Latest Posts

To Archbishop Lefebvre, a debt of gratitude

27. September, 2014Blog Post110 comments

SSPX reparationAt this moment in human history when the Church is under attack from within at the hands of hierarchs who lack the wherewithal to proclaim the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, every single, solitary individual who calls himself Catholic, whether he knows it or not, is deeply indebted to +Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre.

How so?

In short, for standing against the tide of unbridled novelty that crashed against the Barque of Peter after the Council in order to preserve the treasure that was handed to him; that he might faithfully pass it on in all integrity to others, for the benefit of generations to come.

Among those who have benefited most, and rather directly so, is every priest of the Roman Rite today who celebrates the traditional Mass; including certain woefully ignorant self-promoting clerics who reap the blessed fruits of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s labor with one hand whilst pointing a calumnous finger at the Society of St. Pius X with the other.

In any event, on the 21st of September 2014, as a direct attack against Christ the King was taking place in the form of a Satanic “Black Mass” in Oklahoma City, the SSPX provided a stellar example of what the Church Militant looks like in action as you can see for yourself in the video below.

Writing for Catholic Family News, Dr. Brian McCall described the grace-filled events that led to the magnificent public act of reparation shown in the video. Please, take a moment to read his beautifully written testimony.

When you have finished, offer an Ave Maria for any insecure little priest who, motivated perhaps more by a hatred of others than a love for the Church, may feel compelled to throw stones at the SSPX, thereby misleading the groupies (both small in mind and small in number) who, God help them, put faith in his putrid opinions.

This just in!

26. September, 2014Blog Post50 comments

Have you heard all the buzz in Catholic Candy Land lately?

Multiple news agencies worldwide are reporting that Pope Francis, during the Spanish bishops’ ad limina visit earlier this year, allegedly said, “This [the teaching on the indissolubility of marriage] was established by Jesus Christ and the Pope cannot change it.”

This as recalled by Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba as published in a recent interview.

So, let me get this straight…

The Bishop of Rome (as he prefers to be known), during the course of a private meeting that took place more than six months ago, said that the pope can’t change dogmatic Catholic teaching.

This is what passes for news these days, and the reason is entirely obvious:

On 13 March 2013, the pope became an elderly Jesuit. And we’re not talking about a Fr. John Hardon kind of elderly Jesuit; no, we’re talking about a man who openly idolizes Carlo Maria Martini and Giovanni Battista Montini.

Seriously, is there a faithful Catholic alive today who at any time prior to the abdication of Benedict XVI wouldn’t have shuddered at the mere suggestion!

Today, we have good reason to shudder.

Even Francis’ fiercest defenders among the so-called “conservatives” in the media realize that the man simply doesn’t take the duties of the Petrine Office seriously, at least inasmuch as said duties have always been properly understood by those with even a drop of sensus catholicus.

For the last 18 months, the papacy has been effectively reduced to a one man circus act; complete with beach balls, clown noses and soap bubble homilies.

If the neo-Catholic media had any real confidence in Pope Francis, this latest exposé detailing his orthodox-sounding commentary would be getting no more attention than one might expect Field & Stream Magazine to give to rumors that a bear defecated in the woods.

Of course the pope can’t change the dogma of the Faith concerning the indissolubility of marriage! That goes without say, but let’s be clear about what that really means.

The pope cannot teach anything contrary to this, or any other dogma of the Faith, with the express purpose of doing so as pastor and teacher of all Christians, in accord with his Supreme Apostolic Authority, in such way as to bind the entire faithful of the Universal Church.

And why not? Because the Holy Ghost will not allow the pope to so err.

Said protection from error, however, will most certainly allow for all sorts of nonsense that otherwise undermines the dogmas of the Faith.

Don’t believe it? Take a look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council wherein one will find such malignant propositions as:

- Christ does not hesitate to use the communities of the heretics as means of salvation (UR 3)

- The Jews of today who reject Christ are one with the children of the Church in His Saving Cross (NA 4)

- The primary function of the priest is to proclaim the Gospel to all (PO 4)

Was the Holy Ghost asleep on the job then?

Of course not, He simply allowed headstrong men of little faith to create non-binding, non-definitive, and seriously harmful texts that have so effectively undermined the doctrines of faith for the last 50 years that priests who behave like glorified protestant ministers and who happily confirm heretics and Jews in their deadly errors are a dime a dozen.

Had the Council Fathers sought to bind the faithful to such condemnable ideas, however, their best efforts would have been Divinely frustrated.

With this in mind, we look to the upcoming Synod on Marriage and Family knowing very well that Pope Francis and the bishops in union with him will be utterly powerless to change the immutable sacred deposit of Christian doctrine, but we also know that all concerned will be given plenty of freedom to effectively undermine the same if they happen to so choose.

Given all that we know about the elderly Jesuit in white who couldn’t praise the “profound and serene” theology of Cardinal Kasper enough at the February Consistory, is there really any good reason to expect anything else?

Bergoglion Careerists

24. September, 2014Blog Post82 comments

Numero UnoFor those keeping count, it appears that a grand total of ten cardinals have now gone on record with arguments against Cardinal Kasper’s proposals concerning Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and “re-married,” and this in the face of widespread confusion and angst among much of the flock.

This means that roughly 95% of the College of Cardinals is comprised of men who are content to see in which direction the winds are going to blow in Rome before weighing in with a defense of the Faith; that is, if they plan to do so at all.

The silence on the part of so many among of the cardinals, in the face of what can only be understood as an outright attack on the Faith, tells me that many if not most of these men are committed not to Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Faith, and much less the children of the Church, but ultimately to their own self-preservation and advancement.

This necessarily means tiptoeing around the singularly strong-willed Bishop of Rome who began remaking the Pertrine Office in his own image and likeness from the very first moments of his disastrous pontificate.

Ironic, is it not, that this should be the case even as Pope Francis the Humble rails against clerical careerists?

The enemy of my enemy…

23. September, 2014Blog Post31 comments

Pope Francis Exchanges Christmas Greetings With The Roman CuriaCommuniques from both the SSPX and the Holy See provide little detail other than to describe today’s meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller as “cordial.” That said, one might speculate that there is more to this than meets the eye…

When news of the scheduled meeting first broke, I said that I expected it to lead to an ultimatum. I still do.

If the high crime of a “cryto-Lefebvrean tendency” is enough to incite the powers-that-be in Rome to destroy a thriving religious order, is there any reason to believe that Cardinal Muller doesn’t intend to crush the Lefebvreans themselves?

Well, there may be one reason, even if perhaps it has yet to come to pass…

According to both parties, today’s meeting focused on “doctrinal and canonical difficulties [and] and the current situation of the Church.”

And what, pray tell, is the most critical situation in the Church currently, as opposed to the last time both sides met? In other words, what precisely has changed in this regard since the discussions between the SSPX and Rome last broke off?

The answer: The upcoming Synod, at which the bishops will take into consideration a proposal by one Cardinal Walter Kasper; one that currently poses very serious “doctrinal and canonical difficulties” that were not in play during the last series of meetings between the Society of St. Pius X and the Roman authorities.

And let’s not forget (as so many are wont to do) that said proposal also happens to have been publicly hailed by Pope Francis.

When Kasper’s presentation at the February Consistory and the pope’s praise for the same came to light, I suggested that there will be a quiet campaign afoot to recruit bishops to the pope’s way of thinking in the lead up to the Synod.

This ain’t rocket science, folks…

In spite of the persistent humbleganda flowing out of Rome (and occasionally abroad as in the Papal Kia story), Pope Francis is not averse to imposing his will. This much is obvious.

He is, after all,  the man at the top, and when the man at the top goes public with his praise for a certain proposal, there is considerable pressure for underlings to fall in line. This is as true in the Church as it is at IBM, and especially so today given the anthropomorphizing effects of the Second Vatican Council.

In the present case, those who don’t smile and nod along with Pope Francis in the direction of Cardinal Kasper have reason to expect retribution.

Among those who have thus far refused to join the pope in praising Kasper’s ideas is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, who if rumors are correct is about to be reduced to a mere figurehead at the age of 66.

In light of this, one wonders what might be going through the mind of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, who joined Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals in writing essays that essentially amount to telling Pope Francis that he is incompetent. (Talk about five Captains Obvious.)

In any case, we have heard comments from certain bishops indicating that the pressure to conform to the mind of Francis (as opposed to the mind of the Church), in whatever way it may have been brought to bear, has had an effect. (Bishop Tobin, for example, recently went public with his own idiotic Kasperian suggestions. Surely there are men of weak constitution just like him all over the planet.)

As such, I cannot help but wonder if the upcoming Synod wasn’t among the ”doctrinal and canonical difficulties” discussed by Cardinal Muller and Bishop Fellay. If not, I suspect in time it will be.

If indeed the Synod leads to a papal exhortation either adopting, or opening the way for individual national bishops conferences to adopt, the “profound and serene” theology of Walter Kasper, Cardinal Muller et al and Bishop Fellay may come to embody the old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

To what end? Who knows, but one thing we do know is that God brings about good in all things for those who love Him; in the upcoming Synod, all involved will be forced to stake a claim, either with Him or against Him, and I for one can’t wait to see it unfold.

Bergoglio News Agency

22. September, 2014Blog Post36 comments

BNAOnce upon a time, Catholic News Agency (CNA), although never a truly “traditional” outlet, offered an orthodox alternative to the USCCB owned Catholic News Service (CNS). Those days are over.

In 2009, CNA began publishing my Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II columns. At first, my writing therein struck a neo-conservative chord (albeit with traditional overtones) born of a naïve belief that the Council documents are beyond reproach; we need only interpret and implement them by applying the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity.”  This is, of course, the “company line” being sold by Rome, and back then, I was buying it.

The tenor of those columns gradually became more and more traditional, mirroring as they did my awakening to the tragedy of a non-binding council that all too often employed imprecise language and even includes propositions irreconcilable with the truths of the Faith.

Along the way, my editors at CNA gave me considerable leverage given their rather “main stream” Catholic status, and yet there were red flags too, of course.

For example, in July 2011, I sent a request for comment to the Knights of Columbus regarding New York State Senators Addabbo and Carlucci, both of whom cast decisive votes in favor of “gay marriage,” even as each proudly boasted of their good standing in the Knights of Columbus to support their Catholic credentials.

Within the hour of making that request, CNA made it clear to me that the Knights are untouchable, and no such story will be published.

This was perhaps the first concrete sign that CNA, like so many other Catholic entities, is driven first and foremost by a concern for self-preservation; so when push comes to shove, they’ll toe damn near any line that happens to be cast by those who occupy the halls of power.

Prior to Pope Benedict’s abdication, it was easier to miss, but now that Pope Francis is at the helm, it’s entirely obvious.

For instance, on February 25th, Cardinal Mueller hosted an event in Rome to present his book “Poor for poor: The mission of the Church,” which is a collection of his writings on Liberation Theology as learned at the knee of its founding father, Gustavo Gutiérrez.

Not only was Cardinal Mueller’s mentor present that day; he was honored at the event.

As reported by Catholic News Agency:

Called on the stage for a short speech during the presentation of the book, Fr. Gutierrez, departing from the original ideas from his book “A Theology of Liberation,” stressed that “the idea of service comes directly from the Second Vatican Council.” Christians, he said, are called “to serve and to search for the image of Christ in every man and go toward the ends of the earth and peripheries, as Pope Francis invites us to do.”

How do Fr. Gutierrez’s comments represent a departure from his “original ideas?”

As anyone interested enough to read “Notes for a Theology of Liberation” by Fr. Gutierrez can discover for themselves, they really don’t “depart” in any way whatsoever. That little qualifier was gratuitously added to give readers the impression that the liberation theologians themselves have been rehabilitated by a change in position, when in point of fact, the only thing that has actually taken place is that sympathetic characters, including the pope, have arisen to power.

Another glaring example of CNA’s tumble from credibility can be found in a column written by Deacon Keith Fournier wherein he canonized Pope Francis’ “brother bishop” Tony Palmer while gushing about how he labored so diligently for unity; a preposterous notion given the fact that he died a heretic.

Having called attention to this affront to the Faith, a senior contact at CNA simply replied, “I did not write the column, and I don’t think I need to reply;” a turn-a-blind-eye editorial approach that’s apparently applicable only to screed that dovetails nicely with the pope’s own assaults against the Faith.

Most recently, on September 19th, CNA ran an article denying rumors (initially published by the French journal La Croix) that Pope Francis is upset about a soon to be published book, entitled “Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church,” soon to be released by Ignatius Press.

In the book, five cardinals offer essays refuting Cardinal Walter Kasper’s suggestion, made at the Consistory of Cardinals in February, for a “pastoral approach” that would invite civilly divorced and “re-married” Catholics to Holy Communion apart from any real remedy of their adulterous situation.

Catholic News Agency offers:

Controversy over the subject arose when Cardinal Kasper delivered a prominent two-hour address to the February 2014 cardinals’ consistory, which focused on the topic of the family. He has advocated his positon in other interviews and speeches as well.
 
During the consistory speech, Cardinal Kasper asked “is it not perhaps an exploitation of the person” when a person who has been divorced and remarried is excluded from receiving Communion. He suggested that for “the smaller segment of the divorced and remarried,” perhaps they could be admitted to “the sacrament of penance, and then of Communion.”

 

 
The contributors to the Ignatius Press book write that the Bible and the Church Fathers do not support the practice advocated by Cardinal Kasper. The authors say that there is no contradiction between “genuine mercy and compassion” and Catholic doctrine and pastoral practice. Catholic teaching is “based on the teaching of Jesus himself,” they say, according to the Ignatius Press summary of the book.
 
The contributors also consider the Eastern Orthodox approach to divorce and remarriage and Catholic resistance to it. They find “serious theological and pastoral difficulties” in the practice.

As for Pope Francis’ role in all of this, CNA writes:

Coverage of the rumors surrounding the Ignatius Press book has been prominent among those who speculate or assume that Pope Francis intends to side with Cardinal Kasper’s position at the bishops’ synod.
 
Pope Francis himself has reaffirmed the indissolubility and lifelong nature of Christian marriage, such as his April 2014 remarks to the bishops of South Africa.

This is just pathetic, and frankly, disappointing given that I know some of the people involved.

So determined is CNA to keep up the illusion that Pope Francis is committed to safeguarding the sacred deposit of faith from distortion and corruption that they are shamelessly pretending that his thoughts on Kasper’s disastrous suggestions (which the Holy Father openly applauded as “profound and serene theology” before the entire consistory!) are somehow unknown.

As things stand today, CNA would be more honestly named BNA – the Bergoglio News Agency.

While many are praying for the Synod to clearly reaffirm the Faith, I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to have a pope who is serious about “watching over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline,” (cf Notre Charge Apostolic – Pope St. Pius X) and surrounds himself with men of like mind, but that’s simply not the cast of characters who will be participating in the Synod.

My prayer, therefore, is more realistic; namely, that the devious designs of the wayward men running the show in Rome today will be so plainly stated that even the CNA’s of the world will be forced to acknowledge that there’s a choice to be made:

It’s either follow the regime or follow Christ.

Pre-Synodal Reconnaissance

16. September, 2014Blog Post171 comments

VATICAN-POPE-MASS-WEDDINGAs most readers know by now, Pope Francis witnessed the marriage of some twenty couples in St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14th.

As Cardinal Dolan might say, Good for them! Bravo! (No, wait… these were heterosexual couples. Never mind.)

In any case, like so many other things involving His Humbleness, there’s more to the story.

According to a statement issued by the Diocese of Rome in the days leading up to the event, among those getting married that day were couples “who are already cohabitating; who already have children…”

(NOTE: These people didn’t just happen to fall into a bit of good fortune. In fact, they didn’t even apply for the privilege of having the pope witness their marriages; they were handpicked.)

Needless to say, with the air of anticipation surrounding the upcoming Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family running as high as it is, many in the media and elsewhere are attempting to read the tea leaves to figure out what this might mean:

- Liberals are applauding what they see as an unmistakable sign of big changes to come wherein the Church will take a less “rigid” approach to marriage.

- Traditionalists (aka Catholics) tend to see much the same thing as the liberals, albeit with an appropriate sense of alarm.

- Conservatives, ever the consistent ones, are once again working overtime to make the case that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is underway whatsoever.

The dirty little secret that few seem to recognize, however, is that all concerned, including the couples, are once again being exploited as useful idiots by the neo-modernists who are currently running the show in Rome.

You see, the papal marriage ceremony on Sunday was simply the latest in a series of initiatives that are part of a Pre-Synodal Reconnaissance Mission wherein the Captains of Newchurch, through various means, attempt to assess the collective temperature of the Body of Christ in order to determine just how much more of their humanist virus it can withstand before full scale rejection sets in.

- Phase One involved the worldwide Survey on Marriage and Family.

- Phase Two was the infamous telephone call wherein Pope Francis allegedly told an Argentinian adulteress to feel free to take Holy Communion.

- Phase Three was Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Consistory of Cardinals and the pope’s fawning appraisal of the same.

- Phase Four took place on Sunday.

The Survey gauged the mindset of the people in a rather direct way; the results apparently signaling that the time was opportune to go public with Cardinal Kasper’s rantings, as well as the pope’s subsequent approval of his “profound and serene theology.”

The telephone call and the marriage ceremony were a bit more devious, with the utter silence on the part of the Holy See concerning certain crucial details being a deliberate (and rather transparent) attempt to stoke the worldwide reaction necessary to help the current regime calculate its final strategy for the Synod.

While some are quick to point to what they perceive as Pope Francis’ ineptitude given the degree to which he has allowed confusion to reign in such situations, it would seem to me that they have grossly underestimated the man.

Francis knows what he’s doing. The former Jorge Bergoglio didn’t navigate a decades’ long episcopal career that landed him in the College of Cardinals, and then the Chair of St. Peter, for lack of cunning. (Seriously, does anyone really believe that he got where is today by virtue of his commitment to the Holy Catholic Faith?)

Pope Francis is well aware that the flock is bewildered. I suspect that he sees the perplexity of the faithful as an acceptable (and ultimately temporary) form of collateral damage, for their own good, as he humbly goes about liberating them from the stifling demands of those “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians who favor soundness of doctrine and discipline; while remaining intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” (cf Evangelii Gaudium – 94)

Look, any Roman Pontiff who is serious about upholding the demands of his exalted office would never allow the faithful to wallow in the kind of uncertainty that permeates the present pontificate. Never. In the present case, we’re not talking about questions that are difficult to answer:

Did the pope really tell that lady in Argentina to take Communion?

Did the cohabitating brides and grooms take the kinds of steps one should expect (a period of separation and continence, Confession) prior to the marriage?

There is but one reason that answers to these simple questions haven’t been forthcoming from Rome; we live under a pontificate that is determined to “make a mess,” and it’s succeeding wildly.

Let’s not be naïve; Pope Francis and the men who elected him have long since had an outcome in mind for the Synod; one that I suspect lies somewhere between the status quo and the Kasperian solution.

(I have already gone on record as predicting that it will involve affording national bishops’ conferences unprecedented autonomy in regulating Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, among other things, such that they will be free to implement a “discipline” modeled after the schismatic Orthodox approach.)

One might see in all of this the Hegelian Dialectic in action: Kasper has provided the thesis, the outrage that followed serves as the antithesis; now all that remains is for the Synod to deliver the synthesis.

The only lingering question, at least insofar as the masterminds in Rome are concerned, is just how aggressively to pursue their agenda once the Synod finally commences, and all of the handwringing over the events of last Sunday is just what they had hoped we might provide to help them arrive at an answer.

What a weekend!

15. September, 2014Blog Post7 comments

Catholic Identity Conference 2013
Wow, what a weekend! I’m just getting back into the swing of things after the Catholic Identity Conference. (Image above is from last year’s event.) As those of you who were there can attest, it was spectacular – from the liturgies, to the interaction with likeminded individuals, and even the food – I personally enjoyed every minute.

As for my fellow speakers, I cannot say enough about the quality of the presentations. As I mentioned in my own talk, the lineup – the present writer being the least of them – included some of the strongest voices speaking out in the Church today in defense of Catholic tradition.

On this note, if you didn’t make it to the conference (or even if you did) Audio CD’s of each of the talks can be ordered online; they’re very inexpensive and I can tell you that not a one of them will disappoint.

The name of my talk was The Mission of the Church vis–à–vis the Kingship of Christ as Illuminated by Pius XI in Quas Primas. (As such, I won the award for lengthiest title.)

My presentation (roughly 55 minutes in length) concerned the above topic as viewed through the lens of Matthew 28:16-20. Following is a two minute excerpt:

Redefining Jesus

10. September, 2014Blog Post46 comments

Resurrection Pius XI vs FrancisIf nothing else, Pope Francis is consistent.

How so?

Well, in any number of ways, but today I have in mind his near-singular focus on the things of this world, his remarkable disdain for the Church’s teaching office, and his habitual pitting of doctrine against authentic Christianity.

In his Wednesday Audience held earlier today, His Holiness managed to package all three in one.

He begins:

“In our previous catechesis, we reflected on the Church as a Mother who nurtures us in the faith, guides us on the way of salvation, and protects us from evil. Today, I wish to reflect on the Church as a Mother who teaches us the works of mercy.”

From here, Pope Francis effectively goes on to redefine “teaching” as little more than setting a good example as opposed to providing instruction.

“And so the Church acts like Jesus. She does not give lectures on love, on mercy. She does not spread a philosophy, a path of wisdom throughout the world. Of course, Christianity is all this, but as a consequence, in reflection. The Mother Church, like Jesus, teaches by example, and uses words to illuminate the meaning of her gestures.”

The doublespeak in this paragraph is much more than just a momentary detour into rhetorical sloppiness; rather, it’s the ethos of Pope Francis through and through.

A quick spin through Evangelii Gaudium alone is enough to discover just how much this pope wishes to make of doctrine the enemy of true Christianity.

Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed … A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism … In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige … [sound catechesis] will not reduce preaching to a few doctrines which are at times more philosophical than evangelical …   (cf Evangelii Gaudium)

Returning to the excerpt from today’s audience, of course the Church uses words to explain the meaning of her deeds, but notice the Holy Father’s outright contempt for a Church that imagines herself to be so grand as to “lecture” the ignorant, and to “spread a philosophy and a path of wisdom,” as if she is… oh, I don’t know… the bulwark of truth or something.

More disturbing still is the pope’s perhaps nastiest habit of all; namely, redefining Jesus Christ Himself.

Every literate Christian who has ever cracked the cover of a Bible knows very well that Our Blessed Lord gave numerous lectures on love and mercy. His public ministry was very much dedicated to spreading a philosophy and illuminating the path of wisdom such that all generations throughout the world may know the way of eternal salvation.

One cannot help but ask, who exactly is the Jesus of Pope Francis?

As I’ve observed in the past, it’s the itinerant Jesus, the servant and doer of good deeds who is destined to be beaten and bloodied by the powers of the world, but it’s most certainly not Christ the King who reigns triumphant.

In today’s audience, we really didn’t learn anything new; we simply received more evidence still of the deep disconnect that exists between the Jesus of the current pope’s mind and the Jesus of the Gospels.

In any event, with the irony apparently lost on the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis continued his own rather lengthy lecture on mercy by focusing squarely on the “corporal works.”

We will have to wait until next week to find out if he plans to continue his “catechesis” (such as it is) by expounding upon the “spiritual works,” but given that they include such unsavory activities as “instructing the ignorant; counseling the doubtful, and admonishing sinners,” each of which comes dangerously close to that most dreaded activity of all, proselytism, I tend to doubt it.

The virtue of withholding obedience

9. September, 2014Blog Post28 comments

Fear himOver the past few days, I’ve received some feedback to the Msgr. Pope post from people I respect suggesting that his veritable retraction should be lauded as an act of obedience to superiors, rather than viewed as evidence of a lack of fortitude.

There are a number of flaws in such arguments; foremost among them is the implication that every course of action taken by those with legitimate authority is necessarily a legitimate expression of said authority, as if any and all demands therein are therefore binding upon their subordinates.

This isn’t true even with regard to the pope!

At certain times, it can most certainly be laudable to obey a superior even when one suspects that he is ill-informed or even perhaps in error. Even so, one is never obliged to equivocate in such way as to lend credibility to those who tacitly support a moral evil, thereby leading souls to perdition.

In the present case, Msgr. Pope’s post was deleted. The blog doesn’t belong to him, therefore, over this particular action, he had no choice.

He did, however, have any number of choices relative to his response going forward, and unfortunately he took what looks an awful lot like the course of least resistance; by choice, not by obedience properly understood.

Is there any among us who sincerely believe that Msgr. Pope was somehow obliged to proactively suggest, as he did, that an awareness of the “many prudential decisions involved” in deciding how “Catholics can effectively engage a culture” might somehow mitigate the offensiveness of Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s complicity in the St. Patrick’s Day Homoganza?

Furthermore, is there any among us so naïve as to believe for even a moment that Msgr. Pope actually believes that garbage?

Surely he could have simply remained silent regarding the disappearance of his excellent post, at additional cost to be sure, but let’s be clear, he was not obligated in any real sense of the word to make excuses for actions that are plainly inexcusable.

Rest assured, certain misguided Catholic commentators are already using Msgr. Pope’s retraction statement as justification for labeling Dolan’s detractors “Pharisees.”

In other words, what began as an admirable defense of the truth for the good of souls has been turned into a tool that the Devil will not fail to use in order to tempt the weak to compromise with evil.

Even without knowing the details, it is obvious to all what happened: Monsignor Pope was pressured in some form or fashion by the tag team of Dolan and Weurl, even if perhaps via equally faithless surrogates, to write that mea culpa post in violation of his conscience.

In violation of his well-formed Catholic conscience. Did you get that?

Can one even imagine the gall it takes for these magnificent hypocrites in cardinalatial finery to so force Monsignor Pope’s hand; even as they go about whining like a couple of menstruating eleven years olds over Barack Obama’s hubris for daring to press upon the collective Catholic conscience via the HHS mandate?

These men are what they are; quasi-protestants posing as princes. This much has been evident to people of authentic faith for years on end. Sure, we should pray for their conversion, of course, but let’s be real; barring a bolt of lightning to the backside, it’s not very likely.

In the end, disobedience to their demands would not have been sinful; in fact, it wouldn’t have been disobedience at all, but rather obedience to a Higher Authority.

Cardinal George pops out

8. September, 2014Blog Post20 comments

Pope Francis Meets With The Full College of CardinalsA number of friends have been applauding a recent article by Cardinal Francis George entitled, “A tale of two churches;” echoing the review given by Fr. Z who said, “His Eminence knocks this one over the fence.”

With all due respect, this article looks a whole lot more like a pop up to me.

Like so many other American “conservatives” in the Church today, Cardinal George is good at bemoaning symptoms, but remarkably inept at identifying the underlying disease.

His Eminence writes:

About 1,800 years into her often stormy history, this church found herself as a very small group in a new country in Eastern North America that promised to respect all religions because the State would not be confessional; it would not try to play the role of a religion … The social history was often contentious, but the State basically kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church. Until recent years.

Here, Cardinal George is holding up an X-ray of the American experiment; playing both doctor and historian,  and even with the benefit of hindsight, knowing full well that the patient is on the doorstep of death, still he does not seem to recognize the fatal affliction there present.

Those who view such things by the light of tradition, however, know very well that the State that promises to “protect all religions,” including those that oppose the reign of Christ the King, is already, even at its very inception, an avowed rival (read, enemy) of the Holy Catholic Church.

In the present case, the only unknown that ever truly existed according to the mind of the Church, properly understood, concerned the precise manner and time of her open persecution.

All of this said, Cardinal George isn’t totally blind.

There was always a quasi-religious element in the public creed of the country. It lived off the myth of human progress, which had little place for dependence on divine providence. It tended to exploit the religiosity of the ordinary people by using religious language to co-opt them into the purposes of the ruling class. Forms of anti-Catholicism were part of its social DNA.

At this, one might reasonably ask: Why is a prelate who seems to sense in his gut the irreconcilability of the American ideal and the mission of a Church that is “the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations” (Pius XI – Quas Primas), still cannot bring himself to do any more than to lay blame for the present state of affairs at the feet of “some members of the American establishment?”

The answer is simple; Cardinal George suffers, as do all so-called “conservative” Catholics, from conciliar myopia. Let me explain…

The U.S. Constitutional approach to religious freedom wherein the State is obliged to treat the true religion as merely an equal to the many false religions of the world, the same proposition having been firmly condemned by Holy Church in no uncertain terms throughout the centuries, was adopted by the Second Vatican Council as enshrined in the document Dignitatis Humanae.

And what have we to show for it today?

Not only do we have an American State that plainly operates as a “fake church” all its own, we also happen to have a Roman Pontiff who, as the Generalissimo of the conciliar revolution, is pleased to take the lead in behaving as if all religions are mere equals!

As such, ours is a Church overpopulated with undernourished Catholics, both lay and ordained, who can’t quite seem to get their hands around the fact that the Second Vatican Council effectively abandoned the mission of the Church in exchange for a form of religious diplomacy that has only served to hasten her persecution.

So you see, unless and until Cardinal George is willing to rebuke both the disastrous propositions set forth on religious liberty at Vatican Council II, as well as the words and deeds of Pope Francis who embodies them in all their humanistic glory, even to the point of encouraging those who oppose the mission of the Holy Catholic Church to persist in their false religions, he will ever be relegated to just another easy out.

In other words, don’t look for any home runs from Cardinal George, or anyone else who steadfastly marches under the “conservative” Catholic banner, any time soon.