ANOTHER TAKE ON THE FRANCISCANS

With our thanks to Anthony Fraser over at the APROPOS site, he has brought to our attention the views of the fiercely Catholic Scotsman Gerald Warner concerning the strange Vatican actions toward the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

Warner doesn't mince words.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-ban-on-latin-mass-has-put-pope-beyond-the-pale-1-3029474

We are inclined to think that something very bad is afoot in all this.

VLADIMIR PUTIN 2016

He has been trying to get the country repaired after a century of Communist dictatorship.

He has slapped down the yelping homosexuals when they were getting too uppity.

He has told the biggest and most obnoxious country in the world to go take a hike.

He and his government are trying to prevent another US/Israel begotten war.

He protects children from predators.

He has worked hard to cleanse his land of the depredations of the oligarchs.

He has encouraged mothers to have more children.

His government is not beholden to Monsanto.

Or the Zionists.  Or the Americans.  (Or do I repeat myself?)

He has shown respect and deference to the Orthodox church.

He has called out nations for oppressing Christians.

His government has given asylum to whistle blower Edward Snowden.

He is honoring now the great Saint Vladimir.

Can we get him to run for US president??   He's got my vote in 2016.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: 2016....for real hope and change.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for Russia.

A MAN STEPS FORWARD

A Bishop confronts the screaming jackals.  He does it calmly and bravely, like a man.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/bp-paprocki-in-a-hostile-crowd-tells-it-like-it-is/

I have hopes that a few real men will appear in episcopal robes who will counteract the Lehmanns, the Mahonys, the Mullers and the Danneels'.  Some, thanks be to God, are emerging from the shadows.  One such is Bishop Thomas Paprocki.

It would not be hard to imagine the Bishop feeling the wrath of the Devil during this meeting.  As one who has in a small way confronted shrieking evil I know the feeling of the blood turning to ice in my veins as I watch the deep hatred in their eyes.  No one who has not experienced it can know the feeling.  I suspect the good Bishop knows the feeling now if he hadn't already before.

It has become the good and holy custom to pray for erring Bishops, Cardinals and other religious (while hoping they will go away) so that they may become once again Catholics firm in their faith.  We suggest that in addition to those prayers let us offer a few for men like Bishop Paprocki.  May his courage lead the way for others to follow.

God bless 'im! 

CARDINALS ABBOTT AND COSTELLO

His Eminence Bud Abbott (r) and His Eminence Lou Costello (l) at the recent Conclave

The Catholics of Washington and New York are watched over by, respectively, Cardinals Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, sometimes also known as Cardinals Wuerl and Dolan.  They are a famous team.  Under their careful guidance Holy Communion is given to swine, pimps, sodomites and Buddhists without the benefit of the Sacrament of Penance first or even the nicety of being a Catholic.  That annoyance of receiving absolution prior to receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is reserved only for lowly Catholics in the pew.  The rich, the powerful and the perverted are not troubled by such incidentals.

Cardinal Abbott writes scholarly books about the Eucharist...then refuses to deny It to public sinners, thereby bringing down judgment upon himself and the recipient.  It is more important for him to be seen as tolerant, thinking, reflective and nice...and a good American.  Cardinal Abbott very much likes applause.  On occasion, he will applaud himself:

Cardinal Abbott Wuerl lives in Washington.

Cardinal Costello on the other hand lives in New York City.  He likes to laugh and to joke and to jab his elbow into people's ribs.  He laughs quite a lot.  He is enjoying himself immensely.  He believes he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  He even sometimes likes to think of himself as Batman:

Cardinal Costello Dolan also likes to think of himself, on rare occasions, as a Cardinal.  But not so often that it might take him away from his favorite role, that of Cardinal-Comedian, or the Clown Prince of the Catholic Church.  He will giggle at the slightest provocation.  If he is seated with the rich and the powerful and a mildly amusing joke is told he will roar with a laughter that will bring the house down.  The Cardinal doesn't really like to be too serious in his role as a Cardinal.

These are two of the most powerful prelates in the US Episcopate, dedicating their lives to spreading the Faith....as long as it doesn't offend anyone.

The only question therefore to be asked is, who's on first?

THE POPE WON'T "JUDGE" HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS?

A news flash from RT Today:  

"Pope Francis ‘won’t judge gay priests’

Pope Francis said he won’t judge priests for their sexual orientation, speaking Monday during a plane journey back to the Vatican from his first foreign trip in Brazil. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” AP quoted Francis as saying. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, authored a document that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests."

Could someone well versed in moral theology, and not one prone to mental gymnastics, please explain what that is supposed to mean?  Is this another of those famous off-the-cuff poorly worded blurts of Pope Francis, or is he saying something definite here?   With him it is very hard to know.

The extremely tiresome "don't be judgmental" cliche comes to mind when hearing these words the Pope is supposed to have said.  Did the Pope mention mortal sin?  No.  Did he mention Confession or Penance?  No.  Did he mention what the sin is that cries to Heaven for vengeance?  No.  Read those remarks again very slowly and very carefully and without exasperation.  What is he saying?

First of all, Francis apparently accepts the ludicrous notion that someone can be born with the homosexual perversion, as if God made him that way.  Is that what he thinks if he uses such phrasing as "If someone is gay..."

Secondly the Holy Father seems to be quite comfortable using the perfectly innocent word "gay" to describe the most unspeakable of sexual deviance.  That tells us many, many things.

"Who am I to judge?"  Well, dear Holy Father if you are incapable of determining the difference between right and wrong and are perfectly comfortable with sodomites going on their merry way to eternal damnation then perhaps, with all due respect, you need to find a new line of work to be in.

A NUDIST JOINS THE PAPAL COMMISSION

Really, this is all getting a little ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes, the title of this post is a bit over the top, I know, and I realize that circumspection is not a hallmark of today's movers and shakers, but who on earth is watching the store over at the Vatican?

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350565?eng=y

Magister's article gives more important information on the Ricca affair (concluding that he hopes the Pope will now at last take action) but then gives us a portrait of a thirty-something babe who has been chosen as a member of the famous Vatican commission everyone is talking about.

Good grief, Your Holiness, couldn't someone else have been found to fill the post rather than her?

DESPAIR AND REMBERT WEAKLAND

A bronze depicting that notable protector of children Rembert Weakland (l), flanked by lesser lights St John the Evangelist and St Anne, mother of Mary.  It now graces the Cathedral in Milwaukee.

What goes through the mind of a man who is struggling to overcome a dark and terrible sin when he learns that his new boss or superior has that same sin and is not only not trying to overcome it but in fact apparently revels in it?  That question came to mind when the news came out in a recent front page article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel listing the names and faces of some forty-five priests (one or two of whom I knew personally) who had been secret homosexuals and had molested a number of young men (though some of those named were not sodomites and committed natural, as opposed to unnatural, sins).

Some of these priests were molesters before that most strange of men, Rembert George Weakland, replaced William E Cousins as Archbishop of Milwaukee.  But such men flourished under Weakland's fiefdom and many more were added to the list, a fact oddly missing from most of the news reports of the debacle in Milwaukee.  The pro-sodomy Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel went to extreme lengths to make Weakland look relatively benign in their news coverage, directing most of their venom at his replacement, Timothy Dolan.  One had to look with a microscope at the article to learn that the homosexual Weakland was finally relieved of his post after his own dirty little secret became known by one of his former lovers, wherein the world learned that the Archbishop had used about a half million Church dollars as hush money to keep his sordid double-life out of the newspapers (to no avail as it ultimately turned out). [This article from the much-missed web site Seattle Catholic gives the details.]  The Journal-Sentinel is really quite a funny publication.  On the one hand they will praise the recent Supreme Court decision giving the right of two men to "marry" and adopt boys who will, just as Mary's little lamb followed Mary, be perfect, ready-made victims for these newly-wed pederasts, and on the other they will condemn priestly pederasts for doing the same thing.  One wonders how the editors of that newspaper handle all these difficult mental gyrations.  One wonders how they can sleep at night.

The proclivities of the new Archbishop, one of Cardinal Villot's "boys" given to Milwaukee in 1977, were to be known virtually from the start of his sad reign so these homosexual priests preying on adolescent boys were either happy that one of their own was now in charge or in personal despair knowing that they would get no help from this man in fighting their terrible temptations.  Weakland telegraphed what was going through his mind when he would force priests and seminarians to view pornography, homo and hetero, at a number of their diocesan meetings.  Was it for recruitment purposes, one wonders?  In any event the resolve of those priests who were struggling to overcome these hideous sins must have been sorely tried at such meetings.  It is not hard to see how some of them would fall victim to despair and even, at least in one case, suicide.

Think of a petty thief who quite reluctantly engages in a habit of filching from the cash drawer finding that his new boss shares the same proclivity.  If the boss can do it, he thinks, why should he be so worried over it?  Weakland's promotion of this unspeakable vice is something he will one day have to answer for either on earth or before his Judge.  The number of priests who shared his sin and fell into despair because of his promoting of it are also things Weakland will have to answer for.  For a Bishop to drive not only his flock but his own priests to despair is a serious matter.  How many souls were lost because of this...lost, as in eternal damnation forever?

I hope the higher-ups in Rome reflect upon this when next they choose to send a man to oversee a Diocese.  I say these words even while reflecting on the Ricca scandal for which we all await a Papal response while not being distracted by the hoopla surrounding the latest rock star event in Rio.

THE KANSAS CITY SHUFFLE - VATICAN STYLE

GUEST POST:

The Vatican City Shuffle:

The Conning of Christendom

By Timothy J Cullen

“A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.” (“Mr. Goodkat,” Lucky Number Slevin)

          When the Second Vatican Council ended nearly half a century ago in 1965, the Roman Catholic Church and Christendom were about to initiate a process of change that would prove to be as profound as that brought about by the Protestant Reformation, although perhaps it would be better said “to continue” rather than “to initiate” a process of change begun even earlier and never truly interrupted.

          What makes Vatican II a watershed in Church history is the acceleration and profundity of the process of change: simply put, it is difficult for older Catholics to recognize as the Catholic Church the international organization headquartered in Vatican City and recently presided over by Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, one of the principle intellectual architects of the transformation of the venerable religion that was the foundation of Western civilization and culture into… into… into what, exactly?

          Those seeking the answer to this question must look not to the theological antecedents of the transformers, but rather to the philosophical sources of their thought. As for the ongoing process of transformation—the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity”—, one needn’t look far: two of the former pope’s fellow Germans—Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) provided the inspiration for much of the thinking that went into both process and content.

          Space constraints require that the reader make the effort to familiarize himself with at least the general philosophical direction of both Kant and Hegel, but for the purposes of this essay, it should be noted that Hegel is now perhaps best known for what has come to be known as the “Hegelian dialectic,” generally conceived as the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” model, though Hegel himself never phrased it so, but rather as “abstract-negative-concrete,” by which one may infer that his intention in developing the dialectic was to arrive at the “concrete”—the “synthesis”—though a process of mediation that would end with the retention of what is perceived as useful in the original proposition while employing the dialectical process to move beyond the limitations of the original. In other words, it is a process of continuous change, of immanence, both of these being absolutely antithetical to dogmatic Catholicism, which is to say the Catholic Church as it had existed since its establishment by Christ.

          The Hegelian dialectic was adapted by Marxist philosophers and politicians, most notably the dreaded and murderous Soviet dictators Lenin and Stalin. Communist fellow-travelers have also adopted and adapted the method as a valuable weapon in their intellectual arsenal. The dialectic allows for the slow but steady shifting of the “middle” toward one of the two poles in opposition. In practice, this has meant steadily shifting the “syntheses” to the political left, beginning each new dialectic with an ever-more-leftward-right, so to speak. Slowly but surely, the original “right” has disappeared to be replaced by a “right” that would once have been seen as “left.” It is this writer’s contention that nearly all the post-Vatican II Church hierarchy and clergy have been and continue to be complicit in this deliberate religio-cultural shift to the kind of intellectual subjectivism that characterizes both Protestantism in religion and the kind of oligarchic totalitarianism in politics that typifies both fascism and communism.

          The “Kansas City Shuffle” is a con-game that depends upon misdirection of the victim’s attention for its success. The modernists surrounding the former and present pope—and perhaps the former pope himself—are employing the “Vatican City Shuffle” to move the theological, political, social and cultural position of the Church slowly but surely steadily leftward in sync with what is taking place in secular Christendom, now no longer Christian in anything but name.

          There is an understandable reluctance on the part of the faithful to accept the truth of the above proposition: to do so could be seen as calling into question certain parts of fundamental Catholic doctrine. Then again, one could also posit that the hierarchy, the clergy, the religious and certainly the laity have not only called into question fundamental Catholic doctrine and dogma, but have by their actions demonstrated open defiance. Who, then, is correct? What should one consider Catholic doctrine when what was once quite clear has now become ambiguous to say the least?

          To the best of this writer’s admittedly limited understanding, the answer to the question “who?” is clear: the Holy Father, who is the undisputed head of the Church. Catholic doctrine is very clear on this point and it is an article of faith that the Holy Spirit takes an active part in the election of the successor of Peter. There can be no question that Benedict XVI was chosen pope. If he is in fact a heretic, an agent of the Father of Lies, a deliberate destroyer of the Roman Catholic Church, he is nevertheless the pope and one must believe that the Holy Spirit has made him pope for a reason beyond our present understanding. One could argue that Catholic dogma with respect to the pope has in a sense painted the Church into a corner, but dogma it is and it remains to be seen how the Church will exit the trap laid for her long ago.

          And if Benedict XVI, the modernists and now Pope Francis are in fact being guided by the Holy Spirit, difficult though that may be for a Traditionalist to accept? Should the good Catholic not humbly submit to changes he may find distasteful and threatening? Should one simply accept what the overwhelming majority of Catholics have not only accepted but embraced? Should one be “one with” the Holy Father and “fake it till you make it” with respect to acceptance and embrace of the now-not-so-new liturgy of Paul VI, assuming one accepts that the “new” Mass is valid? Is to do otherwise an act of defiance? Does obedience demand that one follow the Church into what one is in conscience convinced is error; is to do otherwise not the essence of Protestantism? These dilemmas have created great discomfort for Traditional Catholics for nearly fifty years now and show no sign of abating; quite the contrary. What is one to believe?

          Has the Holy Spirit placed upon the papal throne a series of “saboteurs” to test the Faithful? This cannot be dismissed as paranoid nonsense unless one is willing to ignore any and all objective evidence that the Church has been guided in a direction that seems to contravene Her two thousand year history. Or is it God’s will that the Church continue her transformation per the hermeneutic of continuity and that the old forms and faith wither on the vine until nearly no vestige of them remains?

          The “Motu Propio” with respect to what is now known as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass has not proven to be a great success in inspiring a restoration of the venerable Mass as it existed until 1969. Many bishops have either openly defied the pope or have quietly refused to offer the old Mass with good will or even polite resignation; indeed, the bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Switzerland, has published a decree forbidding SSPX priests to celebrate the Mass in churches and chapels in his diocese! The bishop—also a Dominican theologian, Rector of Angelicum, Secretary of the International Theological Commission and member of the delegation representing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Church’s talks with the Society of St. Pius X—cites in his decree a letter written by Benedict XVI to bishops worldwide stating that SSPX clergy “do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church,” because the society lacks canonical status.[1] This apparently contradictory set of circumstances provides an unfortunately telling example of the “Vatican City Shuffle” in action.

          The “Shuffle” has presented Traditional Catholics with a paradox that will not be easily resolved: if the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated a strong and apparently irreversible tendency to “Protestantize” herself, then is a Traditional Catholic who believes the aforementioned himself becoming a Protestant if he refuses to accept this tendency in spite of the fact that its characteristics are openly endorsed by recent popes and their hierarchy? Is the institutional Roman Catholic Church recently headed by H.H. Benedict XVI and now by Pope Francis truly what it claims to be, or is it in fact a Protestant simulacrum of what the Roman Catholic Church was until the transformation resulting from Vatican II? Or is the Traditional Catholic simply a stubborn holdout flirting with heresy by way of disobedience? Or is the Traditional Catholic correct in believing that it is Rome and not he who has gone dreadfully astray?

          The “Shuffle” is in play with respect to politics as well. Once a bastion of the “right,” very politically conservative, Holy Mother Church abandoned this posture by failing to condemn communism at Vatican II and has ever since shuffled slowly to the left, embracing globalism and socialism while paying lip service to conservatism by denouncing such brazenly Marxist manifestations as “Liberation Theology.” And socially? Well, simply look at how modern folk dress to go to Mass. Look at how the clergy dress for Mass! Not all that long ago, “abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders” was considered apostasy by the Church[2]; now it is the order of the day.

          Some years ago, this writer wrote a Remnant essay in defense of Benedict XVI entitled “On the Tines of Morton’s Fork,” which treats of someone in an unwinnable situation; that situation now applies to the Traditional Catholic: no matter what one does, one loses with respect to being in “full communion” with the pope and Holy Mother Church, seeming ever more like “Holy Step-Mother Church,” if the irreverence can be pardoned. For its failure to bend the knee before the changes of Vatican II, the SSPX has been rather unceremoniously kicked from the curb directly into the metaphorical gutter, as the institutional Church’s bishop of the home country of the SSPX demonstrates: those who do not keep in step with the shuffle are cast aside.

          This writer has lost his faith in the good intentions of the previous Holy Father and of his subordinates with respect to the Catholic faith; the intentions of the pope and his subordinates with respect to the institutional Church cannot be questioned if logical coherence with Church dogma is to be maintained; the “Vatican City Shuffle” has been superbly executed in that respect. Does this loss of faith damn him to hell? It may well. Can one act in opposition to conscience if conscience fails to conform to Church dogma vis-à-vis obedience, no matter how distorted it may now appear? Apparently not. And so…?

          There is a very poignant nineteenth century Negro spiritual sung by the late Paul Robeson (1898-1976 ) and in a very moving version by the late jazz singer Billie Holiday (née Eleanora Harris; 1915-1959) that is entitled “Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child;” this writer shares the feeling with respect to Holy Mother Church, who seems to have left as foundlings him and no small number of his fellow faithful, clergy and religious included.

          The “Vatican City Shuffle,” like the Hegelian dialectic that gave birth to it, has maneuvered many directly on to the tines of “Morton’s Fork” from which there is no truly acceptable release; every which way you look at it, you lose. One need look no further than at the examples of the various priestly fraternities that have tried to reach an accommodation, a “full canonical status” with the Roman Catholic Church as ruled over by the modernists St. Pius X demanded an oath against: they have either bent the knee or found themselves on the outside looking in.

          Bend the knee or not: that is your choice, a choice with consequences.

          Look right; go left! The “Vatican City Shuffle”!

          Care to dance?

          Damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

---

[1] http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com.ar/2013/02/lefebvrians-are-suspended-divinis-they_2.html

[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

POSTSCRIPT:

We here at The Eye Witness are very pleased to present these thoughts from Mr Cullen, who has contributed many articles to such entities as LewRockwell.com and The Remnant.  

In his article above he paints a sad but truthful picture of some of the goings-on in Holy Mother Church that should concern not only Catholics but the whole world.  As goes the Church so goes civilization.

If I offer any criticism of Mr Cullen's thoughts above it would only be in the realm of the actions of the Holy Ghost during a papal Conclave.  I  remain unconvinced that we can say simply that the Holy Ghost personally chooses the Pope.  We heard much of this in the recent papal election.  The action of the Holy Spirit would seem to be more of a form of guidance to the electors, provided they directly and prayerfully ask for such help from the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.  We have no assurance of that other than a naive hope that the Cardinals so meeting were asking the Holy Ghost for such guidance.  Indeed we have plenty of evidence that certain Cardinals were playing a purely political game and making sure that "their" candidate was getting the right number of votes.  The whole sodomite infiltration also cannot be ruled out of this sorry mix.

Whether or not God, Our Lord and the Holy Ghost are pleased with the current occupant of Peter's Chair I have no way of knowing.  The man is being showered with graces - more graces than those given to any other living person - but it is up to the man himself to cooperate with those graces something, again, I have no way of knowing.

We are grateful that Mr Cullen has offered this piece to us for our little blog and we hope that he will be no stranger to these pages in the future.  

FASCISM ON THE MARCH ONCE AGAIN

I wonder how much longer we American cowards are going to sit still for this:

http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/

Perhaps when a few doors are smashed open in the middle of the night?