Two bits of data on the Left’s continued, and almost entirely successful, even unopposed, long march through the institutions. The Air Force of men like Jack Broughton, Ed Rasimus, Bill Lloyd, Dick Jonas, Robin Olds, and Chappie James is long, long gone. Even 20 years ago, most leadership in USAF were outwardly conservative and Christian, most often devout evangelicals. After a deliberate program of de-Christianization and secularization, which reached new heights during the Obama administration, the Air Force today, like all the services, is simply one more vehicle for the advance of the godless amoral secular leftist agenda. Unless one feels called to (and able to meet the stringent standards of) a top-tier special forces type career field, joining the US military today is a fool’s errand where anti-Chrisitan and amoral indoctrination reigns, where one is often judged less on the basis of merit but most often on whether you fall into one of the many favored categories (categories which happen to align, magically!, with the core elements of the leftist political coalition).
In other words, what we are seeing is a revolution in slow motion, where a previous ruling elite is replaced by another, hostile elite, all for the benefit of a particular political agenda.
First story up, a 26 year bird colonel flight surgeon at Lackland in San Antonio suddenly, in June 2016, got slapped with a career-ending reprimand not from his CO, but from someone very high up in his chain of command (the vice commander of Air Education and Training Command), over an incident that ostensibly occurred more than two y ears earlier. Sound fishy? It is:
First Liberty Institute has sent a letter to the Air Force demanding the reversal of punitive actions taken against Col Michael Madrid for expressing his religious beliefs about sexuality.
In 2014, one of then-LtCol Madrid’s subordinates — who was in the middle of being court-martialed — accused Col Madrid of
“engaging in demeaning and derogatory behavior toward [the subordinate] based on [the subordinate’s] sexual orientation” thus “creat[ing] a hostile work environment.” [the court martial concerned an enlisted member in Madrid’s section who developed an addiction to prescription pain killers. When caught and court martialed for being high on duty, he started making wild accusations, including this one, to try to get out of the court martial]
Besides the troubled circumstances of the initial complaint, it is also notable that it was a blanket complaint (and apparently a first complaint) covering the prior 15 months, not any specific incident.
As a result of the complaint, Col Madrid’s Group Commander at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, Col Hans Ritschard, initiated a Commander Directed Investigation.
In March 2014, the two-week CDI determined the allegations were “unsubstantiated,” and Col Madrid’s commander agreed.
That should have been the end of the story.
More than a year later (June 2015), Col Madrid had been promoted to full Colonel and had moved to San Antonio to serve in Air Education and Training Command Headquarters. Somewhere in that time, MajGen John McCoy became an acting Vice Commander of AETC.
On 29 June 2016 — more than a year after moving to San Antonio and more than two years after the CDI was closed — MajGen McCoy issued Col Madrid a Letter of Admonishment for a statement he made during the CDI conducted at FE Warren. He reportedly also intended to establish a further punitive Unfavorable Information File (UIF) but never did so……..
……….how did MajGen McCoy even know about the CDI? By their very nature, CDIs are not supposed to be millstones around the necks of their subjects for the rest of their careers — particularly when the allegations are “unsubstantiated.” (In fact, it requires a very specific approval process — and a legal “need to know” — to even see a CDI.) And once he did know about it, for what reason was he motivated to review it? Col Madrid had already served at AETC HQ for more than a year, and two years had passed since the CDI had ended. Why now?
First Liberty has an idea:
Attorneys at First Liberty are concerned that the reason the case was dredged up once closed is because the Air Force is unduly focused on political correctness and targeting people with beliefs who don’t fit the progressive mold.
“We are concerned that Major General McCoy judged and punished Madrid – a decorated Air Force officer – because he became aware of Colonel Madrid’s traditional religious views,” Berry added. “If so, that not only harms the military, but it is illegal.”
So this is probably the 20th or 25th such case I’ve read concerning individuals in the Air Force being targeted for holding Christian beliefs in the past 2-3 years. I have done at least 10 posts on the subject in that period, all involving different cases, and I know there were 2-3 cases I stumbled on for everyone I posted.
This has all the appearance of being a newly exaltant political movement searching out and persecuting as many ideological adversaries as it can find. Again, such persecution was highly institutionalized during the Obamanation.
Second case, Obama apparatchiks still populating DoD have nominated the first open lesbian to be commandant of the Air Force Academy. This lesbian woman presently commands the 2nd BW at Barksdale (in spite having no previous experience with B-52s) after holding a very cushy position in the Pentagon where she got to hobnob with numerous Obama appointees. AFA provides the core of the Air Force’s officers and was, for a very long time, a hub of evangelical Christianity. That had its pluses and minuses, but it is being plainly remade into a secular pagan institution:
An open lesbian has been chosen to be the next commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to a USAF Academy report and other media.
Col. Kristin Goodwin has a “wife” and two children. She will take charge of the USAF Academy pending approval by the U.S. Senate. If approved, she likely will assume her new position in May. That is usually a formality, but conservative opposition to her appointment might make it less so.
Air Force Academy alumnus and former Navy Chaplain Gordon James (“Chaps”) Klingenschmitt, a conservative activist, is urging concerned citizens to call their U.S. senators to oppose Goodwin’s nomination to lead the USAF cadets.
Klingenschmitt, who heads the Pray in Jesus Name Project, told LifeSiteNews that Goodwin’s appointment under a Trump presidency is part of a “deep state problem of Obama’s appointments remaining in office while the Senate drags its feet to confirm Donald Trump’s appointments to replace them.”
“Obama’s bureaucrats in the Pentagon are still running the show,” Klingenschmitt said. “Obama is gone. Why does he still have this power?”…….
………According to the article, “Goodwin served in several high-level leadership positions, including vice commander of the 59th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri; commander of the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; and senior military adviser to the secretary of the Air Force at the Pentagon. … She’s also a veteran pilot who has flown B-2 Spirit, the EC-130h compass Call, the C-130 Hercules, and other aircraft.” [That is what one calls being picked and groomed. From C-130s to vice commander of the premiere bomb wing in the Air Force (flying B-2s, necessitating a type conversion), to about THE most politically advantageous role an officer can get (adviser to the civilian SECAF) – this is a wholly political move. People like her don’t happen, they are made. She may even wind up CoSUSAF at some point. I wouldn’t doubt it.]
Some folks are raving about this appointment, saying that (now) General Goodwin is a committed warrior and a stand-up leader who doesn’t inculcate her ideology on those under her command. That would make her different from some of her colleagues of similar proclivity – including a former commander at Lackland AFB who conducted witch hunts against hardcore Christians. There was another at Patrick AFB who was apparently similar, banning Bibles from public spaces.
I think it’s very sad. In secular coverage of this proposed change of command, support for Goodwin is overwhelming from those in and out of uniform (the comments at Air Force Times were especially disheartening). Trump or no Trump, more and more souls are, consciously or not, surrendering to the leftist sexular pagan zeitgeist that unnatural vices are fine, that it’s just a small accident of someone’s personality (after we were sold for decades that we MUST grant them rights for this CORE element of their being), that so long as they do a good and fair job what does it matter?
It matters because character matters. Because honor matters. Because this woman, who has chosen a totally sterile form of sexual expression, insisted on using artificial means to create two new lives she could pretend rounded our her pretended marriage. Those children are denied the father they have a right to experience and learn from. Because our principal enemies, the islamists, see from things like this a totally decadent and depraved society that deserves to die, and they are further emboldened in their efforts. And because this role is fundamentally different from other commands, it involves education as its principal mission, and more than education, the installation of virtues suitable for those who will command others in combat. This woman is wholly unsuited to be a role model because of the lifestyle she has chosen.
But mostly I oppose it because it is wrong. It will remain wrong even if I am the last person alive who knows it is so. It will remain wrong forever because Our Lord created us to be fruitful and not to cast our seed on barren ground or engage in filthy acts. You cannot support sodomy (or abortion, or many other things) without making a mockery of Christianity and God Himself.
FSSP Priest Interview Reveals Divisions within Fraternity April 25, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, Latin Mass, priests, Restoration, Revolution, sadness, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
I got sent a link to the following post this morning by reader TT. It’s an interview of the rather small German province of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the organization of priests dedicated to the traditional Mass that was founded by some who “broke away” from the SSPX at the time of the illicit consecrations of 4 bishops in 1988.
This interview is already being picked up as fodder for the endless (and tiresome) SSPX/FSSP debates that have been raging for almost 30 years. For those who already feel the FSSP is hopelessly compromised, the interview is being taken as proof of the correctness of that view. For those with internal knowledge of the Fraternity, as it is typically called, however, this interview only reiterates the divisions already well known within this society of priests.
I’ll add comments to the post I copy below, because I think there are some important things to clarify/note, but I’d like to make one point clear at the outset: every grouping of more than a few individuals is going to have disparity of belief. Once you get into the hundreds, like the FSSP, there is going to be a whole range of belief. Given that, generally speaking, both acceptance of a more stridently traditional outlook (or a certain, sometimes severe, hostility to Vatican II) and friendliness/sympathy for the SSPX varies inversely with the age of the priest and their closeness to the original point of division in 1988. That is to say, older priests in the Fraternity, especially those who were present in 1988 and made the decision to leave the SSPX, generally tend to be more accommodating towards the post-conciliar ethos and hostile towards the SSPX. Younger priests are generally more hardcore “traditional” and more friendly towards the Society.
This is not a universal rule and there is infinite nuance, even within individual priests!, but that’s probably the broad norm. I would also add that there is, as I understand it, a certain division of belief between priests of the Fraternity in the Americas, and those in Europe, with those again in Europe tending towards being the less ardently traditional, or the more accommodating. Having said that, I concur with a commenter at 1Peter5 that this is far from an inspiring interview. While I think the interview is being presented in a fairly negative light by Maike Hickson at 1Peter5, I think I can also say these are some of the most unhelpful comments I’ve seen from an FSSP priest in print, perhaps less for what they say (esp. on reflection) but for the sense they seem to convey of accommodation, of being (to quote some commentary I’ve seen) “modernist lap dogs who will do anything so long as they can continue to offer the ‘old Mass'”. Then again, I find myself defending the priest quite consistently below – I think that while he exhibits an attitude far different from what I’d like to see expressed, it’s not entirely surprising given his past.
So keep that in mind as you read the below, which many of you perhaps already have:
The usually cautious and reserved Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has now given its current opinion concerning the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and on its possible formal re-integration into the structures of the Catholic Church. Father Bernhard Gerstle – the head of the German district of the FSSP – just gave a 24 April interview to the German Bishops’ official website Katholisch.dein which he explains many of the positions and opinions of his priestly fraternity. (Father Gerstle is the same priest who, in 2016, made a politely critical statement about the papal document Amoris Laetitia.) [An important note of clarification. Fr. Gerstle may be the head of the German district of the Fraternity, but I think it a great leap to derive from that that he is speaking for the mind of the entire Fraternity. Words of Fr. John Berg, former Superior of the entire order, in Latin Mass Magazine from 2015 (which I haven’t to hand) were far different and conveyed a far more traditionally Catholic understanding.]
Father Gerstle explains, first of all, that he himself split off from the SSPX because of the “illicit episcopal consecrations” in 1988 which, in his eyes, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried to forestall. (Interestingly, and just in the recent past, there have been voices saying that Cardinal Ratzinger, as pope, later removed the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops because he realized that he had contributed to the intensification of that earlier conflict. Worth noting is that, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has served as an official Vatican liaison to the SSPX, recently called this act of excommunication an “injustice.”) [This little aside causes me to wonder whether the author is not trying to inculcate a bit of doubt, even resentment, towards Fr. Gerstle. Sure “some voices” may say that, but lots of others say that the excommunications were wholly right and just. Obviously Fr. Gerstle is going to have a bias since he left the SSPX over this matter. I am curious as to why Hickson chose to introduce this seeming rebuttal right here.] In Gerstle’s eyes, the 1988 breach happened due to a “lack of trust toward Rome.” He also claims that many more priests within the SSPX had disapproved of the episcopal consecrations, “but did not make the final step.” Thus, there were “only a few priests and seminarians who left the Society of St. Pius X at the time [in 1988].” Gerstle explicitly says that the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter happened “essentially due to Cardinal Ratzinger, [who was] then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” [For those of us who weren’t involved, I don’t think it is easy to comprehend the depth of feeling on both sides involved in the 1988 consecrations. This was an event so trying and so radicalizing I don’t think many today fully realize the effect these events had on the participants. As one who was directly involved and experienced that heart-rending time, I don’t find Fr. Gerstle’s comments out of place. There are many involved who share his views, and of course, many who don’t, but it’s not like he’s breaching some radical new concept no one’s ever said before, even those who are very attached to the traditional practice of the Faith.]
Father Gerstle further distances himself from those smaller groups within the SSPX – whom he calls “hardliners” – who “reject the Second Vatican Council to a large extent, for example with regard to religious freedom or as to the decree on ecumenism.” Some of them, he says, also doubt the validity of the new liturgy. Gerstle makes it clear, moreover, where the Fraternity of St. Peter stands with regard to the Second Vatican Council: [No, he gives his own opinion. Unless he directly stated he was speaking as the voice of the entire Fraternity as a matter of policy – which if he did, we can be certain Hickson would be trumpeting this from the rooftops – then he’s giving his opinion, which Hickson is taking to mean it is the policy of the Fraternity because of his position, but I can say from direct experience there are many Fraternity priests who do not conform to the views expressed in this para or the one below. As to the divisions within the SSPX, these are well known and I find pointing them out wholly unremarkable.]
The Fraternity of St. Peter, however, has accepted to study without prejudice the conciliar texts and has come to the conclusion that there is no breach with any previous magisterial statements.However, some texts are formulated in such a way that they can give way to misinterpretations. But, in the meantime, Rome has already made here concordant clarifications which the Society of St. Pius X should now also recognize. [Emphasis added] [I would say the situation now remains as it has been, vague, uncertain, and unclear. Some tradition-friendly individuals in the Curia have made clarifications, they have expressed their opinions, but that is far from saying there has been a wholesale clarification of the problematic aspects of Vatican II. Rome appears willing to say almost anything to get the SSPX regularized. But whether these stands hold after that occurs is anyone’s guess, but there remains a huge monolith of progressive-modernist opinion in the clergy and hierarchy that VII is perfect, the best expression of the Faith ever conceived, and that the Church was literally re-born in 1965. That remains an extremely dangerous ideology that has not been washed away by a few conciliatory comments from folks at the Ecclesia Dei commission.]
Additionally, Father Gerstle insists that for the FSSP, the new 1983 Code of Canon Law is the standard. In his eyes, the SSPX has here some more reservations. For the FSSP, explains Gerstle “there is not a pre- and a post-conciliar Church.” “There is only the one Church which goes back to Christ,” he adds. Gerstle also insists that the FSSP does not “wish to polarize or even to promote splits,” but that they wish to instill in their own parishes “an ecclesial attitude.” Certain (unnamed, unspecified) abuses in the Church should only be criticized in a “differentiated and moderate way.” [We are only getting very partial and bifurcated comments. I don’t read German so I can’t go to the original and Google translate is too unreliable in such fine points. Having said that, I find these comments disappointing and far too conciliatory towards the post-conciliar construct. Then again, we do not know what pressures the Fraternity is under right now, but I understand they are considerable and the dangers great from those who would like to do to the ED communities what has been done to the FI’s.]
Father Gerstle also distances himself from the concept “traditionalist” when he says: “This notion I do not like at all to hear. We are not traditionalists, but simply Catholic.” As Catholics, he says, “we appreciate tradition,” but without “completely blocking organic adaptations and changes.” [This one I have no problem with. Some of the most informed readers of this blog eschew the term traditional, and say that what we practice is simply the Catholic Faith as it has always been believed, understood, and lived. There is nothing remarkable about “organic changes” either. VII was wholly inorganic.]
The worthy celebration of the traditional liturgy, together with a loyal teaching of the Catholic Faith, is at the center of the work of the FSSP, according to Gerstle. “Salvation of souls” and “eternal life” are their Fraternity’s own concern. Unfortunately, adds the German priest, “the Four Last Things have been widely neglected in the Church, with the effect of a belittling and attenuation of sin and of a loss of the practice of sacramental confession.” [I would hope this is uncontroversial. In fact, one could take from this a tacit rebuke of the post-conciliar construct, where the Mass is typically deplorable and the “teaching” counterfeit.]
Father Gerstle sees that “one cannot simply introduce everywhere again the old liturgy and, so to speak, impose it upon people.” “Both rites thus [with the help of the “reform of the reform”] should enrich each other,” explains the priest. Certain elements of the new liturgy could be “enriching for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.” [He’s just parroting PBXVI here, but I am personally extremely leery of any “enrichment” flowing from the NO to the TLM. I think there is virtually nothing in the NO that would “improve” the TLM.]
Moreover, Father Gerstle also explains that, in the German district, there are growing numbers of faithful who are interested in the traditional Tridentine Mass. Some of the FSSP Masses have “100 to 180 faithful” in attendance. He admits, however, that the FSSP has not too many vocations. “All in all we have a good number of incomers [16 new priests in 2016 and currently some 100 seminarians altogether], but it is not so that we are under pressure due to high numbers of vocations.” [The Fraternity is generally doing better in North America, where there is a certain pressure to grow the seminary. As for Mass attendance, the local FSSP parish is now attracting 1200+ on a typical Sunday. That is unusual, but the growth is consistent throughout, and I pray all the other tradition-oriented groups are experiencing the same or better.]
At the end of this interview, Gerstle explains that the SSPX faces a dilemma: either Bishop Fellay chooses unity with Rome and will have a split within his own organization, or he will choose unity within the SSPX and will not have unity with Rome. The German priest explains, as follows:
I think that the current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, will have to decide between unity with Rome and unity within the Society of St. Piux X. The realists within the leadership will then hopefully realize that there is no alternative to a reconciliation with Rome.
I find the first part of this analysis to be insightful, but I think anyone who has followed the situation even as casually as I have has reached about the same conclusion. I also think the second part is right, though I continue to have doubts as to whether now, with Francis in charge, is the right time. The man has a demonstrated track record of deliberately targeting tradition-embracing groups for destruction. But may God’s will be done.
As for the interview, this is absolutely not what I would prefer to see from a leading Fraternity priest. But I’m not sure it confirms the fatal weakness of the Fraternity, either. Does having a regular canonical status involve some compromise? Absolutely*. And folks in the SSPX had better be FULLY cognizant of that fact when they sign their “deal” with Rome.
Well I don’t post for a week then you get a novella. Lucky you. Sorry folks, posting is going to be infrequent for the foreseeable future. I had a very unusual situation for first 76 months of this blog’s history but that period is definitively order. I probably would not have posted today if this matter hadn’t hit so close to home. We’ve had a nightmare bronchitis/pneumonia go through our family that takes weeks to get over. I’m still fighting it but am back at work but also playing lots of catchup. Hope to get another post out tomorrow but who knows.
*-but so far, only of a limited and generally unobtrusive (or undamaging) sort. The “gravitational pull” of an unreconciled SSPX probably plays a role in the limited nature of the compromises forced on the FSSP – which is why I fear regularization for the entire restoration of the Faith. But ultimately God is in charge and we have to want what is best for the salvation of souls, which everyone (not really, but lots) tells me is regularization. So it must be it.
Freedom is the Hijab April 6, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, suicide.
As a believing Catholic, I am all for modesty in dress on the part of everyone. Not just women, but everyone. I am so convinced of the necessity of modesty, that I am even in favor of certain societal norms and social pressures that would encourage people to dress (and behave) modestly, casting out of polite society egregious offenders against this norm, as was the case throughout Christendom for, oh, about 17-1900 years (I hedge a bit, not knowing what standards of dress were like in the period of the early Church).
But I stop short at people being physically coerced to dress with decorum and modesty. I do not think women should be beaten if they show 2″ too much leg, or don’t wear a full, stinking burqa. I do not think there should be religious police wandering around able to dish out corporal punishment on the spot, with no trial, no appeal.
Practice of virtue is a great source of salvific Grace. But virtue that is coerced is not such a source. We can argue at length about where to draw the line, or whether societal pressures would constitute coercion, but I think it not unreasonable to conclude that threatening severe corporal punishment or death for a violation against modesty is not only a bad thing in general, but something that is prone to abuse and capricious application (as we see from the video below).
But we have come to the point in this country, where the muslim infiltration/invasion has been allowed to go unchecked for two decades or more, that the nation’s “newspaper of record” is running op-eds from muslim women opining that the essence of freedom is found in being forced to cover themselves head to foot under threat of force from the men around them:
A great point I wish I had more time to flesh out today, but will hopefully get to tomorrow: why are the Left and islam such easy bedfellows, in spite of holding radically contrary beliefs on almost every subject imaginable? Well, aside from islam being the perfect tool to crush the Left’s highest priority target for destruction – Christianity – neither recognizes any authority but its own. They don’t recognize the value of (true) liberal democracy, they don’t recognize the value of Christianity, they don’t recognize the value of peaceful coexistence, all they recognize is power and the urgent command to obey their ideological dictates. Islam, through the practice of deliberate deceit known as taqqiyah, will make allies wherever it finds them, no matter how noxious they find their beliefs, so long as it serves the interests of the unholy “ummah.” The Left uses islam as almost their armed wing to attack the instituttions of Western Civilization and to serve as a battering ram against Christianity (in which they are far too often – almost always – aided by the Quislings within the Christian community).
Thus it actually makes a great deal of sense that they collaborate so much, so that the wholly vulgar vagina-fest known as the “Women’s March on Washington” was principally led and organized by a hijab-wearing muslim woman, a woman literally sporting a symbol of her submission to men. And yet that woman was portrayed as a feminist icon.
What to Make of the Francis’ SSPX Marriage Imbroglio? April 6, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
I chose the word imbroglio, because gambit felt a bit critical, and indult seemed off the mark, too.
For those who do not know, Francis, Bishop of Rome, extended another “indulgence,” or a faculty with no formal juridical structure, to the SSPX, this time concerning marriage. Readers will know that since Advent 2015 the SSPX has had faculties to hear Confession granted from Francis himself. Originally intended for the Year of Mercy, those faculties have been extended indefinitely. A few days ago, Francis, through the CDF and Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, granted permission to local ordinaries to grant faculties for the Sacrament of Marriage, as well, under some rather odd circumstances. The “normal” means of doing this would be to have a Novus Ordo priest perform the actual marriage sacrament, or to oversee it somehow?, with the nuptial Mass following according to the ancient Rite and conducted by a Society priest. But in addition – since this would surely be a huge burden to already overtaxed (or so we are told) diocesan priests – there is also a caveat allowing faculties to simply be granted without the involvement of local clergy.
That’s admittedly a rough summation of a fairly complex initiative but you can read all the details at the Rorate link. The point of this post is not to haggle over details of this initiative, or whatever it is, and to talk aboutits implications.
I have seen two general reactions to this, and they have followed in line with sentiments folks hold towards SSPX regularization overall. Some, like Rorate, are convinced that both this latest indulgence by Francis, and the overall process of regularization that now seems coming close to fruition, are unalloyed goods and something every faithful soul should be really excited about. I would like to present some text confirming this optimistic view, but Rorate seems to have shifted much of their focus to Twitter and while I’ve seen tweets confirming their excitement at this development, such as this: “This is clearly a final step towards full regularization that will go away when the papers are signed. It’s a good thing.”
Others, like Michael Matt below, are far more skeptical. In fact, in my very narrow experience, it seems a lot of folks who have had a long time association with the Society of St. Pius X are among the most skeptical of both this latest grant of faculties and the overall process of regularization. The Remnant video:
“They are wrecking the Church, they are enabling heretics everywhere……They are raping our kids, physically and spiritually, and then they have the audacity, to demand obedience. Oh so pious. To demand OBEDIENCE, and to hold the threat of schism over the heads of little old ladies to prevent them from in any way standing in opposition to their diabolical agenda.” Great rant.
Former Catholics are now the second largest “denomination” in the country. 70% of those baptized in Catholics in the US have fallen away. 80% of even those remaining American Catholics never go to Mass (and I bet it’s at least slightly higher than that). Even the vast majority of “practicing Catholics” are heretics of one form or another. Almost all of them support the use of contraception, and a large majority do not believe in the Real Presence, the very core, the essence, of our Faith. And these statistics from the US are much better than one would find in Europe and other locales, the Church’s ancient home.
Matt brings up a key point and one that I have gradually, over the years, come to accept, not as a metaphysical certitude but as being supported by the preponderance of the evidence: that “full communion” is a term much bandied about by those who have wrought the destruction of the Church in this world while demanding obedience from all to go along with a project they can easily see is causing nothing but devastation for souls. I am not sure what meaning that term means when bishops “in full communion” can declare, with the full backing of the pope, that adulterers can freely receive the Blessed Sacrament, re-crucifying our Blessed Lord over and over and over again in a horrid sacrilege. Given what is going on in the Church and world, as evidence by those statistics above and what we see and read every day, the arguments over the canonical regularity of the SSPX seem like a tempest in a teacup. Even worse, these same Church leaders who constantly appeal to obedience while snarling at and denigrating all those who strive to practice the Faith as it has always been practiced are the very ones who have placed the Church in the direst straits of her 2000 year history!
Not that the canonical status of the SSPX is a hill I’m prepared to die on, nor something I’m overly concerned about. I know there are fervent partisans on both sides, and I’ve always struggled to stay out of those endless squabbles where partisans stack up enormous piles of books and quotes from Fathers, Doctors, and Saints to support their favored side. It just seems to me, practically speaking, all this concern over and focus on the canonical status of the SSPX is just not a huge issue, compared to all else that is going on. The Church has fallen into the worst crisis of her history and the ostensible imperfect canonical status of the 0.05% of the Church (nominally speaking) associated with the SSPX just doesn’t concern me that much.
I do continue to be very ambivalent regarding this apparently unstoppable ongoing process of regularization. I’ve been catechized to believe that this must and has to be a very good thing, but something – my own lack of faith, the temptations of satan, worldly experience, natural cynicism, something – keeps shouting in my interior spaces that this is a grave, grave danger, not just to the SSPX but to all the Ecclesia Dei communities and the entire human aspect of the Church. It is also an opportunity, yes, but given how easily communities like the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been completely crushed by the modernist powers, it seems like the opportunity is far outweighed by the dangers.
If regularization comes to pass part of me will be happy and I’ll pray like mad – as I already have been – that everything will turn out for the best. In the grand, grand scheme of things I know it will, that the Church will be restored and Christ’s reign recognized by all, but I cannot get over my concern for the millions of souls who will continue to fall into hell so long as the Church persists in this disastrous crisis. Whether SSPX regularization will ultimately be a massive turning point in the restoration of the Faith, or simply another grim milestone in the chronicle of the Church’s long demise prior to the parousia, I do not know. None of us does. So I’ll just keep hoping and praying that God will have mercy on His Church and raise up the leadership and laity we so desperately need, and not that which we and the world deserve.
If you want an even more detailed critical take on this initiative, sent in by reader D, read this. I am concerned that it seems like the leadership of the SSPX is giving evidence of an attitude of appeasement towards the overwhelmingly modernist hierarchy in the Church and not rocking the boat, which bodes ill, I think, for their role in the Church after regularization, but we shall see.
Formerly Christian Europe Is Dying April 5, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, cultural marxism, demographics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
In 24 of 42 European countries, deaths by nominal Christians far exceeded births, with only a handful of mostly formerly Catholic countries having more births than deaths:
Playing a large role in this is the mass abandonment by Europe’s young people of Christianity. Their birth rates are exceedingly low but most of those proclaiming no religion in Europe are relatively young and die in small numbers:
Of course, the cohort with by far the highest birth rate in Europe is the muslims. While still a relatively small minority in much of Europe, their numbers are increasing rapidly through a their higher birth rates and the mass immigration supported by European elites desperate to replace their aging and declining native populations.
As I’ve said before, enjoy your new muslim overlords, Europe. Of course, the US is likely only a few decades behind in this trend of a dying native population being replaced by an unassimilated influx of third world immigrants, and increasing percentage of which have been – prior to Donald Trump – muslim.
We shall see whether Trump can do anything to arrest and even reverse that trend, or not.
A bit non sequitur for the blog, but regular readers know I am into firearms (though in a minor way, compared to some of you), home defense, a little bit of disaster preparedness, and similar topics. An Oklahoma man faced the nightmare of having his home invaded by hooded, armed, mask-wearing men one day. He was armed with an AR-15 and defended his home. The three criminals, who were apparently teenagers and probably relative newcomers to violent crime, were all killed. Their getaway driver and the apparent mastermind of the crime was later caught and has already publicly admitted to being involved.
The parents of the three dead young men are raising a ruckus demanding the 23 year old who defended his home be charged with some kind of crime. If he lived in a leftist-run state, he might well be in a tight spot, but Oklahoma’s people and government still take a dim view of crime, for the most part, and recognize the right of a person to defend himself in his own home, even to the point of taking a life. I’m sure the parents of these kids are devastated, but they chose to threaten other’s lives and they paid the price for their foolishness:
A 23-year-old Broken Arrow (OK) man who used his AR-15 to kill three masked home invaders with one shot each last week will not face any charges after authorities announced that the shooting was an act of self defense under Oklahoma’s version of castle doctrine.
The Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office provided an update into the investigation of last week’s home invasion that left three teens dead in Broken Arrow on Monday at a press conference.
The triple homicide took place on the 9100 block of South Clearview Drive March 27.Wagoner County deputies said at about 12:30 p.m., three masked intruders entered the home, which was occupied by a father and his 23-year-old son, Zach Peters.
Deputies said Peters shot and killed the three intruders with an AR-15.
Peters will not face charges in connection with the shooting, officials said. The Wagoner County District Attorney’s Office ruled that Peters acted justifiably in his use of deadly force to defend the home.
Incredibly, the media is still attempting to claim Oklahoma’s implementation of stand your ground law is how Peters is avoiding prosecution for the deaths of the three suspects.
Elizabeth Rodriguez, the ringleader of the gang of burglary suspects and the getaway driver who left her three accomplices behind after shots were fired, was formally charged with three counts of first-degree murder and several counts of first and second-degree burglary. Rodriguez, who seems to be as intelligent as your average storm drain, confessed to the burglaries in a television interview last week, which should all but assure her conviction for the burglary charges, and since the murder charges are hinged upon the felony murder rule, a conviction on all three murder counts as well.
Oklahoma allows the execution of convicted first-degree murderers, but prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty.
Despite being reviled by gun control supporters, AR-15s are excellent home defense weapons, featuring low-recoil, good ammunition capacity, and excellent self-defense performance from standard 55-grain FMJ M193 “ball” ammunition originally designed for the M16A1 assault rifle, but which is now also the cheapest bulk practice ammunition in .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO variants.
The three teenaged burglars killed in the home invasion were each struck just once.
The perpetrator’s families are lashing out at the young man who defended his home, claiming using an AR-15 against a knife was an “unfair fight.” As if that matters in the slightest. I understand the families are surely upset, though one does wonder who teen boys came to a life of violent crime, and are desperately trying to rationalize the death of their children, but blaming the victim in this horrific situation is hardly going to win them much sympathy. It is, however, perhaps an indicator of the kind of self-serving and self-deluding thinking that afflicts so many people today.
The remaining living perpetrator will almost certainly be convicted on three charges of first degree murder, to which she has already clumsily admitted being involved in a TV interview. She may well face the death penalty, but she, too, blamed the victim for shooting her homeboys when they invaded his house and refused to leave after being confronted by an armed man.
Some Darwin Award winners in this bunch. I have pity for them all, but especially the young man who defended his home and will now have to live with the memory of this nightmarish event and the deaths he caused for the rest of his life. That is no easy burden to bear, and perhaps the families of those quite rightfully killed should keep that in mind.
Now, I’ve got to preface this post somewhat. The survey that reports a huge spike in millennials reporting they are somewhere on the perverse spectrum was commissioned by the lead sodomy-advocacy group “GLAAD.” So, it is likely the results are skewed anywhere from slightly to severely. Having said that, however, even if the survey is over-reporting reality by 300%, that would still mean that over twice as many millennials are self-identifying as inclined to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (if not active, ongoing participants in same) than any previous population survey.
And as the pro-sodomy lobby gains more and more power and influence, as the perverse sexular pagan Left sinks its tentacles more and more into the mind, heart, and soul of our yutes, each generation is worse than the one before. My generation was somewhere between tolerant/ambivalent and moderately supportive of this sinful lifestyle. The millennials seem given to full-throated support. Some say the generation after them is somehow more conservative, but I doubt that, it would run counter to the prevailing trend of the past century or more, where each succeeding generation is more tolerant/supportive of immorality than the preceding one.
Twenty percent of millennials say they’re LGBTQ, and 12 percent are either transgender or gender-nonconforming, according to a new Harris Poll survey conducted for the activist group GLAAD.
And millennials also reported numerous gender identities: Three percent said they were agender; 3 percent, gender fluid; 2 percent, transgender; 2 percent, unsure or questioning; 1 percent bigender; and 1 percent genderqueer.
“This could be attribute to increasingly accepting environments, wherein for many people, family rejection is less frequent, job security is less at risk, and overall safety is less of a concern when coming out,” said their study, explaining the unprecedented findings.
Though pollsters agree that more Americans—and more millennials, especially– are identifying as LGBT, they disagree about the numbers. When it came to the percent of LGBTQ adults under 35, the Harris Poll’s findings were nearly three times higher than a Gallup survey released in January.
Yeah I didn’t even mention that 12% say they are somehow unsure of their gender. That’s such an enormous explosion from the teeny, tiny percentage of previous population groups it staggers the imagination. These kids are being propagandized to the extent they are embracing self-loathing and flirting with permanent self-mutilation. That’s a direct effect in being exposed to porn and self-abuse from a very young age. In addition to these kids being so fully indoctrinated in the victimhood hierarchy and the immense benefits, advantages, and immunities that flow from being a perceived member of a supposed victim group, but really an incredibly privileged group, that young people are embracing perverse, alien identities in order to garner some of those wonderful perks.
Even the secular conservative New Yorker Ace notes that a trend like this will quickly be the end of us should this persist much longer:
while some of that could just be virtue signaling — straights claiming to be gay in solidarity with gays, …… — and some could be GLAAD using the broadest possible definition of “gay” to plump the numbers, I wouldn’t completely discount it.
I’ve heard some horrifying stories from parents who say their kids are growing up in an environment where there is positive social and institutional pressure to be gay or experiment with being gay, as if being straight means there’s something defective in you. To not have any interest in sex with the same sex means that you’re a hater, so many kids are in fact trying a little bit of sexual and gender experimentation. [Very true. As is the reverse of the coin, being able to identify as supposedly gay or especially transgender puts one in the vanguard of a vital social justice movement both conveying purpose to an otherwise empty existence, and providing greatly coveted (if wholly unearned) moral authority and all manner of privileges, such as being able to never be questioned on a wide array of topics because of supposed “victim status.” It’s a moral authority card many kids find too irresistible to avoid]
Based on anecdotal data: Kids today are being coached and even “groomed” to be gay by cultural forces and intentional institutional programming.
This will all work out well, I’m sure. I’m sure that none of the psychological strains of forcing yourself to conform to a sexual preference you actually don’t share that gays often report will definitely not be evident in a generation of 97% straight kids taught that they’re probably gay and should at least experiment with gay relationships for a while to make sure.
Or else they’re perverts in revolt against the laws of nature and morality.
No bad consequences at all, I’m sure.
Dudes, I would never say my generation has covered itself in glory. It’s been shameful. But this……holy cow this is so beyond wheels off I don’t even know how to describe it.
When I read the article below, I was struck with the sense that what was being demanded, what these special snowflake university students were seeking, was essentially the imposition of their ludicrous false demonic religious creed upon everyone else. Without any supporting evidence, they decried the presence of a presumably Christian preacher on their campus who, they claim, “promoted hate speech against marginalized students,” demanding that the ability to speak such heresy be banned from campus.
This is essentially religious speech, if from a pathetically weak, unreasonable (and unreasoning), and false religion. Fortunately the administrator they were trying to bully – the university president – would have none of it. At least so far. We’ll see if the president yields as almost every one of their peers at other colleges and universities has.
But the key point, the takeaway is, if ever confronted by social justice warriors attempting to foist their demonic religion on you, CALL THEM ON IT. Call them on the essentially religious nature of their beliefs, and the totalitarian nature of their methods. Tell them you will not be made a proselyte for their (provably) sick and destructive faith. Call on them to convert:
The president of a US university is facing calls to resign because she refuses to endorse safe spaces on her institution’s campus.
The university’s Student Action Coalition attacked Dr Cheng’s leadership and demanded that she quit after a tense confrontation at a Q&A session………
……….According to Arizona’s 12News channel, the incident came to a head with a question from a sophomore, who asked:
How can you promote safe spaces if you don’t take action in situations of injustice such as last week when we had the preacher on campus and he was promoting hate speech against marginalized students? As well as, not speaking out against racist incidents like blackface two months ago by student workers followed by no reform and no repercussions? [I would bet dollars to donuts this later event never happened, at least not anything like described. And these kids demonstrate the validity of my claim, demanding the quashing of one religion in favor of their own.]
Dr Cheng responded by attacking the safe space ideology wholesale, saying essentially that they only serve to coddle students and stunt their development…….
A photo of the “mass protest:”
Now, NAU has over 30,000 students, but barely over a dozen bothered to attend. This is also typical, however, a tiny but very loud minority comes to dominate not only the political scene on college campuses but the culture and even the material taught. Over 50 years, the Left has managed to bend almost every of academia outside of the hard sciences and engineering to their lunacy.
Now, I realize there are many ways to verbally/mentally oppose these little leftist ideologues. They can very truthfully be called fascists, totalitarians, bullies, liars, and many other things besides. But I think the religious angle will really throw them off, because these people almost invariably pride themselves on being wholly fact and reason-based, even if they do nothing but shout back slogans they’ve been indoctrinated to accept uncritically their entire life. Calling them out in this manner is probably more effective than simply shouting wholly descriptive but more obviously pejorative epithets at them.
Or not. Do what you will. Notice the makeup of the crowd, over 80% female. Exit question: what role has the increasing dominance of women on campus played in the steady shift towards leftism and hostility to reasoned argument on the college campus, if any? Can it not be fairly said that in the general society, granting women the vote played a substantial role in setting virtually all Western countries on an inevitably leftward arc over the past century?
Back when the Church was still much more of a force in the world, the Left, pursuing an agenda packed full of immodesty, immorality, and pornography to tear down the moral universe of Christendom, attacked such wholesome entities as the Legion of Decency or Father Peyton’s Rosary Crusade for good morals as being opposed to supposedly sacrosanct free speech. Free Speech was ostensibly such a good in and of itself that nothing, not even the fate of souls and the moral standards of an entire culture, could stand in its way. Thus, pornography was pushed into the mainstream, and little children were taught all manner of filthiness to insure that great gift of God, their innocence, would be ruined at a vulnerable stage, making them far more pliable for vicious demagogues pushing an unholy agenda.
Well, that was then, and this is now. With the Church beyond dysfunctional, nearly broken (for all practical purposes, a non-entity in the cultural zeitgeist), and virtually all the ancient moral standards and societal taboos totally shattered – that is to say, with the goal of the destruction of Christendom nearly obtained – NOW suddenly the Left is increasingly positing that free speech is not sacrosanct, is not a good in itself, and should, in fact, be jettisoned in furtherance of the broader leftist agenda. This agenda, as a previous post noted, is becoming more and more nakedly apparent as the standing up of a new, demonic religion, a religion of endless guilt for sins but no redemption save that offered by the Left- whatever dystopic utopia they are pushing for at the moment.
The shift against free speech and towards a totalitarian implementation of the leftist ideology is given evidence in thousands, probably millions of tweets, videos, blog post, and media articles. One recent article was more stultifyingly obvious than the rest, calling for deconstruction of “free speech protections” and the criminalization of speech the Left finds offensive, in this case, so-called islamophobia. It also highlights a belief I have long had, that some find counterintuitive – as push comes to shove, after (and if) Christendom is driven underground again, the Left will happily don the hijab and heed the call to prayer and endorse islam formally. This article endorses dogmatic claims of islam as fact, something I would wager a mighty sum the author would never grant to Christianity. See for yourself:
On March 23, New Zealand awoke to the horrific news of yet another terrorist attack, this time in London.
A deranged individual ploughed a car into innocent pedestrians and brutally stabbed a police officer to death before being shot. Five people died, including the attacker.
The Twittersphere was soon abuzz with conjecture and accusation. Who was to blame? What were the motives?
I felt sick as I read comments saying “Islam is to blame” and “it must be another Muslim”. [And with excellent reason, as the vast, vast, vast majority of such attacks are perpetrated by muslims. Given the location and the means of executing the atrocity, people had very good reason to assume a muslim was the perpetrator, and, guess what! He was.]
The fact that the attacker was a Muslim is irrelevant. The issue is that Islamophobia was the first response. [Oh for crying out loud. Muslims are responsible for attacks that kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of others, mostly Christians, around the world annually. No other religion comes close. Decrying this as “islamophobia” is just the bleating of an ideologue who has nothing to support their claim, so they shout epithets.]
If you are a Muslim, you continually have to defend your faith against people who accuse it of being a dangerous and violent set of ideas. [And rightly so, because it has been proven, over its roughly 1,350 year history, to be exactly that, a dangerous and violent set of ideas.]Islam is the religion of peace; anyone who understands this knows it has no part in the ideology of ISIS……..[Do you think the nebbish milquetoast wisp of a (white) man author would EVER grant such to Christianity, that it is THE religions of peace. Not A religion of peace, but THE religion of peace. This guy is halfway to being a muslim convert, and entirely because his ideology places muslims very, very high on the victim pyramid conveying instantaneous moral status and authority. These people will be the death of us, literally and figuratively.]
………The misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic hate speech directed at oppressed groups is damaging to society – and with the rise of Donald Trump’s brand of politics, it is also being legitimised.
So, what does this have to do with free speech? And how might things change for the better?
Well, there is some hope. The Canadian parliament has passed the M-103 motion, which calls on the government to condemn Islamophobia. It is the silver lining of a dark and depressing cloud, and it is something I think New Zealand should seek to not only emulate but improve.
Our Government should look to criminalise not only Islamophobia, but racist rhetoric and the criticism of feminism and LGBTQAA+ rights. [Basically, any speech that attacks and undermines his leftist ideology should be made illegal. That’s what they have done in all the leftist “paradises” from 16th century Muenster to 1870 Paris to the FSU and up to today.]
Free speech is all well and good, but it should not be defended at the expense of minority groups. [And he and his cohort, naturally, get to define both who is a “minority,” and whether certain speech somehow offends against him/them.]
Nothing quells fear and hatred like making it illegal, and if we stop opposing progressive values then surely the constant fighting will stop too.
Spoken like a true believer. The ideological motive behind all this is revealed in this final paragraph, “progressive values” are so perfect and sublime they will lead to peace and concord for all, if we could only shut up those blasted recalcitrant unholy heretical right wingers once and for all.
Whether declaring vast swaths of perfectly normal political and cultural speech/criticism to be illegal would produce less “fear and hatred” is extremely debatable. While members of the leftist political coalition might be happy, millions of others would be extremely aggrieved. What he means to say is it would “quell the fear and hatred” of those he finds politically and culturally acceptable, ie., members of the leftist coalition. The rest can just go hang, perhaps figuratively at first, but eventually, literally.
The writer comes across as extremely young, naive, and indoctrinated. He doesn’t argue coherently so much as regurgitate talking points he’s picked up from the mainstream media in hyper-leftist New Zealand (one of the first Western countries to essentially completely destroy their capability to defend themselves, militarily – I kid you not – devolving this responsibility on their friendly neighbor Australia).
Wherever the Left has gained hold – oh, and always for the good of others, even as it makes those others utterly miserable – it has resulted in a total crackdown on civil liberties that were one of the great gifts of the Church to the world. Given leftism’s endemic anti-Christian nature, I guess this should not be surprising. What is amazing is the Left’s ability to dissemble and exist in total hypocrisy, even regarding its own history. Are today’s leftists, heirs of the once sacrosanct “free speech movement” of the 60s and 70s embarrassed at totally turning their back on this once vital precept? Of course not, both because they are wholly ignorant of history, and wouldn’t care if they weren’t.
Because it’s always been about power, power for them, over you, because they are totally convinced of their own innate superiority in every possible way – morally, intellectually, artistically, culturally, politically, socially……everything. Being a leftist means never having to say you’re sorry.
h/t Sargon of Akkad
History may or may not repeat itself, but historical situations do recur. In this time of incredible crisis in the Church, it is helpful sometimes to review the history of previous crises. The protestant revolt in the 16th century was a time when it appeared all of Christendom might fall into error. The parallels between that disastrous period of time and our own are perhaps greater than many realize. Whether the condition of the Church today is better or worse than that of, say, the dark year of 1560, when Calvinists very nearly gained France to their side through a narrowly foiled secret plot (endorsed by Calvin himself) to murder not only the French king but dozens of Catholic nobles, is difficult to say. What has remained constant between that time and this is the tendency for bad Catholics to make up the lead ranks of the revolutionaries. I guess the primary difference is that in the current disastrous state of the Church, as in the Arian crisis, the revolutionaries lack the honesty and decency to formally separate themselves from union with the Church, instead pretending they represent a “truer,” “purer,” “reformed” Faith. Of course, much of the reason for that has been the fault of numerous timorous pontiffs, who have lacked the nerve to openly challenge the modernist-progressive cabal by excommunicating them as they, and the faithful, so richly deserve.
At any rate, in keeping with today’s focus on the current religion of leftist secular paganism and it’s historical antecedents, this excerpt from pp. 285-6 of William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II:
One of the biggest factors in causing all this corruption was the interference of the State, newly conscious of its unity and power, in the affairs of the Church. Priests were badly disciplined because there were too many political bishops. There were political bishops because kings, even in Spain, had seldom missed an opportunity to wring privileges from unwilling Popes when they had them in their power. Often the Pope had to allow the King to name the bishops, as the price of having Christianity preached at all, and he chose the lesser of the two evils. In view of all this, it is strange that men go on repeating cant phrases about the interference of the Church in the State in the Middle Ages. Sometimes, yes; but more often the other way around. Philip took it as a matter of course that he was to be consulted before the Pope nominated a bishop in any of his dominions. If any Pope had dared to dictate Philips appointments……..!!!!!!!
Three other facts about the corruption of the clergy are often forgotten: 1) Many of the accounts of church scandals originated with the enemies of the Church, who have been proved guilty of gross exaggerations or of downright lying. Sometimes the scandalmonger is an exposed cheat, like Llorente; sometimes a scribbler in the pay of one of the Pope’s political enemies, like the lewd neo-pagan Pontano; or a credulous retailer of indiscriminate gossip or a disappointed office-seeker. Being contemporary does not make a man truthful or reliable. In all ages there has been a continuous and curiously uniform propaganda to discredit the Church and all connected with her. Documents of the Alta Vendita, made public by the papal government of 1846, disclosed a systematic and deliberate campaign of slander. One letter said:
“Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps……….Crush the enemy whoever he may be; crush the powerful by means of lies and calumny………If a prelate comes to Rome from the provinces to exercise some public function, learn immediately his character, his antecedents, above all, his defects. If he is already a declared enemy…..envelop him in all the snares you can lay under his feet; create for him one of those reputations which will frighten little children and old women…….paint him cruel and sanguinary: recount regarding him some trait of cruelty which can easily be engraved in the minds of the people.
If this was never formulated so concretely until the nineteenth century, it describes, with startling accuracy, what the enemies of the Church had been doing for centuries. It describes what they did to the reputation of Philip II.
2) It is to be noticed that when the breach occurred, it was the ignorant and corrupt priest, monk, or nun who rushed forth to join Luther and Calvin in the liberty of the new dispensation. Theodore Beza, as a Roman Catholic, is a glaring example of the too common corruption. Though not even a priest, he enjoys the incomes of two benefices, through political influence, lavishes the Church’s money on his concubine, and generally leads a vicious and dissolute life. When the Church is under attack, he hastens to join the enemy. As Calvin’s lieutenant, this “righteous” man thunders against the corruption of the Old Church, of which he was partly the cause. There is no doubt about the laxity of the monasteries of Sevilla and Valladolid, whose members embraced protestantism; nor of the degeneracy of the Augustinians in Saxony, who broke away from the Church almost to a man in 1521 (so much so that they may as well be called “Luther’s Own”). In England it was the reformed Observantine Franciscans who withstood Henry VIII even to death, while the relaxed Conventuals and other badly disciplined monks and priests formed the nucleus of the Church of England. The first protestants, as a rule, were bad Catholics. [very much as we have seen in the Church since the crisis exploded at and after Vatican II, the already soft and corrupted orders have fallen into total dissolution, while a few observant orders – and a number of new ones, clinging to the disciplines of the past – have maintained their own, or grown substantially.]
So, contrary to what you have almost certainly been taught from both teacher and toob, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was not simply a corrupt, effete, cynical, self-serving institution enriching itself off the enforced donations o f a benighted peasantry desperate to believe in any kind of Good News, no matter how falsely presented it may have been. Or more accurately, to the extent that description was ever true, the Church was very often not to blame for that state of things. The State had a great deal to answer for in whatever deficiencies were present in Christendom on the eve of the protestant revolt.
The campaign of deliberate smear by vituperation practiced by protestant-leftists then……is it much different from the epithets of “Nazi,” “racist,” “islamophobe,” “sexist,” etc., we hear now? It seems Alinsky was far from the first Alinskyite – the protestants and masons of the Alta Vendita had him beat by centuries.
Walsh’s history is heavy, at times ponderous, and a bit too focused on minute details (do I really need 1 ½ pages – 700 words – on the exotic gowns worn by Philip II, his third wife Isabel, and their entourage at their wedding?) but it is undeniably Catholic in outlook. He is very similar to Warren Carroll in that respect, but did not have some of the small, but still noticeable, baggage that Carroll carried with him (a too great deference to the post-conciliar ethos, and a tendency to gloss over certain topics). Philip II is Walsh’s magnum opus, but I look forward to reading other books by the author. History has always been my first love, and even though this is a trying read at times, I am learning a great deal. I plan on reading the rest of this author’s oeuvre as I can.