What Seems....

For those who have read Lord of the World, and I am finishing up my fifth reading at least, the title reveals a problem of today's West--that of the confusion of religion with politics, a theme I have followed on this blog for a long time.

The title itself describes three different persons.

The first is the True Lord of the World, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour, King, Ruler of all.

The second person to which the title refers is the Pope, who is the vicar of Christ on earth and the leader of the institution of the Church, as well as the spiritual head. The main character becomes the pope.

The third is the mock Lord of the World, the AntiChrist, who will attempt to take sovereignty from God and His Pope, in the End Times. In the story, of course, he faces the pope head on. We know who wins, as Christ comes to claim His earth, His people.

I can see from my seat a Catbird, which is calling out. This young bird sounds like a cat, but can mimic the songs and calls of other birds. It imitates a Robin, a Cardinal, a Starling, but remains a Catbird.

The sounds made by the Catbird vary, from songs, to calls, to clicking noises. No matter what sounds the Grey Catbird makes, this creature still remains itself.

So, too, the AntiChrist will come and mock Christ. He will perform miracles in the name of humanity, not God, and will draw men down into deceit and, finally, hell.

The only Lord of the World is Christ, and His representative on earth, the Pope.

Sadly, too many people look to politicians for salvation. Only Christ saves us from ourselves; the world, the flesh and the devil.

The little Catbird has flown away and now a Mourning Dove, on of my favorites, is singing over the loud hum of the cicadas. Summer will end soon, and the birds will fly south, except for the few which winter over in this harsh climate.

Few safe havens will remain in the time of tribulation, which is barely just beginning, but beginning. Our children and chidrens' children will see the worst persecution. I sincerely hope, Dear Readers, you are teaching your children to be saints.

Tough mindedness and discernment need to be priorities in their lives, as in ours.

I am having trouble with the Internet today, so I may not be able to blog much.

Hopefully, bbl.

Meanderings from a conversation....

An interesting discussion with a seminarian led to the idea that most if not all the politicians in the West are speaking out of a philosophical vacuum. Most politicians are not trained or choosing even utilitarianism or communism, much less natural law philosophy, but merely "sensationalism".

Politics has become mere reactions, and the purposeful creation of issues which ignore the really important issues.

Such issues as global warming and even immigration are not, of course, the real issues which governments should be addressing.

Even the dire financial situations in most of the Western nations are not the main issues.

The main issue which politicians must address is simply that of natural law philosophy.

These questions must be addressed.

Who is man? Why does he exist? What is the purpose of human life?

What is the purpose of society? What does society owe the individual? What does the individual owe society?

And so on.

One of the subjects of discussion with this sem surrounded the idea that the theology of the body has twisted the reality of the role of the couple and the family in society.

The Catholic ideal of society never merely included the family as the center of society.

Catholic culture included celibacy from the very beginnings of the Church as one of the two important calls of humans to build the Kingdom of God.

From the Pope, to the bishops, to the priests, and deacons, as well as the religious, including monks, brothers and nuns, celibacy formed just as important a center of society as the family.

It is only after the Protestant Revolt that celibacy was denigrated, no longer seen as essential to the common good.

It is my opinion that the emphasis on the family in the theology of the body puts too much pressure on families, pressure which is unnecessary and simply, not Catholic.

In the coming days of trial, families will need celibates even more, those dedicated to the consecrated life of prayer and penance.

Couples and families need priests and nuns as the praying centers of battle.

Can we move back to the Catholic paradigm of society? Is it too late?

Reading for a cold day

Au milieu des solicitudes and Diuturnum

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_16021892_au-milieu-des-sollicitudes_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html

Newman for our times....

I have four posts today quoting Newman, a prophet for our time. One is in awe of the man's intellect, considering his young age when he gave the Oxford Sermons, from which these quotations come....The first post below is a warning on abandoning reason and obedience to the Church. The second reminds us of the need for the life and discipline of the virtues. This third quotation illuminates a problem of the world of 2012. The last one today examines more of the Modernists heresies he describes. Take a look: Newman is relating the idea that superficial, and we could add, materialistic views of life, will not sustain a person in hard times.

I shall just point out three items in this section: one, the vast majority of modern people live at the superficial level, seeking temporary or superficial peace in their daily lives and only wanting "cheerfulness". Two, most people do not believe in serious, mortal, damning sin. All is forgiven, or worse, the frameworks for judging good and evil no longer exist. Three, there are many who no longer believe that doctrines effect their daily lives. These doctrines do cause us to live in the way we choose to live. He is, of course, referring to the heresies of modernism, among them indifferentism. eirenism, and relativism in all of these quotations.  Here is Newman:

But, fairly as this superficial view of human nature answers in peaceful times; speciously as it may argue, innocently as it may experimentalize, in the rare and short-lived intervals of a nation's tranquillity; yet, let persecution or tribulation arise, and forthwith its imbecility is discovered. It is but a theory; it cannot cope with difficulties; it imparts no strength or loftiness of mind; it gains no influence over others. It is at once shattered and crushed in the stern conflict of good and evil; disowned, or rather overlooked, by the combatants on either side, and vanishing, no one knows how or whither.

7. The opinions alluded to in the foregoing remarks, when assuming a definite doctrinal basis, will be found to centre in Socinianism or Theophilanthropism, the {104} name varying according as it admits or rejects the authority of Scripture. And the spirit of this system will be found to infect great numbers of men, who are unconscious of the origin and tendency of their opinions. The essential dogmas of Socinianism are such as these; that the rule of Divine government is one of benevolence, and nothing but benevolence; that evil is but remedial and temporary; that sin is of a venial nature; that repentance is a sufficient atonement for it; that the moral sense is substantially but an instinct of benevolence; and that doctrinal opinions do not influence our character or prospects, nor deserve our serious attention. On the other hand, sentiments of this character are evidently the animating principle of the false cheerfulness, and the ill-founded hope, and the blind charitableness, which I have already assigned to the man of the world.

8. In order to illustrate the untenableness of such propositions as have just been adduced, and hence to show, by way of instance, the shallowness and feebleness of the minds which maintain them, their real feebleness in all practical matters, plausibly or loudly as they may speak during the hour of tranquillity in which they display themselves, it may be useful to make some remarks on what appears to be the real judgment of God upon human sin, as far as it is discernible by the light of nature; not as if any thing new could be said on the subject, but in order to remind ourselves of truths which are peculiarly important in these times.

Newman warned against trusting in the world. His words demonstrate a great wisdom for youth as well as older ones today. Obviously, he understood the wiles of the evil one.

The palmary device of Satan is to address himself to the pride of our nature, and, by the promise of independence, to seduce us into sin. Those who have been brought up in ignorance of the polluting fashions of the world, too often feel a rising in their minds against the discipline and constraint kindly imposed upon them; and, not understanding that their ignorance is their glory, and that they cannot really enjoy both good and evil, they murmur that they are not allowed to essay what they do not wish to practise, or to choose for themselves in {126} matters where the very knowledge seems to them to give a superiority to the children of corruption. Thus the temptation of becoming as gods works as in the beginning, pride opening a door to lust; and then, intoxicated by their experience of evil, they think they possess real wisdom, and take a larger and more impartial view of the nature and destinies of man than religion teaches; and, while the customs of society restrain their avowals within the bounds of propriety, yet in their hearts they learn to believe that sin is a matter of course, not a serious evil, a failing in which all have share, indulgently to be spoken of, or rather, in the case of each individual, to be taken for granted, and passed over in silence; and believing this, they are not unwilling to discover or to fancy weaknesses in those who have the credit of being superior to the ordinary run of men, to insinuate the possibility of human passions influencing them, this or that of a more refined nature, when the grosser cannot be imputed, and, extenuating at the same time the guilt of the vicious, to reduce in this manner all men pretty much to a level. A more apposite instance of this state of soul cannot be required than is given us in the celebrated work of an historian of the last century, who, for his great abilities, and, on the other hand, his cold heart, impure mind, and scoffing spirit, may justly be accounted as, in this country at least, one of the masters of a new school of error, which seems not yet to have accomplished its destinies, and is framed more exactly after the received type of the author of evil, than the other chief anti-Christs who have, in these last times, occupied the scene of the world.

Here he is strongly against the modernists, especially false ecumenism, eirenism. 

And some there are who, keeping their faith in the main, give up the notion of its importance. Finding that men will not agree together on points of doctrine and discipline, and imagining that union must be effected on any terms, they consent to abandon articles of faith as the basis of Christian fellowship, and try to effect what they call a union of hearts, as a bond of fellowship among those who differ in their notions of the One God, One Lord, One Spirit, One baptism, and One body; forgetful of the express condemnation pronounced by our Saviour upon those who "believe not" the preaching of His servants [Mark xvi. 16.]; and that {130} he who denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father [1 John ii. 22.].

To be continued..

Joseph Curl on yesterday's decision and Dr. Sanity's brilliant note

And, in the WT, another person, Joseph Curl, who has extensive experience in political watching seems positive as not only to the interpretation of tax, but that the decision helps, rather than hinders, the possibility of Romney winning the election. Note this statement from Joseph Curl:
Chief Justice Roberts has given Mitt Romney a key attack: The president is a tax-and-spend liberal bent on expanding government to unprecedented levels. And the presumed Republican nominee knows it: “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama,” he said from a rooftop in Washington overlooking the Capitol. “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president.”


So, for Campaign 2012, it’s game on. And for his part, Mr. Fleischer regained his pithy pundacity after digesting the high court’s ruling. “Mitt Romney will appeal this decision to the American people on November 6th. Oral arguments are already taking place.”

Dr. Sanity has surpassed herself in her comment on the SCOTUS decision. I highly recommend you read her blog on this, and here is a cartoon from her blog. She is one of my two favorite blogs and she is especially intelligent, as some of you know. She quotes Stephen Hicks with regard to this delusion of the Post-Modern, one of my themes, but here so excellently defined.

 Stephen Hicks wrote in Explaining Postmodernism[pages 175-177]:

To the modernist, the "mask" metaphor is a recognition of the fact that words are not always to be taken literally or as directly stating a fact--that people largely use language elliptically, metaphorically, or to state falsehoods, that language can be textured with layers of meaning, and that it can be used to cover hypocrisies or to rationalize. Accordingly, unmasking means interpreting or investigating to a literal meaning or fact of the matter. The process of unmasking is cognitive, guided by objective standards, with the purpose of coming to an awareness of reality.

For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality....

For the postmodernist, language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality, whether to an external nature or an underlying self. Language is not about being aware of the world, or about distinguishing the true from the false, or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity, soundness, and probability. Accordingly, postmodernism recasts the nature of rehtoric. Rhetoric is persasion in the absence of cognition....And so given the conflict models of social relations that dominate postmodern discourse, it makes perfect sense that to most postmodernists language is primarily a weapon.

This explains the harsh nature of much postmodern rhetoric. The regular deployments of ad hominem, the setting up of straw men, the regular attempts to silence opposing voices are all logical consequences of the postmodern epistemology of language. Stanley Fish, as noted in Chapter Four, calls all opponents of racial preferences bigots and lumps them in with the Ku Klux Klan. Andrea Dworking calls all heterosexual males rapists and repeatedly labels "Amerika" a fascist state. With such rhetoric, truth or falsity is not the issue: what matters primarily is the language's effectiveness.

Language as a weapon, people, is used not only by Americans, but by Europeans as well, which is why we Catholics must not only put on the mind of Christ, but speak truthfully and clearly. 

On St. Irenaeus, the New Gnosticism, and the Codex Tchacos

Those of us who actually have studied history and religion, if not theology or philosophy, as I have been so fortunate to have done and still do, know that there is more historical evidence for Christ than for Julius Caesar and other greats. Sometimes, I admit to an impatience with those who so desire to debunk Christianity as some medieval plot to take fun and independence away from humans--a curse only to be thrown-off at the Enlightenment again. When a feast day like one this week, that of St. Irenaeus of Lyons occurs, I want to jump up and down crying "See, it was all there, early on, folks."

Irenaeus wrote Against the Heresies, (among other things) and the world has copy of a reference in his work on parchment. Irenaeus died in 202 and probably knew St. Polycarp, the student of St. John the Apostle. Irenaeus is famous not only for his warning against Gnosticism, but for his teaching on Mary, the Blessed Virgin and other writings.

Irenaeus's treatise mentioned above, refers most likely to this Codex Tchacos, now in Texas, which includes the false Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic work, among other apocryphal, specifically Gnostic texts. This has not been proven as the same one mentioned in a list of St. Irenaeus, but scholars still are discussing this fragment. Gnosticism and Arianism proved to be the two greatest threats to the Church until modern times with Modernism and Marxism looming in the 19th Century, plaguing us to this day.

That we have so much historical evidence for Christianity is the direct result of the glory of the Incarnation, denied by false religions as well as atheists and new critical scholars. St. Irenaeus would not be pleased with the fact that the New Age Gnostics have picked up on this Gospel of Judas and used it for their own purposes. One only needs to mention the National Geographic presentation on this. Here is linked an interesting commentary on the book by April DeConick, the scholar who criticized the entire handling in the media of the manuscript in 2006-2007. What those scholars are arguing about is exactly a new Gnosticism criticizing the Canon of Scripture and the authority of the Catholic Church. Sigh, this is the never-ending story.

Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man, is honored today through St. Irenaeus.  Dear Saint, pray for us in these confusing times, to instruct the ignorant and correct those in error. Above all, give us patience.

The Enemy is Within the Church...I quote the current Pope on this point, and one only needs to look at seminaries

The very first entry in the three volume set of Gramsci's Notebooks is a reference by him to the social encyclicals regarding socialism and Modernism. Obviously, Gramsci had read these, including The Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, and the writings of Pope Leo XIII. The editor of the Notebooks states that Gramsci had copies of the first two and a commentary on the third.  Gramsci wrote in 1929, that the popes taught social theory that, "1)...private property, especially 'landed property' is a 'natural right' which may not be violated, not even through high taxes (the programs of 'Christian democracy" tendency for the redistribution-with indemnity-of land to poor peasants, as well as their financial doctrines are derived from these assertions); 2) the poor must accept their lot, since it would be impious to eliminate them; 3) alms-giving is a Christian duty and implies the existence of poverty; 4) the social question is primarily moral and religious, not economic, and it must be resolved through Christian charity, the dictates of morality, and the decree of religion."  The note on this entry is worth reading as well.

My question is this. If a Marxist in prison could read all of the seminal documents, quoted on this blog almost weekly, when can't seminarians study these? I know they do not in many American seminaries, and most likely, in some European ones. I know one temporary deacon  and one seminarian, from two seminaries, in the Midwest, who have only had to read Rerum Novarum, and none of the Modernists or other encyclicals in six years of study. They do not understand Catholic teaching on socialism and the nature of the individual with regard to economic theories. They are, for all practical purposes, socialists, or at best, ignorant.

The reason for this horrible oversight in education is a twofold problem: one, many of the professors are communists or at least, socialists, and; two, many are Modernist heretics. Sorry, this is true.

The litmus test for such things is not been applied at all seminaries. Blessed John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem; with the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity has been systematically ignored by some seminary administrations. This disobedient mode of working and hiring of instructors continues, to the detriment of the Church. Ignorance is exactly the fertile ground for the Marxist agenda. As the Pope said last winter, the "enemy is within" the Church.


The fact that the Cardinals and bishops in discussion with the media and powers that be in the States do not have a strong background in Catholic political thought does not help the present arguments on religious liberty. One only has to listen to the vocabulary of some church leaders to hear a lack of sophistication absolutely needed at the time. 

The Deceit is Becoming Obvious--

Finally, someone else besides Dr. Sanity, myself and a few others online, are beginning to recognize the deceit of POTUS. That the Wall Street Journal condemns the insider, narcissistic president as out of touch with the populace and his own Dem party. The Voice of Sauron has cracks it in....

An American president has to make cooperation happen.

But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Dr. Sanity says it best, and here is part of her brilliant take on her blog.The traditional medical definition of sociopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community.

If we think about that definition for a moment, we can perhaps begin to understand what is going on in our world today; and the reason that a huge number of people have embraced a fundamentally sociopathic--and "progressive" lifestyle, all the while convincing themselves that they are "compassionate", "post-racial" and just.

Under the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, the ethical and social standards of the community have, unfortunately, been slowly evolving and eroding. 

In western culture, ethical and moral standards used to be anchored to the real world (i.e., to reality); but in the postmodern wilderness in which the political left and most of its most visible spokespeople--i.e., leaders in the Democratic Party-- wander aimlessly, ethics and morality are relative and "anchored" to feelings and whim; which inevitably unleashes the baser and more vile aspects of human nature. 

The 20th century became the playground (and litter box) for the narcissist; and by the time the 21st century rolled around, malignant narcissism was not even considered deviant, it had gone mainstream. Since psychopathology continually evolves and worsens if it is not confronted and dealt with, what we have now in our culture, particularly the political system, is the endstage of psychological evolution under postmodernism: the sociopath who disguises his or her sociopathy by selflessness (now marketed as "hope and change").

These selfless sociopaths are people who basically could not care less about an individual human being.

They think in terms of movements and achieving some grand scheme of "social justice"--which is far from real justice and the search for truth. 

Individual human beings are expendable; it is the collective or State that matters; and, as long as they stand in the way of the implementation of the sociopath's great ideas and compassionate execution of those ideas they can be ignored, marginalized and even killed. To this type of mind, individuals are merely the fodder used to build "great" societies from the all the utopian fantasies and collectivist wet-dreams.

It used to be that with the rise of civilization, political sociopaths--selfless and selfless-- were (thankfully) few and far between. Even so, when they appeared in history, they wreaked havoc and destroyed lives with great abandon for "the greater good". Needless to say, a central aspect of the 'greater good' was always the advancement of their own glorious self and their ideas.

We can thank primarily the postmodern political left and its useful idiots for the persistent, unyielding, and willful celebration of--and ultimately mainstreaming of--malignant narcissism. We have entered the age of postmodern sociopathy and nihilism.

What does it matter if the lives and freedoms of so many individuals are sacrificed to the murderous oppressors of the world; or, for that matter, even the compassionate oppressors of the Democratic Party--who, after all, want only the best for you of? 

If you "kick out the wealthy" then you have the wonderful socialist paradise of Cuba or the currently evolving one of California; or the magnificent utopia of North Korea with all their misery, poverty, oppression and progressive enlightenment!

Under the uber-enlightened and progressive reality-based left, wealth will be redistributed and the human mind enslaved--but so what? As the eminent leftist and quintessential nihilist Joseph Stalin once remarked, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." 

In the long run we are all dead anyway, right?

False Ecumenism in Ireland

False ecumenism hounds the Church throughout the Western World. Those of us from America have seen the Protestantism of the Liturgy, Church architecture, music, and even family religious life. But, here is Ireland, an odd type of false ecumenism has taken shape, almost like a phantom out of the mists. This brand of false ecumenism is really odd, at it hides a deep hatred and resentment of the Protestants, still strong in the countryside among certain Catholics. Because Protestantism is associated with Great Britain and the past, those who are true Republicans hate the non-Catholic influences with a vehemence I had not thought still existed anywhere in the modern worldThe false ecumenism is a sick, over-reaction to the prejudice of Catholics against Protestants and Protestants against Catholics. This over-reaction is a politically correct version of the heresy of relativism, which not only states that everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, but that one must go overboard to accommodate those beliefs on a daily basis within the Church itself.

How this looks is very much like the worst liturgical abuses in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Wreckovations of churches abound, and worse, the liturgies in some is so tacky, such a left-over of the worst of the seventies and eighties that I feel like I am back in university at some chaplaincy Mass. At one Stations of the Cross, a woman was Christ in the dramatization. I have not seen this since Notre Dame in the early eighties. At another Church, music is played on CD players after Communion with country-western style hymns which are so bad I wish I could hear the St. Louis Jesuits. At a third Church, (these are all Catholic), some sort of semi, or para-liturgical action involving praying for the dead meant that those in the congregation could place candles representing prayers on the main altar. Really, none of these things have any connection to the continuity of Tradition. I have been in many, many Churches and only one has had a Communion rail. But, what is a travesty of false ecumenism is the schedule for the Eucharistic Congress here in the summer. Here is the link for the main events, the theme, and the speakers. How the organizers could confuse unity in the Eucharist with some sort of outreach to non-Catholics is beyond understanding. That the Eucharist brings together Catholics is obvious, as we share, hopefully, in belief and practice. But, to pretend that inviting Protestants, who do not believe, or have the Real Presence, to speak at the Congress, which should be celebrating the Real Presence, reveals a callousness about the Catholic Faith and the ugly head of relativism.

Real ecumenism acknowledges differences in theology and practice. Real ecumenism calls for the unity of Christians in upholding the common morality of the Old and New Testaments, something which few Protestant denominations believe in at this time. The fake ecumenism is a false overture based on prejudice. Only true love in Christ and a commitment to the Gospel, and the belief that the Catholic Church is the one, true, Church could possibly change Ireland.

How sad that such an opportunity is being wasted on denial and lies. That the Catholic Church is in denial here about the status of most Protestant denominations shows a sad dismissive ignoring of the real practising Traditional Catholics in Ireland, who, frankly, feel left out of the Congress. How odd that the Pope's visit to Great Britain was the most ecumenical action of the Church in recent times, a visit which was the largest nod to the Truth of the Catholic Church at the State level in modern times. The Pope pulled no punches as he stood on the very spot in Westminster where St. Thomas More was condemned. Here, in the land of saints and scholars, no such triumphant blast of truth will be heard, as the ecumenical fallacies of compromise take centre stage.

And, this false ecumenism represents the shot in the head to the ailing Church here. What Irish Catholicism needs more than anything is unabashedly Catholic Teaching, loud and strong, from the pulpits and in catechesis. Instead, what is heard is the lukewarm teaching of a clergy and the leaders from among the laity who want to be nice, who want compromise over commitment, who desire a false unity, which is the heresy of eirenism, the forgotten heresy. Warned by several Popes, the Modernist heresies of immanentism and indifferentism, as well as eirenism, are alive and well in the sick man of Europe, Ireland. For definitions, see my several posts below on Modernism. I did not expect such a flood of falseness here in Eire. For proof, look at the new anthem, which is the official song of the Eucharistic Congress. See link above.

Santorum and Sharia and Religious Freedom

I had posted this in January, but "it got deleted'. I post it again now, as Santorum is the only candidate who has spoken against the idea that sharia law is incompatible with our Constitution. Good article from Politico here. We must discuss this in the States at all levels of government. It is too bad that his win in Iowa came so late, as it originally caused his campaign to lose momentum. It is picking up now.

"We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution."

Santorum, invoking New York Rep. Peter King’s hearing this week on the alleged radicalization of American Muslims, said that the vast majority of Muslims don't want to it either.

"They left because of Sharia law," he said, referring to why he believes Muslim immigrants left their home countries to come to the United States.

Santorum added, "Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States."

Santorum, a devout Catholic, warned about Sharia at CPAC last month, and his latest comments set up a stark contrast between his world view and President Obama's efforts to court support in the Muslim world.

Santorum had gained momentum coming out against the efforts of the Obama camp to restrict freedom of religion and conscience. This is one reason why his poll numbers are soaring. Romney can't really say much as his Romneycare has the same restrictions of conscience. Catholics need to pay attention to detail.

Another big posting day...so many important issues are coming to a head for us Westerners and Catholics.

A Series on Pascendi Dominici Gregis: Part One

Every time I read the great Encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, by Pope St. Pius X, I am amazed at how prophetic it was and how timely it is today. I would like to quote a few sections which apply directly to the politics of several nations in the West and within the Church

We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

In the recent past, Pope Benedict stated that the grave problems involved enemies within the Church. These are those who do not obey the Teaching Magisterium of the Church in matters of correctly forming their consciences to conform to Tradition and Revelation, as in the matters of contraception and abortion.

The saintly Pope Pius X writes that the Modernists,  are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

We can see this in the so-called pro-choice Catholic politicians, or in the Catholics who maintain that civil unions for homosexuals do not contradict either natural law or the Church's teaching. And, the brilliant Pope continues, Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines.

This is the great error in the thinking of the leaders in the United States, who contradict natural law on the basis that somehow, God is working in some sort of false progressivism (the Star-Trek heresy) which holds that we, in 2012, are smarter and holier than the 2,000 years of Christians who have gone before us. Arrogance stands firm against the Church. Of course, when natural law is ignored or twisted into some type of relativism, the supernatural order in a nation erodes and, finally, is destroyed. We have had plenty of warning, over a hundred years, in fact, to get ready for the onslaught on religious freedoms we see today. This encroachment of Modernism did not suddenly happen. The date of this Encyclical is 1907.

The prophetic nature of this document will even more clearly be seen in my second part which I shall post in a day or two, on the nature of Church and State relations. But, look carefully at the inspiration in this section: God was trying to get our attention 105 years ago. Who was paying attention?

For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its fullest development, and when the public conscience has in the civil order introduced popular government. Now there are not two consciences in man, any more than there are two lives. It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind. The penalty of refusal is disaster. For it is madness to think that the sentiment of liberty, as it is now spread abroad, can surrender. Were it forcibly confined and held in bonds, terrible would be its outburst, sweeping away at once both Church and religion. Such is the situation for the Modernists, and their one great anxiety is, in consequence, to find a way of conciliation between the authority of the Church and the liberty of believers.

More to come...

The Ultimate Failure of Transformational Marxists

Some of you have wondered when I was going to write my anti-Gramsci articles here. Well, here is the first of many. I wrote on this before many years ago and now it is time to dig in and get dirty on this blog. Here is where some of my information is from, but not all, as some is my own construct over the years. Also, there is another link below for summaries.There are many sites on Gramsci if one wants a bibliography, I can send one on request. But, the letters are key. Just remember that the key to understanding all of this is that the ideology is based on materialism, that there is no spiritual world. The old Marxism is not exactly the same as Gramsci's ideas, except in the denial of the spiritual and the emphasis on pragmatism, but that denial of a spiritual hierarchy is key. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, "Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination, religion is a product of fear and ignorance, and the church is an invention of the rulers to control the masses. Moreover, Communism, like humanism, thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society--"

Gramsci wrote that "the mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence … but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organiser, "permanent persuader" and not just a simple orator…"  See above. Here is where the Chomskyites and Alinskyites come in. with grass roots political and social activism. But, there is more...The intellectuals were not merely to be in academia, or politics, but everywhere, changing the philosophical roots of the culture from within. Again, the emphasis is on pragmatism and what works in the relationships between people and groups of people,such as labor unions. However, what actually binds people together to want to do things together is a less than satisfactory explanation, being basically the historical context of "subjectivism", lacking any hierarchical ideology and denying any universals. In other words, humans create their own reality which changes constantly in history and context. This is a variation of the heresy of immanentism, which states that there is no God outside of man, and leads to the complete denial of God. Of course, if all meaning and history are created by humans, there is no God or plan outside the temporary. Historicism is a combination of immanentism and false progressivism or evolutionism, all condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical against Modernism (Star-Trek theories). Simplified here and here.

Gramsci also wrote of what he called his idea of infiltrating the media, the Church, journalism, schools, universities, the judiciary and so on. In the posting below on Levin a day ago, one can see how this has happened in government and political theory.  Georg Lukacs, Gramsci's follower, was the one who came up with the idea of sex education as undermining Christianity in the culture. One can see that in Ireland today, with the push to end Catholicism in schools. This has already happened in England. These ideas have been part of the elite of education in America, in Great Britain and now, in Ireland since the 1950s. By placing anti-Christian curricula in the schools such as anti-abstinence and pro-homosexuality, the Christian, and specifically, the Catholic religion would be destroyed in the culture. Now, this is mainstream. In addition, Latin and Greek were to be removed from the curricula, so that the continuity of Catholic and Western culture would be destroyed. All this has happened. It happened a long time ago when my brothers were in high school, and now they are in their early fifties. They did not get Classical Education. Some of these references are here.

I had Classical Education, including Latin, and world history, as well as Church history, logic, ethics, civics, Plato, Aristole, etc.  I was in the last generation to get the pre-Gramsci education, which was based on the Jesuits and on the Catholic-based Western Civilization. The destruction is now all but complete. All this was done in the name of "democracy" and the destruction of elitism. Anyone who decries elitism is a Gramscian at heart. In the early 2000s, I had a little business as a curriculum consultant, helping schools either move back to Classical Education or created new schools in this mode. Many people did this at the college level, like the founders of Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, or Wyoming Catholic, or Thomas More College. It works. Young people learn how to think and how to preserve the beauty of Western Civilization. They discern the Marxist fallacy of class warfare in the present milieu and the nihilism of Post-Modernism. 

A drop in the ocean, I am afraid, are these efforts, as the powers that be are outlawing independence in education and outlawing home schooling. Look at developments this week in Sweden. The term "social engineering" has come to mean many things, but in academia and in politics, it means the appropriation of Gramsci and Lukacs' ideals of infiltration and destruction, of the emphasis on the pragmatic and not the person. In the construction of a new society based on relationships, this destruction of frameworks of relationship seems counter-productive. But, for Gramsci, humans are capable of inter-relating without religion or even metaphysics of any kind. I always wonder when reading this why people would bother to work for such a society.

Why? Because these men hate the Church and Western Civ, they set out to destroy both, knowing what Belloc so succinctly wrote that  "The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith."  Thanks to Gramsci and others, like Kant, we barely have the Faith and we barely have Europe....Gramscians deny that he intended to destroy culture, but I cannot see that his explanations and plans mean anything but that as a consequence of human activity to set up a society without Faith or the culture based on that Faith. Herein lies a paradox in Gramsci.

When I met my first true follower of Gramsci he said to me. "One cannot be a scholar and a Catholic." The implication was that only those who had thrown off the tyranny of the teaching of the Church, of Aquinas, Bonaventure, Augustine, even Maritain or Gilson, could one think. Not so, as Gramsci himself needed the past to resconstruct or rather desconstruct Western society. He relied on the writings of some of the "great books", the same he seemed to decry. The Gramscian error lies in the fact that the Marxist has just accepted another ideology in place of the teachings of the Catholic Church, and one more illogical and self-serving than that of the Church. Gramsci's emphasis on intellectuals and activists leading society away from the Church and Western Civilization just replaces one ideal system for his own. The error lies in the denial of the basic premises of natural law philosophy and the desire of the human will for freedom from social engineering. Over and over, he writes about historicism, mentioned above, the idea that humans get their identity from societal relationships and not from nature. In this sense, Gramsci is the arch-relativist, the grave error of the American educational systems today. He is a relativist also in so far as he does not believe in the absolute materialism of the Marxist, but a created, practical materialism. This pragmatism may be where one sees Gramsci being influenced by Machiavelli, the ultimate pragmatist. However, even with relativism or utilitarianism,  a backlash comes eventually and the backlash is barbarism. The only idea that has historically changed the barbarian is Christianity.

The reason why barbarism is the ultimate failure of Gramsci's desire for atheistic communism is that the lowest common denominator of a human mode of being emerges from the death of the West.  Communism and historicism fall to the armies of complete selfish, narcissistic individuals who only think of themselves and not the common good. Ergo, the Russian mafia. There is no longer a common good. There is no state to adore. This is complete Post-modernist deconstructionism and nihilism. In the post-society, the only remaining ideals are the death-wish and the desire for power. Interestingly enough, Gramsci was against worship of the state and believed that the proletariat could rule without such an organization. He thought that a regulated society could rule itself-this is the false ideal of utopianism, see post below on Levin's book. Order does not spring out of mere pragmatism. In fact, I would state that relativism and atheistic anarchy comes out of utilitarianism. Here is the difference between Michelle and POTUS. She is a true Alinksy activist and he is a narcissist. However, they both fall into the Gramsci camp of relativism.

Sadly, all of the idealism of the Gramscian falls to the neo-barbarians desires for personal, physical satisfaction and the death-wish. What Gramsci and his followers fail to take into consideration is raw evil, or Evil, if one can be so primitive as to believe, as I do , that Evil is a Person, who is pure spirit. The idealism of the Marxist or neo-Marxist cannot stand up against the greed and hatred of the world, the flesh and the devil. It doesn't matter in the long run, as the Marxist, as well as Evil, desires the destruction of the West and the Catholic Church. Marxism undoes itself by unleashing deeper powers, such as one understands in the dabbling of the occult. There is always something under the atheism and narcissism. But, those who deny the spiritual world. those who are complete materialists, overlook this important concept. In that spiritual world is found naked power. In the praxis of history and human activity, as described by Gramsci, there is no accounting for this evil. However, evil exists. It states, "Non serviam" I will not serve. Jeremiah 2:20--"Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst: I will not serve. For on every high hill, and under every green tree thou didst prostitute thyself."

That is what the neo-barbarians understand. Naked power does not need an ideology in order to succeed. Power just wants power. However, the good news is that such power undoes itself. It self-destructs over and over again. That is the nature of evil-it cannot create, it can only destroy. But, destroy, it does.

Two Real Men from Cabrini-Green-on victim thinking

One of the reasons, and there are many, why I left academia, was this prevalence of victim thinking. Thankfully, if the "cases" in the college classroom became particularly obstructive to the class as a whole, I had the entire backing of the administration. One of the most wonderful people on the staff was a man who had grown up, yes, in the Cabrini-Green estates. Let just say he grew up in hell. His mother had two sons and she instilled in them the love of learning and the love of God-a Benedictine ideal, but as a Baptist, this wonderful woman was following her grace and role as a mom, and being counter-cultural in her little, no big, way.

My friend, Adam, said that all the kids around him were learning how to deal drugs, kill and be killed. Out of all his friends in Cabrini-Green, all but his brother, are either dead or in prison for life. I asked him to come into my class and give a motivational talk to my 26 students, most of whom were immersed in victim thinking and/or narcissism. He did not succeed inspiring anyone but me. The ho-hum attitude was like jelly being smeared all over the classroom. Dull and icky. However, Adam was not upset, and offered to come into the class again. Later, one young man, who wants to be a sports-trainer, came back to me and said it was "cool", a word still used in the Midwest.

Well, Adam, his brother, and his mom are heroes against the Post-Modernism malaise filling our country. The fact that the Cabrini-Green estates were ever built was an example of false utopianism. Such estates just put all the baddies in one place-how convenient. Oh, and for my European friends, or those few saints who have seen The Blues Brothers at least five times, C-G was in Chicago.

Victim thinking will destroy America as it has destroyed Britain. British youth, except for a golden minority, belong to what I call the Grape Generation-step on them lightly and they give a little whine...

The last Cabrini-Green estate was demolished in the past year. At least two heroes emerged, and I hope more. But, there exists two, strong, Christian men, Adam and Joshua, with a message. A person is responsible for his own life and he can break out from victim-hood, if he wants to do so.

Part Three: Cults and Post-Modernist Christians

As some of you know, this blog is a continuation of my previous blog of several years. At that time, 2007, 2008, 2009, I was taken up with the intrusion of Post-Modernist thinking in the politics of America. To most, that is now obvious and painful. Now, I am more aware of Post-Modernist thinking and ergo, acting, among faith-groups in America, notably, our Protestant brethren and liberal Catholics. Post-Modernism is a term which covers a multitude of ideas, but the main ones I track are narcissism, individualism, self and group delusion and manipulation. Attached to these characteristics are the hatred of the class structure, leading to a hatred of the lower and working classes, with a consciousness encircled by a false elitism (see blog below).

Post-Modernism in religion has become Post-Modernist Christianity, which, because relativistic, is anti-moral, or at best, amoral, anti-dogmatic, anti-authoritarian, anti-communal, anti-rational, and self-destructive. The Post-Modernist Christian looks like a Post-Modern atheist, with a difference. They deny the Transcendent. The Post-Modernist atheist makes himself into the Transcendent, while the Post-Modernist Christian denies the Transcendent. The Protestant denominations are imploding with the pressure of the denial of the Transcendent. The Old Covenant Law and the order of Love of the New Covenant become merely deniable transcendence, undermined by the rules of literary deconstruction, or the cynicism of the capabilities of the human mind and soul, the latter which does not exist.

As a trained Phenomenologist, who came to her senses and reverted back to Thomism, I can say that the Post-Modernist, Deconstructionist in religion and philosophy differed (no pun) on the role of the mind, reflection, memory, understanding, will, experience, and perception. (With hats off to the great St Ignatius, who taught us discernment with regard to memory, understanding and the will, one can only be grateful in being given the grace to be a Catholic).

Point: the Post-Modernist Christian is about to enter the age of power, as the Post-Modernist atheists give up and retreat back into their comfortable, usually academic positions, and leave the political arena to those who think they are idealists, but are really Post-Modernist Christians.

These men and women have taken over the imaginations of Western European politics and the movement is being sucked into the abyss which is American politics, with a few, definite exceptions.

The Post-Modernist Christian may claim Christianity as his or her faith, but in reality, this person has abandoned all ideas of the Transcendent. Just as Phenomenology falls into literary criticism, Post-Modernist Christianity falls into self-deception, which is, simply, hypocrisy.

These PMCs may or may not be pragmatists, which I think, to a point, the Post-Moderns Atheists are.

This lack of pragmatism, especially in politics, leads to "waffling", "flipping", "indecisiveness" and "superficiality", all in quotations as these have been applied to certain political and governmental figures in Europe and in America. Dare I say that the Post-Modernist is prone to cultism and irrational, contradictory religious beliefs? Can I say that the Post-Modernist Christian believes in the true absence?

The difference between the PMC and the PMA is in the subconsciousness, or in the soul. The PMA is a deceived idealist liberal who has freely chosen his stance against hierarchies, creeds, etc. with a disdain for those who believe in such. The PMC still thinks he is a Christian, but has lost all semblance acting like a PMA while thinking he is a Christian. Hypocrisy.

You see, hypocrites do not know they are hypocrites, at least on the conscious level, which is why they hated Christ so much. He was forcing them to look at themselves and their lack of faith. They were PMCs. The only difference was that they believed in their own hierarchy, their own power structures. But, unlike the PMAs. the PMCs have lost belief in the very vocabulary they use daily. They repeat words, as in the Mass, but the words are not efficacious for them. However, if such PMCs are priests, they are committing sacrilege, by saying the words of Consecration without belief. This is why there are liturgical abuses, as these men may change the form in order not to commit sacrilege. To be continued...

My online mentor...who keeps me sane about the American political scene

Several journalists today have finally seen the true political bias of the present administration in the US as tyrannical. LOL. Sorry, but this was obvious to many of us in the run-up to the 2008 election. The best blog on my favorite topics of narcissism and ugly self-interests in money and politics is Dr. Sanity. The woman is brilliant and as she has political savvy as well as psychological insight, follow her during this campaign. You will learn about yourself and your fellow voters, as well as those who are trying to destroy the Constitution and are succeeding bit by bit. When Dr. Sanity disappears, we shall be in big trouble, as she is a really astute gal and prophet for these troubled and complex times. http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

And for those of you who are waiting to read another Supertradmum critique of Gramsci, watch this space.

Two for one and how the Present Potus is not really elitist..

Among my younger friends, in light of the Iowa Caucus, which not only proved to be extremely interesting, but a lesson in grass-roots democracy, there is a continual discussion on the Catholic Traddies position on monarchies. As there are blogs dedicated to this subject, I am not going explain the Church's position, as much as extrapolate on the death of elitism in the United States, partly as a logical consequence of the democratic process, but also as a sign of the death of the West.

Elitism is the idea that some people, whether by wealth, or birth, or education, or just plain merit, are called to serve in governments, education, businesses and so on. In my generation, where private schools had tracks and when it was considered normal to follow in the footsteps of ancestors who served the public, elitism was a word rarely heard. Leadership training was "in" and I got it, as did my peers, from the nuns, priests, and laypeople who were our teachers. If we were in private schools and went to Catholic colleges and universities, we were expected and trained to not only be grateful for all the benefits we received, but to give back to society. In a sense, the ideal of noblesse oblige was part of the Catholic ethos, as we knew we had the Truth and needed to share it in the marketplace. The Oxford Dictionary defines this phrase in part, as privilege entails to responsibility. 


Now, as sons and daughters of the King of All, and as sons and daughters of the Queen of Heaven, we had a sense of responsibility to spread the Good News decades before the "New Evangelization". That this did not happen can be the subject of another post, but the point was that we were called to convert, in any manner which our individuals careers or vocations demanded. We were not to waste time, but were trained to be good stewards of time, money, education, etc.


What has happened in the States is that the "meritocracy" ha,s created the a new elitist class of those who have  risen to the top by their own efforts or "luck" BUT without the sense of noblesse oblige. In other words,(and those who know me, and my students from the past, understand that I have this bee-in-my-bonnet about Post Modernists "heretics", whether formal or material, and their narcissistic take-over of politics in the States at all levels) the "me" crowd took over. A narcissist by definition cannot connect with noblesse oblige, as the happy world revolves around him. (This blog never has inclusive language.) "Bob's World" or "Charlotte's World" is recreated continually, and the society accepts this more and more as the norm. This is one of the reasons why the "gay agenda" has been so successful in America and elsewhere, as most people do not either see the idolatry of self, which is narcissism, or they do not know how to deal with it. And, it is so much easier to stay in the toddler stage of life rather than grow up. I believe that because America is still an "adolescent" nation, less than 250 years old, that this absorption of narcissism at all levels of the culture seems normal.


If anyone wants further reading, just go back to de Tocqueville, who I taught for years, and is a prophet for our times. Here is the problem of today's elitist class-it is made out of money. Here is our friend, de Tocqueville--What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

Why, you ponder, why should we not have leaders from the new financial classes rather than a hereditary monarchy or hereditary nobility? The new elites lack noblesse oblige. They have been trained to make money, be successful, "be all you can be" without the sense of service. One of my favourite holy men is Blessed Karl of Austria, who gave his life as an offering to God for his country. The cause for his wife, Empress Zita, was opened on December 10th, 2009. 

I am not denying that history has not seen truly evil, nasty and selfish lords and ladies. What I am elucidating is the fact that there was in the West a long tradition of service connected to the monarchies and aristocracies. Russia was converted by the Great Vladimir, for example, despite the fact that his own brothers were each a "piece of work" to say the least.That this noblesse oblige was passed down to the "lower classes" of Catholics in the past, who understood that all the grace and benefits of being Catholic needed to be shared, was a marvel of Catholic, elitist education. Bring it back. Down with narcissistic Post-Modernism.