The EPA, the "environmental protection agency", has just been caught red-handed (literally) in an insidious activity unthinkable by any normal standards of basic morality or ethics. It is hard to conceive that the government's contempt for citizens could be more obvious.
http://junkscience.com/2013/01/01/epas-illegal-human-experiments-could-break-nuremberg-code/#more-33183
As this writer has been saying for several decades, we are the Nazis now.
Indeed, we are worse.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
THE CHURCH UNGOVERNED
Once again the consequences of a Church left ungoverned can be found in the kind of chaos we see here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-catholic-bishops-endorsing-homosexual-unions-undermining-pro-fa
The French Bishops, close on the heels of a spectacular show of courage on the part of close on one million Frenchmen who marched in Paris to oppose sodomarriage, have declared that some kind of civil union between two sexual deviants would be acceptable to them. May I speak bluntly? Every single French Bishop who put his name to that statement should be removed from office by the Pope. Sacked, Fired. Cashiered. Done. Will it happen? Never. The reason: a terrified Vatican that refuses to discipline its wayward sons. Like a doting parent who refuses to restrain little Billy from going about the house breaking windows the Vatican refuses to deal with the treason in its midst. And just as little Billy, left unrestrained, will grow up to be a destructive and potentially criminal adult, the Bishops who say and do outrageous things with no fear that the Pope will ever intervene will continue on saying and doing outrageous things which will lead to confusion and the destruction of immortal souls.
The French Bishops state that a properly "united" homosexual couple can live chastely. Your Lordships: try placing a glutton in a room full of the choicest steaks, desserts and snacks and see what happens, or place a drunkard in charge of the liquor cabinet. Your Lordships, have you simply lost your minds or are you deliberately favoring the mortal sin of sodomy? Which is it? All Catholics, not just Frenchmen, are entitled to a response from you. And the same request can be made to the Holy Father: Your Holiness, we are entitled to an explanation. We Catholics who struggle to keep body and soul together would wish to know how it is possible that the Bishops of France can endorse these horrors and go unpunished.
Have we completely swallowed the Calvinist notion that no matter what we do in life we will be "saved", that God will somehow take care of everyone no matter what and see that they enjoy a blessed eternity? If the Roman Catholic Church is beginning to endorse Calvinism then that might explain why they aren't terribly concerned about what these mitred idiots are doing to the souls of those in their care. If we are all automatically saved then why bother with all this fussing about Bishops endorsing the civil unions of those who commit buggery.
If the Church has not accepted Protestantism then it has to make a choice. It is either fish or cut bait. The time for patience is rapidly ending; the time for allowing the Roman wheels to grind slowly is nearing its end. Unless some swift and decisive action is taken, and taken very soon, then it can credibly be said that the Church is reaching the end of its tether. I feel horribly sorry for the Holy Father. He lacks the courage necessary for the job at hand (he has apparently admitted that "my authority ends at that door"). He is a carrier of the very disease he often condemns in his statements, refusing to come to the obvious conclusion that the wrong-headed ideas he espoused as a young man would one day lead to the sorry state we are in. Like the designer of the Edsel or the Yugo he refuses to see that he has made a mistake in his philosophy. He even celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Church's own Edsel, the Second Vatican Council. For every good man he raises to the Episcopacy he raises two more villains to high office. He needs constant, unceasing, daily prayer.
But now what about the French Bishops who are actually as we write endorsing a kind of legally recognized "union" between two homosexually disturbed people? That they made this unbelievable statement right on the heels of the march in Paris cannot be considered anything but a slap in the face to those who marched against queer marriage. The late, great Hamish Fraser once told me that France has produced not only the greatest Catholics but the worst Catholics, those Catholics who would save the Church and those who would destroy it. It is evident to me which category the French Bishops fall under. Their pretty words, their soothing pseudo-Catholic responses will mean nothing to those who know a betrayal when they see one. And smell one.
To you, French Bishops, I leave you with this thought: woe to those who scandalize the little ones. I've paraphrased that from Jesus Christ. Perhaps you've never heard of him.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
WHERE LIVED THE HOLY FAMILY
 |
| Interior of the Holy House of Loreto |
From the venerable St Andrew Daily Missal (1937 edition) on the Feast of the Holy Family:
"Is it not fitting," says Leo XIII, "to celebrate the royal birth of the Son of the supreme Father, of the house of David and the glorious names of that ancient line? Yet it is more consoling for us to call to memory the little house at Nazareth and the humble life lived there; thus celebrating the hidden life of our Lord. For there the divine Child received his training in Joseph's humble trade; there hidden and sheltered, He grew up and showed Himself ready to share the toil of the carpenter's life. 'Let the moisture,' he seemed to say, 'trickle over my limbs before they are drenched with the torrent of my blood, and the pain of this labour shall go to atone for the sins of men.' Close to the divine Child is His tender Mother; close to Joseph stands his devoted wife, happy to relieve their toil and suffering by her loving care. O Thou, who wast not free from toil and care and who hast known adversity, come to the aid of the unfortunate, crippled by poverty and struggling against the difficulties of life (Hymn for Matins)."
When one visits this sacred place, the Holy House of Loreto, as this writer was once fortunate enough to do, one is very much aware that a tremendous history attaches itself to it. There is no doubt when you step inside that you should not be there. No sinful man should enter there; it is too holy a place. Domine, non sum dignus. Standing inside such a dwelling the true sense of unworthiness comes very clearly to mind. It is easy to leave the House with an inner feeling of bitterness at one's self, bitterness over past failures. The Holy Family lived in this house, and if you dare to set foot in it a new responsibility makes itself known to you. This goes far beyond the mere emotionalism of standing in the home where Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived. A demand is made upon the visitor, a demand to live a different kind of family life than, perhaps, you have been living.
It is impossible to forget the overwhelming sense of awe, if we can still use such an over-used word, at being present in such a place. But awe is the perfect word for it encompasses fear, wonder and respect at the same time. It is easy to tremble in the presence of such holiness.
A visitor to the church wherein is kept the holy house will if a member of a group be herded into it altogether at once. Naturally in that type of a situation it is difficult not to wonder at the smallness of this one-room domicile. But if we can see it singly without a bustling crowd it all then seems quite adequate somehow. It is an amazing place and I can only urge everyone to make it one of life's goals to visit there. A more suitable pilgrimage in these days would be hard to imagine.
"Verily Thou art a hidden God," says the psalmist as quoted in the Gradual of today's Mass, still during Christmastide, the Feast of the Holy Family.
Behold the place where He was hidden.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
"ZERO DARK WHAT?"
One wonders why in the world anyone would be talking about, promoting, or taking seriously, something called ZERO DARK 30, a digital moving image now being projected on screens as we write. Who would watch such a thing, if my information about the content of it is accurate? It was directed by someone called Katherine Bigelow. Who is Katherine Bigelow? And if we find out, should we even care?
What we have here is a digital moving image (I refrain from using the word "film" because they are no longer shooting on that beautiful medium) made by a person who "has risen without trace" explaining to all of us Americans that torturing innocent Muslims was a great way to learn the whereabouts of a man who (credibly) had been dead for a decade. The Mad Mullah Osama bin Laden had to be publicly disposed of - quite a feat considering he was already dead - in a Hollywood sort of way by the US government, and once this overwrought production was completed to the mass huzzahs of the media world then the Hollywood machine went into swing and made a "movie" about it. Bread and circuses.
We wont detain ourselves talking about the propaganda show now on worldwide screens. It is the usual combination of dreadful writing and directing, high school-level acting, over-the-top sound effects, weaving camera movements, shouting and general incoherence...and lots of violence for the audience to salivate over. (Question: when one watches this kind of thing, does it induce nausea? I would hope that it does.)
What is interesting is the visible and no longer deniable close collaboration between media and government. It doesn't even have to be carefully concealed anymore. It is easy to find an ignoramus like a Bigelow, or a Quentin Tarantino, to make this sort of stuff. Hollywood is full of such people, with egos and delusions of self-importance far weightier than their abilities. They are products of an educational system that has taught them nothing but untruths and trivia. They are robots. So Washington can rest well assured that its approved stories will be dutifully told by Hollywoodians desperate to have their names and faces on the front pages.
This strange production asks us to believe that the inhuman treatment, torture and killing of supposed suspects is justified if it rids the world of crazy madmen. It attempts to shore up the hoax of a so-called "war on terror" being waged by our betters with our dollars and futures. It asks us, like the attendees of one of Emperor Nero's stadium games, to cheer on such blood-letting. Can you believe that some of your neighbors, your co-workers even (sadly) some of your children are watching such things, and with approval? Film aficionados will smirk at the ineptitude of the makers of this, but what of the general public that has not practiced much in the way of artistic discernment? One does wonder what kind of a mind it takes to sit through such garbage without feeling sullied.
There are critics of ZERO DARK 30. But some of them show their ignorance and their anti-Catholic bigotry by comparing the work of Bigelow to Leni Riefenstahl, or claiming we have adopted the mindset of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition. Sad, if that's the best they can come up with. In the first place Bigelow is no Leni Riefenstahl. Miss Riefenstahl was a genuine artist of the first rank. She is, of course, endlessly criticized by both the uninformed and the mendacious for her directing of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, a film made at the request of the Nazi party. While ignoring her DAS BLAUE LICHT(THE BLUE LIGHT) , her incredibly beautiful "mountain" films and her brilliant OLYMPIA, they refuse to allow the woman the right to tell her own version of how she came to make the Party film. Those who wish to know, and to understand what was going on in Germany at that time, can consult her autobiography. Riefenstahl had an excuse; Bigelow has no excuse. She differs from Riefenstahl in two critical areas: she has no directorial ability and she knows she is carrying water for her heroes in the White House. Riefenstahl had tremendous cinematic ability and was, like most other Germans, unaware of the troubling ideas of the Leader. The people who made their Osama extravaganza are well aware that the US president quite literally murders innocent people by drones, by torture and God knows what else every day. The Germans in 1934 on the other hand, let us recall, didn't have the internet.
Regarding the Spanish Inquisition, if the movie's critics knew what it was all about and what it was trying to achieve and what were the historical circumstances at the time they certainly would not be comparing the methods used by the Federal Government today with that body. One example may suffice. Unlike the US government, the Spanish Inquisitors were scrupulous in making certain that the accused had every means possible for his defense, including lawyers and a trial. When some gung-ho soldier presses his little video game button and fires his hellfire missiles at some innocent bystander thousands of miles away carrying out the orders of the commander-in-chief, there isn't a whole lot of time for a trial. The critics of this propaganda show would be better to use the example of the Salem witch trials. It is a much more apt comparison.
Still, any efforts to show up this thing as the government propaganda that it is are welcome. We must never allow our family or our friends to buy into the Party Line and that is why when not laughing these boot-licking productions right off the screen we should be telling it like it is with regard to them. Far more importantly we should be asking ourselves what kind of people we have become to have let our nation come to such a sorry pass. That it was inevitable is no reason to cease being introspective about it. When nine senile old men decided like some divine oracle to allow the murdering of the innocents in their mother's wombs in 1973 that should have been the final curtain call to the whole sordid business of Americanism. We have the blood of millions on our hands.
This blog is small and of little influence. But if by some miracle someone who is in a position to shake some sense into the heads of my fellow citizens can read these thoughts, well and good.
There is one Body on earth, however, that can and should be decrying this obscene injustice that is the completely phony "war on terror" and all its pomps and works. It is the one Organization that has the moral authority to speak on such evils with authority. Today its voice, however, is muffled and it speaks in ambiguous terms. That voice is the voice of the Catholic Church. There is a propaganda campaign afoot to discredit Pope Pius XII for remaining "silent" during World War 2. The campaign is fantastical and unworthy of serious discussion. But there is a sort of silence occurring right now, the silence and ambiguity of the Vatican at the horrors being committed by many governments against the innocent. Pretty phrases and platitudes are not going to have much effect. Thundering statements of raw truth will. There are hopeful signs that a few at least are waking up in Rome and are speaking out. The history of the Church is filled with stories of both muddled indifference and glorious achievement. But we must respectfully remind our Church leaders that they must begin to get real serious, real soon.
The first way they might begin to get serious is to cease receiving these monsters for Vatican photo ops, and to cease wining and dining with them. You do not feed a monster who is trying to kill you; you starve him instead. Diplomacy is one thing; giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ is quite another.
And the second thing they can do to begin getting serious? Heal the beaten and bloody Church. If we cannot even project to the public a view of the Church with a single holy Liturgy, a disciplined clergy and a house-cleaning of rats then there are few people who will want to take a serious look at the Church. But if a healing process does begin, if the vermin eating at the Church's vitals are dismissed, if the Mass is restored to its ancient splendor, if beauty in music, in art, in writing, in architecture in personal lives once again becomes the norm, then will we see a real flowering of the Faith again.
And if the Church is healed, eventually so will nations be healed.
What we have here is a digital moving image (I refrain from using the word "film" because they are no longer shooting on that beautiful medium) made by a person who "has risen without trace" explaining to all of us Americans that torturing innocent Muslims was a great way to learn the whereabouts of a man who (credibly) had been dead for a decade. The Mad Mullah Osama bin Laden had to be publicly disposed of - quite a feat considering he was already dead - in a Hollywood sort of way by the US government, and once this overwrought production was completed to the mass huzzahs of the media world then the Hollywood machine went into swing and made a "movie" about it. Bread and circuses.
We wont detain ourselves talking about the propaganda show now on worldwide screens. It is the usual combination of dreadful writing and directing, high school-level acting, over-the-top sound effects, weaving camera movements, shouting and general incoherence...and lots of violence for the audience to salivate over. (Question: when one watches this kind of thing, does it induce nausea? I would hope that it does.)
What is interesting is the visible and no longer deniable close collaboration between media and government. It doesn't even have to be carefully concealed anymore. It is easy to find an ignoramus like a Bigelow, or a Quentin Tarantino, to make this sort of stuff. Hollywood is full of such people, with egos and delusions of self-importance far weightier than their abilities. They are products of an educational system that has taught them nothing but untruths and trivia. They are robots. So Washington can rest well assured that its approved stories will be dutifully told by Hollywoodians desperate to have their names and faces on the front pages.
This strange production asks us to believe that the inhuman treatment, torture and killing of supposed suspects is justified if it rids the world of crazy madmen. It attempts to shore up the hoax of a so-called "war on terror" being waged by our betters with our dollars and futures. It asks us, like the attendees of one of Emperor Nero's stadium games, to cheer on such blood-letting. Can you believe that some of your neighbors, your co-workers even (sadly) some of your children are watching such things, and with approval? Film aficionados will smirk at the ineptitude of the makers of this, but what of the general public that has not practiced much in the way of artistic discernment? One does wonder what kind of a mind it takes to sit through such garbage without feeling sullied.
There are critics of ZERO DARK 30. But some of them show their ignorance and their anti-Catholic bigotry by comparing the work of Bigelow to Leni Riefenstahl, or claiming we have adopted the mindset of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition. Sad, if that's the best they can come up with. In the first place Bigelow is no Leni Riefenstahl. Miss Riefenstahl was a genuine artist of the first rank. She is, of course, endlessly criticized by both the uninformed and the mendacious for her directing of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, a film made at the request of the Nazi party. While ignoring her DAS BLAUE LICHT(THE BLUE LIGHT) , her incredibly beautiful "mountain" films and her brilliant OLYMPIA, they refuse to allow the woman the right to tell her own version of how she came to make the Party film. Those who wish to know, and to understand what was going on in Germany at that time, can consult her autobiography. Riefenstahl had an excuse; Bigelow has no excuse. She differs from Riefenstahl in two critical areas: she has no directorial ability and she knows she is carrying water for her heroes in the White House. Riefenstahl had tremendous cinematic ability and was, like most other Germans, unaware of the troubling ideas of the Leader. The people who made their Osama extravaganza are well aware that the US president quite literally murders innocent people by drones, by torture and God knows what else every day. The Germans in 1934 on the other hand, let us recall, didn't have the internet.
Regarding the Spanish Inquisition, if the movie's critics knew what it was all about and what it was trying to achieve and what were the historical circumstances at the time they certainly would not be comparing the methods used by the Federal Government today with that body. One example may suffice. Unlike the US government, the Spanish Inquisitors were scrupulous in making certain that the accused had every means possible for his defense, including lawyers and a trial. When some gung-ho soldier presses his little video game button and fires his hellfire missiles at some innocent bystander thousands of miles away carrying out the orders of the commander-in-chief, there isn't a whole lot of time for a trial. The critics of this propaganda show would be better to use the example of the Salem witch trials. It is a much more apt comparison.
Still, any efforts to show up this thing as the government propaganda that it is are welcome. We must never allow our family or our friends to buy into the Party Line and that is why when not laughing these boot-licking productions right off the screen we should be telling it like it is with regard to them. Far more importantly we should be asking ourselves what kind of people we have become to have let our nation come to such a sorry pass. That it was inevitable is no reason to cease being introspective about it. When nine senile old men decided like some divine oracle to allow the murdering of the innocents in their mother's wombs in 1973 that should have been the final curtain call to the whole sordid business of Americanism. We have the blood of millions on our hands.
This blog is small and of little influence. But if by some miracle someone who is in a position to shake some sense into the heads of my fellow citizens can read these thoughts, well and good.
There is one Body on earth, however, that can and should be decrying this obscene injustice that is the completely phony "war on terror" and all its pomps and works. It is the one Organization that has the moral authority to speak on such evils with authority. Today its voice, however, is muffled and it speaks in ambiguous terms. That voice is the voice of the Catholic Church. There is a propaganda campaign afoot to discredit Pope Pius XII for remaining "silent" during World War 2. The campaign is fantastical and unworthy of serious discussion. But there is a sort of silence occurring right now, the silence and ambiguity of the Vatican at the horrors being committed by many governments against the innocent. Pretty phrases and platitudes are not going to have much effect. Thundering statements of raw truth will. There are hopeful signs that a few at least are waking up in Rome and are speaking out. The history of the Church is filled with stories of both muddled indifference and glorious achievement. But we must respectfully remind our Church leaders that they must begin to get real serious, real soon.
The first way they might begin to get serious is to cease receiving these monsters for Vatican photo ops, and to cease wining and dining with them. You do not feed a monster who is trying to kill you; you starve him instead. Diplomacy is one thing; giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ is quite another.
And the second thing they can do to begin getting serious? Heal the beaten and bloody Church. If we cannot even project to the public a view of the Church with a single holy Liturgy, a disciplined clergy and a house-cleaning of rats then there are few people who will want to take a serious look at the Church. But if a healing process does begin, if the vermin eating at the Church's vitals are dismissed, if the Mass is restored to its ancient splendor, if beauty in music, in art, in writing, in architecture in personal lives once again becomes the norm, then will we see a real flowering of the Faith again.
And if the Church is healed, eventually so will nations be healed.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
THIS IS GETTING A BIT STRANGE
I don't know if any rational person knows quite what to make of this. I'm sure I don't.
From World Net Daily: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deck-the-halls-and-your-fellow-shopper-too/?cat_orig=us
Perhaps it is time to do away with these guilt trips we have been saddled with all these years, courtesy the government-media complex, and start trying to figure out what can be done about this kind of thing. Shall be just let it happen without giving it much notice?
This isn't terribly encouraging either: http://twitchy.com/2013/01/06/moviegoer-seeing-django-reignited-my-desire-to-kill-white-people/
This is not an alarmist blog. It is not a blog intended to create mere opprobrium toward people. But awareness may save a life one day.
From World Net Daily: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deck-the-halls-and-your-fellow-shopper-too/?cat_orig=us
Perhaps it is time to do away with these guilt trips we have been saddled with all these years, courtesy the government-media complex, and start trying to figure out what can be done about this kind of thing. Shall be just let it happen without giving it much notice?
This isn't terribly encouraging either: http://twitchy.com/2013/01/06/moviegoer-seeing-django-reignited-my-desire-to-kill-white-people/
This is not an alarmist blog. It is not a blog intended to create mere opprobrium toward people. But awareness may save a life one day.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
TWELFTH NIGHT APPROACHES
As we approach this holy night, let us ask the Patron of the Universal Church, and Terror of Demons, to protect the Church as he protected the Christ Child in his Divine Infancy.
Friday, January 4, 2013
NEWTON: ANOTHER VIEW
Would that the world, especially the Catholic world, especially the silent men in the Vatican who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, listen to the words of a courageous Jew named Nat Hentoff. Would that the benighted souls who inhabit the land mass called the USA would listen to him. Would that his fellow liberals would listen to him.
In the article here Mr Hentoff talks about the Newton tragedy. Too much has already been written and spoken about this terrible thing but Mr Hentoff's take on the situation should make every single one of us sit up and take notice. There are criminals all around us, and they are sociopaths.
Read this man's words. And weep.
In the article here Mr Hentoff talks about the Newton tragedy. Too much has already been written and spoken about this terrible thing but Mr Hentoff's take on the situation should make every single one of us sit up and take notice. There are criminals all around us, and they are sociopaths.
Read this man's words. And weep.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
50 YEARS OF VATICAN 2 FRUITS
Wanting to do our part to celebrate the Second Vatican Council and its fruits on its 50th anniversary, we offer these visual testimonies to the renewal:
But many years after the Mount St Helens blast, when the whole countryside around was rubble and ash, something happened amid the horrifying ruins:
 |
| Mount St Helens, after the 1980 eruption: the trees that were once erect |
 |
| Mount St Helens, some decades after |
Saturday, December 29, 2012
THOUGHTS ON A PROPOSED CANONIZATION
That excellent blog, The Eponymous Flower, informs us that plans appear to be going ahead for a possible canonization of Pope John Paul II.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/12/canonization-of-john-paul-ii-in-october.html#comment-form
Actually, this is more serious than first imagined. If this is not mere wishful thinking on the part of John Paul's admirers and does indeed occur then we have reached yet another crossroads in the history of the Church.
If a legitimate canonization is done, properly and without chicanery, then as I understand it that becomes what some theologians term a "second-class infallible declaration", a declaration that that person is actually in Heaven. Now what is alarming in this particular case is that there is no evidence that John Paul II's pontificate was anything but a disaster for the Church. There is plenty of evidence that this troubled man spoke not only good words but not-so-good words, words that just skirted the edges of heresy. And, no, one doesn't need to be a licensed theologian to be able to state that, as long as one has a basic familiarity with doctrine. Additionally, there is no evidence at all, unless it has been kept secret (and why it would be kept secret at all would be an open question), that he ever recanted some of those problematical words and actions. So if the case for his sanctification is being based on what the public could clearly see and hear during his reign then it would seem utterly impossible for the Holy Ghost to allow his canonization to move forward. It would be an utter contradiction.
Unless, of course, behind-the-scenes chicanery is in play. In other words if the man actually gets canonized without any clear evidence that he undid some of the damage he inflicted on the Church by his bizarre opinions and lack of firm governance, allowing the Church to float aimlessly at sea, then we are justified in suspecting that games are being played in Rome and that proper processes are being ignored in an unseemly haste to further the agenda of the modernists in the Church. We know that John Paul II, for all his kindly qualities, was a modernist as is, by the way, the current occupant of Peter's Chair. And if Rome wants the average Catholic to put aside his suspicions about this canonization then it is going to have to release to the public solid evidence that John Paul II deserves to be declared a Saint.
It is true that generally speaking the Church looks at someone's personal holiness more than anything else (so I have been told) when assessing qualifications for Sainthood. But I believe it logical to assume that if a man is personally holy his actions would bear that out. Here there are far too many contradictions. If John Paul II were personally holy then how can one explain his actions? Can the authorities in the Church assure us that his personal holiness trumps his terrible legislation? Can his reciting of the daily rosary (which I have no doubt of) have allowed him to approve the sacrilege of Communion-in-the-hand? Yes, I do try myself to perform this duty on a daily basis but speaking honestly I believe the chances of my own future canonization are somewhat slim. This is not an attempt at flippancy. This sublime prayer has no doubt saved many from going completely off the deep end. But does it always lead to one's eventual raising to the altars? Did John Paul's prayer life prevent him from even worse mistakes? It's an interesting question. This is too serious an issue to allow sentimentality to rear its hideous head, and to wallow in our own "feelings" toward this Pope.
Since such evidence is scant at best we have a right to know what criteria Rome is using, in detail, to advance his cause. We are perfectly within our rights as Catholics to ask, "Where is the evidence?" The supposed "miracle" that has been noised about has been, under closer examination, seriously doubted by reputable scholars as being a genuine miraculous occurrence.
It was John Paul II himself who deliberately cheapened the Saint-making process by his streamlining of all the necessary precautions that the Church had in place for centuries to protect it from from making errors in these cases. These measures were in place so that the Church could declare with absolute certainty that this or that man or woman was worthy of veneration. How many times in Church history have there been charlatans who gave every evidence of holiness, only to be discovered later as frauds? That is why the Church has historically taken her time when considering the canonization of persons. Indeed it took the Church 400 years before finally declaring Joan of Arc a Saint.
We could go on cataloguing the scandals that prospered under John Paul II, some of them instituted by the man himself. Assisi is one; the "apologies"(!)to the Jews is another; the appointing and maintaining of one snake after another in the episcopacy; his downright weird meetings with pagans, topless and otherwise. It is too depressing to recall. But we must keep these tragedies in mind when we speak of canonizing a man who was at the center of these tragedies.
These attempts to canonize recent modernist Popes is a very, very troubling development. It could call into question the infallibility of the Pope in the minds of poorly-instructed Catholics. What if one of these men is "canonized" by some underhanded Vatican streamlining of the process and it later comes to light that the personal life of such a man was a moral mess? Unless we know for certain that proper procedures were in place we cannot, tragically, just assume that Rome has made a wise decision. We have the examples of Donald Wuerl and Vincent Nichols and the "theology of the body" to remind us that some decisions of the Popes are skewed at best. There is a move afoot now to canonize even Paul VI. Mind-boggling. If that man is canonized by some process of episcopal legerdemain the Church will indeed have more than egg on her face, because there are some rather unflattering aspects to his life that have been kept from the public but seem to now be leaking out.
A prayer to the Holy Ghost would seem to be in order right now.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/12/canonization-of-john-paul-ii-in-october.html#comment-form
Actually, this is more serious than first imagined. If this is not mere wishful thinking on the part of John Paul's admirers and does indeed occur then we have reached yet another crossroads in the history of the Church.
If a legitimate canonization is done, properly and without chicanery, then as I understand it that becomes what some theologians term a "second-class infallible declaration", a declaration that that person is actually in Heaven. Now what is alarming in this particular case is that there is no evidence that John Paul II's pontificate was anything but a disaster for the Church. There is plenty of evidence that this troubled man spoke not only good words but not-so-good words, words that just skirted the edges of heresy. And, no, one doesn't need to be a licensed theologian to be able to state that, as long as one has a basic familiarity with doctrine. Additionally, there is no evidence at all, unless it has been kept secret (and why it would be kept secret at all would be an open question), that he ever recanted some of those problematical words and actions. So if the case for his sanctification is being based on what the public could clearly see and hear during his reign then it would seem utterly impossible for the Holy Ghost to allow his canonization to move forward. It would be an utter contradiction.
Unless, of course, behind-the-scenes chicanery is in play. In other words if the man actually gets canonized without any clear evidence that he undid some of the damage he inflicted on the Church by his bizarre opinions and lack of firm governance, allowing the Church to float aimlessly at sea, then we are justified in suspecting that games are being played in Rome and that proper processes are being ignored in an unseemly haste to further the agenda of the modernists in the Church. We know that John Paul II, for all his kindly qualities, was a modernist as is, by the way, the current occupant of Peter's Chair. And if Rome wants the average Catholic to put aside his suspicions about this canonization then it is going to have to release to the public solid evidence that John Paul II deserves to be declared a Saint.
It is true that generally speaking the Church looks at someone's personal holiness more than anything else (so I have been told) when assessing qualifications for Sainthood. But I believe it logical to assume that if a man is personally holy his actions would bear that out. Here there are far too many contradictions. If John Paul II were personally holy then how can one explain his actions? Can the authorities in the Church assure us that his personal holiness trumps his terrible legislation? Can his reciting of the daily rosary (which I have no doubt of) have allowed him to approve the sacrilege of Communion-in-the-hand? Yes, I do try myself to perform this duty on a daily basis but speaking honestly I believe the chances of my own future canonization are somewhat slim. This is not an attempt at flippancy. This sublime prayer has no doubt saved many from going completely off the deep end. But does it always lead to one's eventual raising to the altars? Did John Paul's prayer life prevent him from even worse mistakes? It's an interesting question. This is too serious an issue to allow sentimentality to rear its hideous head, and to wallow in our own "feelings" toward this Pope.
Since such evidence is scant at best we have a right to know what criteria Rome is using, in detail, to advance his cause. We are perfectly within our rights as Catholics to ask, "Where is the evidence?" The supposed "miracle" that has been noised about has been, under closer examination, seriously doubted by reputable scholars as being a genuine miraculous occurrence.
It was John Paul II himself who deliberately cheapened the Saint-making process by his streamlining of all the necessary precautions that the Church had in place for centuries to protect it from from making errors in these cases. These measures were in place so that the Church could declare with absolute certainty that this or that man or woman was worthy of veneration. How many times in Church history have there been charlatans who gave every evidence of holiness, only to be discovered later as frauds? That is why the Church has historically taken her time when considering the canonization of persons. Indeed it took the Church 400 years before finally declaring Joan of Arc a Saint.
We could go on cataloguing the scandals that prospered under John Paul II, some of them instituted by the man himself. Assisi is one; the "apologies"(!)to the Jews is another; the appointing and maintaining of one snake after another in the episcopacy; his downright weird meetings with pagans, topless and otherwise. It is too depressing to recall. But we must keep these tragedies in mind when we speak of canonizing a man who was at the center of these tragedies.
These attempts to canonize recent modernist Popes is a very, very troubling development. It could call into question the infallibility of the Pope in the minds of poorly-instructed Catholics. What if one of these men is "canonized" by some underhanded Vatican streamlining of the process and it later comes to light that the personal life of such a man was a moral mess? Unless we know for certain that proper procedures were in place we cannot, tragically, just assume that Rome has made a wise decision. We have the examples of Donald Wuerl and Vincent Nichols and the "theology of the body" to remind us that some decisions of the Popes are skewed at best. There is a move afoot now to canonize even Paul VI. Mind-boggling. If that man is canonized by some process of episcopal legerdemain the Church will indeed have more than egg on her face, because there are some rather unflattering aspects to his life that have been kept from the public but seem to now be leaking out.
A prayer to the Holy Ghost would seem to be in order right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
