First video – I know some of you are aware of Mediatrix Press, but they are producing a whole slew of extremely powerful, edifying titles from some of the greatest Doctors in the history of Holy Mother Church. Ryan Grant’s project to translate so many of the works of St. Robert Bellarmine into English – which has never before been done – is a huge blessing in and of itself. But they also have many other great titles, most of which are from long out of print and “forgotten” sources. An overview of the company below:
You can also adopt a book, providing Patreon-type support to help bring books into print. Check them out! It is so important to support apostolates like this that do so much to help restore the great Tradition of our faith. Faith comes by hearing, yes, but also by READING! I more or less read my way into the Faith, or, more to the point, tradition. The study of Church history is the process of becoming a Catholic.
At any rate, the other video is a good sermon by that priest so many admire – and rightly so – this time on the subject of being a friend of the cross. He talks about the need to make holy communions, and to have a lot of intentions when we go to the rail to maximize the benefit of the grace we receive, he speaks of overcoming regret in a positive way, not moping on it or endlessly kicking ourselves over past failings, but using the pain of those failures as a source of motivation, and he speaks of how to pray to gain healing for past wounds – self-inflicted and otherwise.
I’m out of time to give a better description, but it’s a very good sermon. If you’ve heard many of this priest’s sermons before, some of this may sound familiar, but I think it’s a new and expanded take on the topic (and I’m remembering the days when we had 50+ minute sermons at Mater Dei! Not anymore, they’re generally much shorter). Anyway, enjoy:
The sickeningly lost far left “ethicist” Dr. Peter Singer is at it again, opining that intellectually disabled children are less “valuable” than animals. This kind of wholly perverse, reprobate sense is where the inevitable logic of the leftist-materialist conception of the world will drive someone – to the brink of insanity and right over it.
In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements. (He actually supports infanticide because babies–whether disabled or not–are, in his view, not “persons.”)
To Singer, moral value primary comes from intellectual capacities, and that means that developmentally and cognitively disabled human beings (also, the unborn and infants) have less value than other human beings, and indeed, a lower worth than some animals. [Since he bases his view of a right to life on such arbitrary standards, when super-brilliant AI machines get developed by stupid technologists who create what they cannot control, and they develop capacities infinitely above human intelligence, Singer will have no complaint when they decide to kill all of us off? What is the floor of intelligence that allows one to have a right to life? Who gets to decide this? Deranged imbeciles like Singer? What is different between Nazi’s deciding all Jews (and Catholics and Gypsies and others) had to die based on their own arbitrary definitions on who gets to live, and Singer’s? I suppose we can thank God that Singer is not, yet, empowered to make such decisions.]
Were society to ever adopt Singer’s bigoted anti-human exceptionalism views, it would mark the end of universal human rights, opening the door to tyrannical pogroms against the most weak and vulnerable–you know, the kind of people that the Singers of the world deem resource wasters. [Materialists almost always posit life as a zero sum game – if someone is better off, that means someone else must of necessity be worse off. In a sick sort of way, they demand the deaths of others so they can have it better.]
It would also break the spine of unconditional love, as our children would have to earn their place by possessing requisite capacities.
Take the recent statements by Singer, published in the Journal of Practical Ethics in which he explains why he would adopt a child with Down syndrome out (my emphasis).
He then expresses a profound bigotry against people with cognitive and developmental disabilities:.
For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop. [You are an idiot. Thank God He never gave you such a child. The parents of Down Syndrome children I know often regard them as the easiest child to love, as they have no guile, they are as simple, kind, and genuine as one can be. And yet, very soon, in many countries Down Syndrome people will cease to exist. No “downie” has been born in Iceland, for instance, in nearly a decade. All have been killed via elective abortion.]
“Disability” is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, “a life with disability” is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability. [What if we have a vote, and decide old age is a disability, consumes a disproportionate amount of medical resources for “little” return, and kill everyone over age 70? How would he feel about that? Age brings with it inevitable disabilities. Singer, BTW, turns 71 this year.]
But let’s turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being.
Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? [Because we’re not pathologically mendacious God-denying amoral monsters like you! Humans are special, humans are even sacred, in a sense, because they are created in the image and likeness of God. Denying that leads one open to such gross evils in thinking as Singer routinely demonstrates. I would also ask, hypothetically, how do you “prove” that a dog or a pig or a fruit fly has greater intellectual capacity to a human? All but the most profoundly disabled people – and note how he mixes, probably deliberately, the notion that someone with Down’s is inevitably profoundly disabled, which is not always the case – can speak, something no dog or pig has ever done.]
This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one. [I just gave you one, the difference is, we humans have infinite worth, in all of our individual forms of being, because God gave us that worth by creating us in His image. The extremely ugly, utilitarian world you posit, Singer, is a direct result of your rejection of God. I take it Singer has never read Solzhenitsyn, and if he has, he didn’t understand it at all.]
I would also add, this is the kind of inanity that an intellectual comes up with in trying to justify abortion on demand. That is the specter looming over everything Singer says, the unacknowledged “god” of his moral universe whose awful appetite he must seek to rationalize away.
Speaking of insanity, ever read the history of the various factions of the Japanese far left during the late 60s and early 70s? In addition to helping found the PLO and stage some of their most horrific early terror attacks, in 1972 they purged half their own membership by murdering them in miserable ways. They then took a hostage and staged a week long standoff with the Japanese police. They were finally arrested after killing two cops and an innocent bystander.
No, not everyone who falls into liberalism will eventually become a hard leftist and even murderously unsane, but the logic of the belief system always tends in that direction. The fact that abortion is the most sacred policy position/religious doctrine of the ideological left is bloody testimony to that fact.
You won’t get much argument from me. Of course, we know that, in the end, Christ and His Church – including all the Truth He has revealed – will prevail. But we also know that the end of the world will be preceded by a great apostasy, the horrific persecution of true religion, the standing up of a satanic cult in the place of that religion, and a man of sin preceding the antichrist. That is to say, the Church, in her human element, will all but be destroyed. The preponderance of thinking among Fathers and Doctors has been that this would be a rapid process, taking place over a few years. Maybe it will be more drawn out, however.
Michael Matt categorizes just a small number of the recent atrocities emanating from Rome and the episcopate at large. It seems Soros money may well be pouring into Amchurch and significantly influencing attitudes – or at least making possible closer coordination between already progressive bishops and the broader anti-Trump push that is presently ongoing (to a degree that is astounding – virtually every single protest, town hall, riot, etc., has been astroturf, planned, organized, funded, and directed by Soros money. None of this is genuine).
What we are seeing certainly seems like a coalescing – in the open, as opposed to the dark corners in which they normally operate – of a transnational one world one religion global elite. Note Matt’s comments that what is being pointed at in all this is a call to conversion, but a conversion to what? There are strong rumors of an intercommunion declaration for Lutherans, whether they want one or not (that is, a wholly one-sided, Catholic affair, a surrender). I’m quite certain that won’t be the end of it. I also like the note that they seem to be rushing to get things done, this year. Given the portentuous anniversaries this year represents, that’s something worth pondering.
What do you make of the conclusion that Francis must be opposed? Is Francis not deviating from the Faith, and obviously, openly so? Goodness now even open fornicators/cohabitators are to be “welcomed,” not admonished or exhorted to convert!
And we all know just what this means – as the initial arguments by Church (maybe I should say “Church”) leftists like Curran and others in favor of contraception were supposed to be limited to mature, faithful, devout married couples, discerning in conscience whether to use contraception or not, we have seen how the Church, as people experience it in almost all local parishes, in practice tacitly now endorses, or at least never condemns (which is the same thing), contraception use by anyone at any time. So it will be with communion for divorcees and now, apparently, fornicators – there will be much brave talk of “paths of discernment” and “mature accompaniment,” but in the end – and it will take zero time – we all know that what will emerge is a deliberate, if unspoken, destruction of the Church’s condemnation of fornication and adultery (with many more coming).
That’s the end goal. That’s your “new church” coming into being. Liberal protestantism. The far left of the Lutheran spectrum and/or US mainstream Episcopalianism, which is beyond moribund and will soon die. That’s what the West’s elites want to propose as a one world religion, but islam will mow it down.
IOW, viz yesterday’s fisking, it is about subordinating the Faith to the progressive zeitgeist. You can see exactly how that will play out in that post.
Uncovering scandals in the Archdiocese of New York, or chastising Bishop McElroy’s latest idiocy, is essentially meaningless if you refuse to discuss the elephant in the Church. I assume you know to whom I am referring.