to the "imperfect" way the Mass is celebrated by ordinary diocesan priests, creating further division within parishes. 

New Church Naive defenders of this alien entity in our midst point to its pro-life/pro-marriage leanings, missionary zeal and numerous priestly vocations. We might call this "The Medjugorje Defence" — i.e., those desperate for signs of life in a moribund Church seeing what they want to see while ignoring manifest and foundational errors, such as these posted by a primary witness on 1 February 2012:

I once attended the opening sessions of the NCW's "Kerygma" catechesis. They emphatically stated that the idea of (1) a fixed place for worship; (2) a fixed and separated priesthood; and (3) a propitiatory sacrifice to appease God, were "pagan accretions" which made their way into the liturgy after the Edict of Milan, and which have now been removed by the Second Vatican Council.

On a separate occasion, I brought up these points with a NCW priest — ironically on the steps of St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney — and I testify that he agreed with all those points above, and further, stated that there is no ontological difference between an ordained priest and a layman because we are all part of the "priesthood of all believers."

When questioned about these things, some leading members of the NCW literally ignored me, got into a car, and drove off.

I'm sure they did. How dare he question the Elect! This elitism was also conveyed by a Neocat who crowed online after Kiko's 20 January audience with Pope Benedict: "Kiko and Carmen [are] the true light that is guiding the Holy Father to take the right decisions. We are the concrete fruit of the Vatican Council II." Liturgically, it is no vain boast. Far from "destroying the purpose and meaning of Benedict's 'Reform of the Reform'," as many bloggers lamented, NCW liturgies appear to reflect its authentic Teilhardian spirit. "The Neocatechumenal Way at the Vatican will ensure that very soon Pope Benedict XVI will celebrate liturgy according to Our Rite — and it's not a Roman Rite but a Universal Ecumenical Rite for the selected ones," the exultant Neocat added, insisting she was deadly serious. "I honestly hope that you Latin Lovers will join us before it is too late." 

That is to say: before it is too late to climb aboard Kiko's rampant Gnostic Express! "I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but the Vatican's continuing support for the Neocats has broken my spirit," blogged one confused and disenchanted soul. "Brick by brick, what are we building?" he asked. Good question. A former Neocat explains:

Anyone with a proper knowledge of their Roman Catholic Faith who has been to a complete NCW catechesis and who has attended a variety of its functions liturgically and pastorally could not fail to understand it does not hold with either the pre- or post-conciliar ecclesiastical models. Rather, it is for a total overturn of the current regime for its own very particular paradigm.

This new ecclesiastical "model" is to be constructed on and around the NCW's "small groups," many operating within the same parish. Not one for understating his messianic role, Mr Arguello claimed immediately after his 20 January papal audience that "the small community is the salvation for the New Evangelization."

Year of Faith? In that hyperbolic context, it is worth noting the recent sequence of events. Firstly, the NCW para-liturgical decree was published just after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its "pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith" (11/10/12 to 24/11/13), which duly pushed the "New Evangelisation." Then, the week after Mr Arguello's fruitful audience with Benedict, the Holy Father addressed the CDF on the same topic. Essentially an ecumenical pep-talk which veered perilously close to the Anglican "Branch Theory," he warned that "in vast areas of the earth, faith is in danger of being put out, as a flame that finds no more fuel. We find ourselves before a profound crisis of faith, before a loss of the religious sense that is the greatest challenge for today's Church. The renewal of the faith must thus be the priority in the effort of the entire Church in our day."

So: the Vicar of Christ announces a Year of Faith, promptly affirms a false prophet and his million strong cult, then waxes apocalyptically about evangelisation and renewal. Benedict, it seems, has bought Kiko's PR guff: that he and his 40,000 "small groups" promoting beliefs and worship at odds with Catholicism, should lead this "New Evangelisation." 

How relentlessly the Teilhardian revolution mutates and evolves. The old liberal vanguard are dying off as new insidious forces — ultra-Charismatics — emerge to carry on the devilish dance with Rome. Paradoxically, this seamless transition depends on the one constant in the post-conciliar flux: Bugnini's liturgical contrivance. "The Novus Ordo is the Zelig [chameleon] of liturgies," proffered a wag. "It has no theological identity, and it can be Kiko-Kiko-cha-cha-cha just as much as a TLM look-alike. It's so doctrinally empty and versatile that even the Anglicans embrace it." Echoing Benedict himself, Cardinal Koch recently underlined the point, stating that "The crisis of the Church today is above all a crisis of the liturgy." That being so, and Neocat liturgy being what it is, far from asking what planet Rome now inhabits — is it even in our solar system?! 

Of course, all this self-harm and self-contradiction is the tragic fruit of "the great apostasy in the Church" foretold in The Third Secret of Fatima and revealed by Cardinal Ciappi, the papal theologian, who said it will begin "at the top." So we should not be surprised by developments. Nor unduly disturbed by them. For Easter joyfully affirms that all efforts, high and low, aimed at "the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul," as forewarned in 1931 by Msgr Eugene Pacelli (the future Pius XII), are doomed to fail. Yes, the deceivers are winning the battles. But the Eucharistic faith of the courageous, persevering few will win the war. It has ever been thus. Bishop Schneider's following recollections [NOTE: Editor Pead is referring here to another article from the April 2012 issue of Christian Order.] and plain-speaking should therefore stiffen our resolve: to stand firm and undaunted before the gravediggers of the Church, in the sure knowledge that Eucharistic Victory is already ours! The Body of Christ is Risen — Allelujah!

FOOTNOTES

(1)"Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a colour for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings;... " - Pius XII, Mediator Dei, par. 62.

TO THE APOSTOLIC NUNCIO...AGAIN

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano
Apostolic Nuncio to the US
3339 Massachusetts Ave
Washington, DC 2008

Your Excellency:

This past March I wrote to you about the atrocious scandal caused by His Eminence Cardinal Wuerl, when he publicly disciplined and humiliated a faithful priest for refusing to give Holy Communion to a homosexually-disturbed woman, who is also a Buddhist no less.  With some knowledge of how the Church functions in the matter of grave scandal I did not expect you (or the Holy Father) to immediately take this Cardinal aside and read him the riot act but I most certainly expected, as a Catholic and in justice, to have at least received a reply from you explaining how such a horrendous situation would be dealt with.  Alas, as is getting to be the norm in such cases, the pleas of Catholics are to be brushed aside by a hierarchy that fiddles while Rome burns.

Let me speak frankly, Your Excellency.  Donald Wuerl is an utter disgrace to his cloth, to his Church and even to his manhood, assuming he has any.  On July 12th, the Washington Post newspaper, to the delight of the sex perverts, the haters of the Church, the Washington political establishment and most likely to the Evil One himself, reported that the Washington diocese - which means Donald Cardinal Wuerl - has dismissed this fine priest, Rev. Father Michael Guarnizo.  The gloating and the celebrations are in full swing, as you can see from the responses to the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/priest-in-lesbian-communion-denial-saga-out-at-the-washington-archdiocese/2012/07/09/gJQAShyMYW_blog.html?hpid=z4

Is the Church, is the Holy Father pleased with this outcome?  Are those in Rome and in the Archdiocese of Washington happy that the Church has been disgraced anew at the hands of sexual miscreants and cowardly prelates?  Are there smiling faces at the Vatican now that the Church's credibility, already teetering on the brink, has been trashed once again?  May I ask Your Excellency, are you yourself pleased by this?  And if, as I hope, you and Rome are not pleased by this will someone now, at long last, do something about this?  If the Cardinal is allowed to go on his merry way unpunished for what he has done, what of the Church's credibility?

The hierarchy in America is currently involved in a fight with the US government over this Obamacare debacle.  What does Your Excellency imagine Washington thinks about the consistency, the clout or the influence of the Bishops now that one of their own has basically told the world that it is perfectly all right for a homosexual sodomite and a non-Catholic to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  Does Your Excellency imagine that the jackals and despots in Washington are quaking in their boots, in fear of the US Bishops?  Hardly.  They are laughing, Your Excellency, and I suspect you know that.  They know they have nothing to fear from prelates like Donald Wuerl who are more afraid of offending queers than Christ.

All my life I have made it a practice to address the hierarchy in humble and respectful tones.  I have kissed the rings of Bishops.  I have ever addressed them with terms of respect.  But this time, Your Excellency, please understand that I have had enough and I am going to speak and write more directly.  I am sick and tired of watching the Church being dragged through the mud by prelates such as Wuerl and I demand in justice, and as a Catholic, that something be done about this. I am asked constantly in my parish to donate this or that sum of money to this or that Catholic need.  I have done so even in the four years I have been unemployed and trying to somehow keep my home and feed my family.  But if the Church, from Rome on down, continues to treat loyal Catholics with contempt by allowing people like Cardinal Wuerl to go on and on undisciplined then I am at an end to my financial support, poor as it has been.  I will give my money to sound Catholic causes, not to Chanceries who no longer understand what it means to be Catholic.

I ask you again, Your Excellency, to personally intervene in this case and to restore Father Guarnizo's reputation.  Justice demands this.  And if the Vatican still wishes to protect this unspeakable Cardinal's feelings they can simply bypass him and issue a loud and clear statement that Father Guarnizo acted properly and that he is a priest in good standing.

If nothing is done, Your Excellency, then the responsibility for the scandal, the loss of Faith and the disgrace to the Church rests with those who do nothing.

Yours very truly,

                                                         [Benedict's tragic mistake]                                   

THE CHESTERBELLOC DID WARN US

Glibert Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Arthur Penty, Amintore Fanfani and all the other Distributists and solid economic thinkers and philosophers (not to mention the great Popes who took seriously the Social Kingship of the Church's Divine Founder) warned us that things like this would happen under a Capitalism run amok, a Capitalism without conscience, a Capitalism gone crazy.

Monsanto....again.

If there was ever a company that perfectly epitomizes "the Evil Corporation" of song and fable, surely it would be those friendly folks at Monsanto.  They're amazing.  They have taken greed and turned it into an art form.  Piratical, cold-hearted and in collusion with the Federal government, the shenanigans of these folks have to be seen to be believed.

Here are a number of helpful links:

http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-bill-immunity-court-862/

Writing the blowhards and ward-heelers in Congress is usually a waste of time but you may want to let them know what you think:

ttp://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25711.cfm

Speaking of solid economic thinkers, may I respectfully recommend one of the most sensible websites on the internet, one that deals well with these issues: it is IHS Press.  They also specialize in reprinting brilliant works on this matter:  http://www.ihspress.com/

WHY DO THE RUSSIANS GET IT, AND WE DON'T?

Maybe because they've lived through it once before?

Get a load of this charming little piece of news, coming from a Russian news source, and start asking yourselves why the floppy-eared wannabe Plutarco Elias Calles in Washington would like to have such power?

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-president-order-communications-770/

Every week he gets together with his buddies and decides who he is going to assassinate with his clever little undetectable aircraft.  He has put in place the mechanism to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial or any legal recourse.  He has his little Stasi all in place ready, willing and able to do his bidding.

And now this.

A small, ragtag army in faraway Afwhateveristan, has been able to fend off the entire US gummint for a decade.  Something to ponder?

Just wondering.

"PKTP" MEETS MRS GRUNDY

There seem to be very few Catholic blogs and/or websites that have a really firm grip on what it means to live and breathe the Faith, a lamentable state of affairs in A.D.2012.  Fewer still are those who have an historical sense of the Church from the time She was founded by Jesus Christ to the present day, having been sort of warped by the shipwreck of Catholicism that has been proceeding apace for many, many decades.  Their judgments are formed not by the level heads of those who lived through historical epochs but by the opinions of current thinkers and experts who have little to no idea of what the Church was like before the distortions facing us in the here and now.

Thus, the simplest of issues facing Catholicism are drowned in a sea of convoluted thinking that a marked refusal to examine the past has wrought.  Since almost no one reads books anymore, especially not the great books written by our betters in bygone days, preferring rather to get their information in quick images flashed upon a computer screen, today’s Catholics have lost that solid anchor needed to see things in their proper light.

What brought these thoughts once again into the foreground was an interesting yet very old discussion which recently appeared on a popular Catholic blogsite, one noted for its interest in the negotiations between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  (The site is also noted, alas, for a certain smugness among its young administrators.)  One of the regular “commenters”, who goes by the moniker “PKTP” and who always has rather interesting things to say, was quite understandably appalled by Pope Benedict’s appointment of Gerhard Ludwig Muller as the head of the Holy Office and said so in a comment.  Apparently he suggested that Muller held positions which can be construed as heretical and inimical to the Catholic faith.  I say “apparently” because his comment was banished in high dudgeon by the editors of said website and sent into cyberspace, so it is really not possible to form an opinion of the merits of his arguments.  That Muller holds some dicey opinions – especially those concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary – seems to be without doubt, and as long as he holds such views he can at least be credibly accused of being in material, as opposed to formal, heresy.  It is therefore more than a little understandable that “PKTP” would be exasperated by the thought of someone holding heretical views to be in charge of the very Office that watches over Catholic truth.  The blog administrator, in a note explaining why he removed the comment, proceeded to lecture PKTP in schoolmarmish fashion about the evils of criticizing Bishops.   Indeed it provoked a further post by the blog editor admonishing contributors to cease and desist from criticizing Bishops, bringing out for the occasion some words by Saint Anselm instructing the laity on the proper respect due to the hierarchy.  That this same website often carries reports highly critical of certain Bishops (Ochoa and Wuerl, to name but two – who, to be sure, certainly deserve criticism) was an irony lost on the editors.

What is forgotten in all this is the fact that the laity is entitled to point out the foibles of their erring fellow-Catholics, be they priests, Cardinals or even Popes, provided a respect for their exalted office is ever kept in view.  It is because of their exalted office that it sometimes becomes necessary to admonish them publicly, and in detail.  We cannot judge their intentions (we can hazard an intelligent guess, though) and we cannot judge the state of their souls.  But we can certainly judge their words and actions, and the fruit thereof.  St Anthony of Padua, gentle St Anthony, a help to mortals in so many ways, was known as “the hammer of heretics” and no one was spared his justified wrath when it came to defending the truth, even if the offender was an Archbishop.  Dante’s fury at the mediocrity of Bishops, priests and Popes is well known.  And Queen Isabella, the Catholic, upon hearing the news of the death of a particularly awful Prince of the Church had a Te Deum sung to honor the event.

One has to wonder if such bloggers have forgotten the history of the Arian infestation in which a third or more of the Catholic episcopacy was clearly in formal heresy, denounced so by laymen and clerics alike.  The comment by “PKTP” which was removed by the blog administrator might very well have been perfectly sound and edifying which, indeed, most of the comments written by him can be said to be.  St Anselm notwithstanding, the removal of this comment from a valued contributor was not an example of a thoughtful editorial policy.  It is not unreasonable to expect that within the limits of charity and good manners people should be permitted to speak their minds freely without fear that their words will be tossed into the dustbin by an over-zealous blogger unfamiliar with the Church’s long history.

If respected historians, respected Catholic historians like Christopher Hollis, can write that Papal dithering was one of the causes of the Protestant Reformation are these authors to be banished by ill-informed blog editors?  If the evidence I see is anything to go by, the answer is, apparently, yes.

There is danger in this.  Those who rely on their own ill-informed judgments and who take no time to examine what has gone before can very easily slip into the petite Eglise, or “little Church”, mentality.   Many of us can fall into that same trap, be we “traditionalists”, liberals, bloggers or even Princes of the Church (indeed it would seem that a Cardinal Policarpo can act as if he is a law unto himself).  That attitude can be found, unfortunately, not only among bloggers but upon certain religious orders.

We Catholics can be led astray just as easily as anyone else by ignorance of Church history.  Perhaps giving the computer screen a rest once in awhile and turning our attentions to great books of Catholic history might prove beneficial, especially to those new to the Faith.  Reading gives us time to reflect, to carefully sift through facts, to form correct opinions.  Sometimes we all need to slow down….and read.

Catholic blogs would improve greatly from that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy

UPDATE:
The blog in question, by the way, has recently ceased allowing comments, so I suppose they will now no longer have to be troubled by The Great Unwashed who might find areas of disagreement with them.

THE 4th OF JULY BROUGHT US TO THIS?

Philip Giraldi usually has something interesting to say about the direction we are going in the Benighted States and this article is no exception:

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/07/04/america-adopts-the-israel-paradigm/

Much of this is not new news, but Giraldi puts it into simple, understandable terms.  It is well worth a read for anyone wanting to have a better idea of what is coming upon us.

It is alarming, yes.  But it is better, I think, to see the rising despotism clearly rather than not face some ugly realities, especially in this patriotic month of July.