jump to navigation

Are you suffering from Francis Shock Syndrome? There’s help for you! August 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Interior Life, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.

The Bear at St. Corbinian’s Bear – who I swear writes exactly like a Senior Chief Petty Officer I used to know spoke – has a most relevant post regarding the affliction many Catholics are feeling under the current pontificate.  We feel spiritually and even psychologically harmed by the ongoing scandal and fear over even greater disasters in the future.  Some have called it Francis Derangement Syndrome, but that’s a hypermontanist calumny against people honestly feeling stressed and worse in confronting the constant antics in Rome.  I think Francis Shock Syndrome might fit better.  Kind of like Toxic Shock Syndrome, but from an ecclesiastical perspective.

The Bear has properly diagnosed the spiritual and psychological discomfiture many souls have been experiencing over the past two-plus years, seeing in it a form of cognitive dissonance.  For those who don’t know, cognitive dissonance occurs when deeply held beliefs are suddenly challenged (if not obliterated) by reality.  Catholics have been taught to believe that popes are infallible but many have taken that into impeccability. How can the current pontificate be reconciled with that very deep belief?

This pain is worsened by being told that they are not just wrong, but bad, horrible people and eve worse Catholics for feeling that something is very awry at the highest echelon of the Church. The Bear notes that such attacks are simply some people’s way of relieving that same stress themselves – they declare criticism of the papacy out of bounds, so they don’t have to think about the ongoing scandals.  The Bear also examines other ways of trying to relieve that stress, and how valid or invalid they are with respect to reality.  The worst case is when people create alternate realities that basically define the problem away.

Hopefully I’ve given sufficient set up.  I think we’re dealing with an unusually bright bear here……he gives much to consider (emphasis in original, my comments):

If you believe that the Church is a divine institution, carrying out God’s plan of evangelization and the cure of souls, maintaining a tradition that ensures its integrity, and if you envision popes in the mold of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and even Pius XII, Pope Francis comes as much of a shock as a spaceman from……..planet Clarion. [Clever picture at the link]

You can’t shake the feeing that something is terribly wrong. It’s not supposed to be this way. Popes aren’t supposed to be as off-kilter as Pope Francis. The Church is not supposed to be talking about changing things as settled as Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage after divorce, let alone homosexual unions. Nor should it be refereeing scientific debates, and in general showing interest in everything but the supernatural. [Indeed]
So, on the one hand, you have everything you believe in your core about the Catholic Church. On the other, you have the undeniable fact of Pope Francis. If a Grand Canyon sized split like that is not enough to cause cognitive dissonance, the Bear does not know what is……..[And this is something very smart guys like Eliot Bougis have been wrestling with for months.  Some pre-conciliar (but generally post-Vatican I) theological treatises make out that breathing even a hint of criticism of a Pope is highly suspect if not directly sinful.  Others (including some great saints) seem to argue that such criticism is possible.  All of these, however, assume a responsible, Church-loving pontiff.  Is that assumption safe anymore?]

………So how do we deal with cognitive dissonance? The Bear is not pretending to provide counseling, but will propose a few ideas. In general, there are four effective defense mechanisms that kick in to reducing dissonance.

The perfect example (perfect as an example, not as a model) is thesedevacantist. Get rid of the Pope and you get rid of the dissonance! They have changed one of the conflicting cognitions (“Francis is Pope”). Similarly, others may leave the Church. They have changed their cognition the opposite way from the sedevacantists by getting rid of the Church. [Of course, sede vacantism as a somewhat widespread movement pre-dates Pope Francis by decades]
Another way is to keep the Pope and the Church while turning a blind eye to anything distressing that the Pope may do or say. This is the ultramontanist solution. [I think we’ve gone beyond ultra, and into hyper-montanism, but whatevs]  A variation is to blame everybody in the Church but the Pope. This is the well-known position of Church Militant’s Michael Voris. It’s the Pope’s “bad advisors,” or the bishops. Both simply ignore the conflicting cognition. This means simply disregarding all evidence that Francis’ Papacy is deeply flawed. The Bear, by the way, is not saying this is a bad approach…….[I think it requires too much willful disregard of reality, and can even approach outright dishonesty]
Still others may physically stay in the Church, but just disengage. It’s easier to shrug it all off than deal with the pain. “Oh, I don’t follow all that.” They have justified the conflicting cognition by changing it (“It’s not all that important”).
One might also find a way to justify a cognition by adding another cognition to it. Perhaps by telling oneself, “Pope Francis may be Pope, but is so bad that normal pope rules just don’t apply to him.” This is probably where St. Corbinian’s Bear falls. If it were just an ordinary difference on a papal opinion or two, the Bear would not dare growl so. [I tend to agree.  But I think the reality must be faced that we are dealing with more than simply a Pope Francis problem, but a problem of popes for the past several decades.  Or does that just reveal my latent protestantism?  Nevertheless, while we may find Pope Benedict or Pope Saint John Paul II more convivial to our point of view, there has been much in the popes since 1958 that has been quite radical compared to, say, Gregory XVI or Pius VIII, has there not?]
These are all natural psychological defense measures that may kick in according to the individual’s needs and beliefs. Some of them have very bad “side effects.” What can we do consciously to help us deal with cognitive dissonance caused by Pope Francis?
If you are reading this, you are probably remaining faithful, but experience real psychological distress to a greater or lesser degree. We do not quite know what to do with a Pope who seems to have departed from the Petrine program, if not the neighborhood of reason. Even worse, we have the added stressors that we are not supposed to criticize the Pope, and that we can rely on his ordinary magisterium. The problem is exacerbated by the relentless train of unfortunate comments and visuals.
So what can we do? These are some ideas. You may find some more appealing than others. Not all of them are for everybody.
  • nail your foot to the floor in front of your favorite pew and die there (Holy Stubbornness) [a very good one]
  • seek out the pre-1960 comfort zone of the past in different ways, e.g. the traditional Latin Mass, Douay Rheims Bible, etc. [highly recommended, but beware, doing so will inevitably reveal startling differences in practice between the pre- and post-conciliar Church]
  • draw comfort from like-minded people at blogs like St. Corbinian’s Bear and others (if others are with you, you will feel safer), and that may include using comment boxes
  • on the other hand, avoid, as much as possible, all news and discussion of Pope Francis [Is this what Catholics are reduced to?  Avoiding mention of the Pope at all costs?]
  • more Jesus, less Francis — a regular classic prayer life (Divine Office, rosary, etc.), reading scripture (which has many examples of suffering under bad leaders) [!!]
  • recognize that this will be a relatively short papacy, and things will undoubtedly get better [This gets back to learning the pre-conciliar Faith and coming to recognize the rather stark differences at all levels between what we do/know now, and what was done/known then.]
  • therapy — the biggest thing in your life is being seriously messed with; people who are particularly at risk might benefit [Unless you can find a really orthodox Catholic therapist, I advise strongly against this one.  Loads of people have been therapied right out of the Church]
  • God permitted this to happen — you don’t need to know everything, but it does test our faith
In the end, perhaps the best we can do is hold on to our beliefs about the Church, while at the same time acknowledging the problems Francis poses. We don’t have to have all the answers. But we know what is right, and what is wrong, and we know nothing Pope Francis can do is able to change one to the other.
I very much agree with the conclusion.  I may not be fully on board with every single statement above but I think the main thrust – cognitive dissonance and people’s responses to it – is quite good.  I also very much believe that a return to the traditional practice of the Faith – what you might call Catholicism – is absolutely vital, not just for dealing with Pope Francis, but for far more important reasons, like coming to know the Faith much more fully, leading a life pleasing to God, and passing from this life in the state of grace.  Not that it’s impossible to do so otherwise, it’s just that being a Catholic makes it infinitely easier.

Baton Rouge Diocese: “Who are we to judge whether public sinners believe or not?” July 22, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, pr stunts, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Mind you, that is public sinners: as in those who, in some way, publicly proclaim their sin, in this case, rejection of Catholic Doctrine, i.e., heresy.

A case – likely to be increasingly frequent in the near future – developed in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, LA.  A man publicly known to be lost in sins of sodomy and even to have a pretended “marriage” to another man, presented for Communion. This man was publicly unrepentant of his sin.  The priest, aware of this man’s condition, quite rightly protected the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament and defended the sinner’s soul (in great charity) by refusing to allow him to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament.  The man, naturally in this day and age, complained publicly over this act of kindness (which he took to be a cruel abuse), and the bishop, equally naturally, promptly caved, issuing a scandalous apology.

Just another day in the American Catholic Church, I suppose (my emphasis and comments):

Tim Ardillo, an avowed aberrosexual “married” to another man, [public declaration of which in and of itself is grounds for excommunication and denial of the Blessed Sacrament] is claiming that he was denied Communion at the funeral of his dead mother on July 10 in St. Helena’s Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge (Louisiana).  Ardillo wanted to receive the Body of Christ in  Communion, however, he was denied by Pastor Mark Beard.

The magazine The Advocate stated that the Diocese of Baton Rouge has since apologized to Ardillo for the incident, personally from the archbishop of New Orleans himself, Msgr. Gregory Aymond. [This has been widely reported, but was it confirmed?]

According to Ardillo, pastor Beard had justified his refusal by saying it was because he was “not married in church.” The presumed reason, according to the aberrosexual, was that he had previously said  in the obituary  for his mother he was described as being “married” to a man. [There we go, very public declaration of unrepentant grave sin.  The pastor, being apparently aware of the man’s identity and status, should have, in charity, approached him before Mass and addressed the matter, making clear his intent, but perhaps that was impossible for any of a number of reasons.]

The Secretariat of Archbishop Aymond declined to comment. The apology was neither confirmed nor denied. No one from the parish wanted to take a position……..

……..What this meant in practice, at least in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, said the diocesan press officer, Donna Carville, a communion assistant (Eucharistic Minister): The diocese will not tolerate refusal of Communion to Catholics, “just because they are gay.” [This is a very dangerous and unfortunate statement. Would she say the same of some other, less culturally popular sin?  Being possessed of strong attraction for people of the same sex is profoundly disordered. It may or may not be sufficient grounds for denial of the Blessed Sacrament (it depends how it is acted upon).  But this was not the case here. This was the case of a man making a public declaration of grave sin!  Canon Law is exceedingly clear on this point.]

It was “very surprising that Communion was denied. This does not work  … We do not have people refuse communion. Who are we to judge whether they believe [the Church’s teaching on Communion] or not? This is a matter between them and God,” said Donna Carville. [Well we can certainly see the rhetoric of the current pontificate in this statement.  But she’s completely, totally wrong. Once again, we don’t have to peer into anyone’s soul, the man made a public declaration of which the priest became aware.  That’s perfect grounds for the priest’s action. In addition, Canon Law stipulates very clearly, contrary to this bonehead quoted below, that public sin requires public retraction and penance PRIOR to amelioration of the sin and an ability to return to the Blessed Sacrament.  That is why the continued reception of grave public heretic politicians is such an enormous scandal, they have never publicly retracted their heresy.]

It should not be used to deny the Eucharist, because someone is not married in Church, seconded the canon lawyer, Roger Keeler, coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America, and a priest of the Archdiocese of Edmonton in Alberta State (Canada). “The Communion is not a weapon. It is not a reward for good behavior. It is food for tired souls,” said Keeler.  [Once again, direct quotes of Pope Francis, and very damaging ones] The priest could not know the marital status of those who come forward for Communion. [WRONG.  In this case, he did.  And that was manifest sufficient grounds for his actions.  He should be commended by all involved, starting with his bishop, but also the man who attempted to receive, piling sacrilege on top of his other sins.]

Let’s see what Canon Law really says:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Of course Canon 915 is perfectly clear.  “Others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin – like an open declaration of no just sodomy but pseudo-sodo-marriage – are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”  That seems very clear to me, and indeed was, for about the first 1950 years of the Church’s existence.  But now its a matter for apologies and groveling worries about “weaponizing” the Blessed Sacrament.

In all this mass abrogation of duty, it is the souls who ultimately pay the price.  The souls of laity falling into hell like snowflakes, and the souls of bishops, too, paving the floor of hell.

Some happy news for a change July 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, General Catholic, martyrdom, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
comments closed

When thinking about a looming/ongoing persecution, considerations of the influence of technology offer both hopeful and fearful portents.  Fearful, because through technology the persecutors can gain influence over our lives in ways unimaginable to previous persecutors.  They can literally monitor our (external) thoughts and try to come into the privacy of our homes through various means straightforward and devious.  Denial of technology, coupled with denial of the means to make a living, are other methods of control.  But at the same time, technology can also provide means to help endure the persecution.

One thing I’ve seen others mention a number of times, and its a thought I certainly share, is that we use the modern means at our disposal to aid each other as we are targeted for persecution.  Even though enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church will go to diabolical lengths to try to make their persecution effective and deny that aid, such as blocking those accused of “hate crimes” from using secular funding sites like gofundme, souls of good will have found ways around these cruel attempts to completely excoriate convicted Christians.  So I was heartened to find that Aaron and Melissa Klein, who have been (ludicrously) fined $135,000 and had their fundraising initiative blocked on gofundme (for being Christian), are not going to be left completely destitute by this onerous and totalitarian governmental judgment.  In fact, they have raised over $390,000 at their Continue to Give site:

A crowdfunding campaign for the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa has set a site record by raising $352,500 in about two months after being kicked off the GoFundMe website, far exceeding the initial goal of $150,000.

Jesse Wellhoefer, founder of Continue to Give, said the Sweet Cakes effort has raised more than any previous campaign on behalf of individuals in the three-year-old crowdfunding website’s history.

Continue to Give also handles ongoing fundraising for nonprofit organizations as well as mobile and kiosk tithing for churches.

GoFundMe, the nation’s largest crowdfunder, removed a campaign for Sweet Cakes by Melissa in April after receiving complaints from gay-marriage supporters. The bakery’s owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, are locked in a legal battle with the state for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony, citing their religious beliefs.

……..The Oregon labor commissioner ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for “emotional damages” to Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer after declining to prepare a cake for their June 2013 commitment ceremony.

Mr. Klein had informed the couple that he was sorry but that the bakery did not prepare cakes for same-sex ceremonies as a result of the family’s religious convictions. Gay marriage was not legal in Oregon at the time.

The Kleins are expected to appeal the labor commissioner’s July 2 decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. [I had read that because this decision was made in an “administrative court” recourse to appeal would be difficult if not impossible. They can certainly appeal, but the way the law is worded, from what I understand, it is likely the case will be thrown out. Their only appeal then would be to federal court.  They are getting some pro bono representation but given that they’ve lost their business and are surely racking up extensive legal fees, all this money they’ve raised may not go as far as one might hope. I’m sure they could use still more help.]

This is what we’re going to have to do.  There are still millions of believing Christians in this country, and even if most are protestants they are still souls of good will. We’re going to have to band together and aid each other as much as possible as this persecution gets ratcheted up.  Those willing to stick their necks out and take a stand are likely to pay an increasingly steep price for doing so.  This is not an extended ad for the Klein’s, but a reminder that we all will probably have to change the way we do things (and the way we spend our money) as the general cultural situation continues to deteriorate.

Of course, monetary support is helpful and ever necessary here in “nothing’s free in the ‘free world'”, but prayer support is even more needed, both for those who fall victim to persecution, and for ourselves.  Eventually, most if not all of us will get to “enjoy” the growing persecution.  The help we give now will be helping ourselves later.

OTOH, here’s an item out of left field.  A very out n’ proud baker bashes those of his lifestyle who are enjoying tormenting Christians now that they feel themselves possessed of the cultural whip hand.  I won’t post it here, but you can check it out if you like.  There’s a soul who needs some prayers.

I had one final thought on this matter of forced participation in pseudo-sodo-marriage: could a Christian, instead of refusing, just do a really horrible job instead?  Could a baker just mangle the cake, replacing salt for sugar and just really botching the job, or a florist fill bouquets of dead flowers, or a photographer deliver 500 slightly out of focus prints?  Would that kind of non-violent, passive resistance be acceptable?


More like this – TLM outside Denver Planned Barrenhood July 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, priests, sadness, scandals, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

We are blessed to have traditional priests in this Diocese.  We are blessed that they offer Masses monthly at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center immediately adjacent to one of the mills in this burg (is Routh Street open with the recent Supreme Court injunction against HB2?).  We are blessed for all they do.

Still, I would so very much like to see a Mass offered publicly outside a mill for the express intention of seeing said mill(s) closed.  We cannot expect man’s laws to stand against so many men violating God’s laws.  Legislation will never be the final answer against child-murder.  We must change men’s hearts and souls, and the Mass is the most efficacious vehicle possible for bringing down Grace and working conversion.  So I pray we may see public Masses outside the local mills, however many remain open, with an eye towards converting those tens of thousands of people who think it just fine to have their child butchered for their own convenience (this is all the video that was available):

This Mass was offered by a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter at a Denver area mill.  I have forgotten the priest’s name, my apologies (but then again, he might prefer it that way).

I have been told, in a sort of “wink wink know what I mean know what I mean” kind of way, that there is a prohibition in this Diocese against priests offering Mass outside abortion mills or for any “political” purpose of this type.  I have no hard confirmation, and there is probably not a formal policy to this effect, but when pressed area priests become more than slightly evasive on this topic.  I have long wondered why we did not see our priests outside mills more often, when it is widely known that a priestly presence, offering Mass, exorcisms, and generally engaging in spiritual warfare, is an incredibly effective way (perhaps the most effective form) to fight this battle for souls among the principalities and powers that surround these dens of evil.  I am told there is a reason for that and that it is not good for their careers to press this particular point.

I am forced to wonder then, if the situation regarding Masses/priestly presence outside mills is akin to the situation surrounding Summorum Pontificum in this Diocese of Dallas, TX, where there are hints dropped that doing such indicates a priest with too much time on his hands, and shouldn’t he rather help out at a less-than-desirable parish instead of using his pastoral initiative to address critical needs that he perceives or that, horror of horrors, are brought to him by the laity?  After all, I thought Vatican II was NOT about creating an impenetrable system of episcopal committees and clerical micromanagement, but was all about empowering priests and laity with their own wonderful powerfulness?

One thing ol’ Tantumblogo has learned, is that when someone talks about empowering you, get ready to be rendered powerless. But who am I to judge?

My mindless prattling aside, this is something I pray to see in our Diocese with great regularity, until that glorious day when abortion occurs here no more.  I can only imagine the incredible effect seeing the Mass of Ages offered outside a mill would have even on the most hardened of hearts, among both abortionists and abortion-seekers.  I know it would do great violence to those evil spirits that drive the entire abortion industry.  It would certainly result in a good number of saves and, even more importantly, conversions.  And what great benefit would it be to priests, to persevere in the face of persecution in offering the the great and holy Sacrifice of the Mass?!?

May this day come soon!


Funny pic, and the destructiveness of ecumenism July 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
comments closed

Reader D sent me this…….yeah, I think this is probably about dead on:


Speaking of the end of the world, staring mouths agape while Christ descends in His glory, would most souls even think to go to their knees and beg forgiveness in His Name?  I think all those “rapture” evangelicals are going to be in for a very big surprise when they aren’t immediately taken up to Heaven as they expect.

You know where I live there is a huge Hispanic population…..probably 2/3 or more.  And I have to guess that at least half are protestant or pagan, because there is only one Catholic parish that caters to that entire population in Irving (we’re talking probably 80,000 people, at least), and there are literally dozens of little sect houses around, ranging from tiny house churches to others that draw a couple thousand.  A lot of businesses are Hispanic owned and many of them are devout and display elements of their belief,  usually protestant fundamentalist.

References to the “rapture” abound in these displays.  These are signs or posters in Spanish intended for Hispanics. I’ve seen in several local businesses a large poster that depicts the “rapture” and takes a number of gratuitous shots at the Church.  If you understand the idea behind the “rapture,” it’s that “born again” protestants will be whisked away to Heaven while the rest of us poor “unsaved” souls are left here to face all manner of calamities.  So what do these posters show?  Catholic priests and religious and lay people “left behind,” rejected by God with our false pieties displeasing to God, while planes are crashing, volcanoes exploding, tidal waves are smashing, etc., etc.  It’s a very clever bit of propaganda aimed at slamming the Church and reaffirming the converted Hispanics in their sects.

That’s how our protestant “friends” do ecumenism, which is why they’ve lured tens of millions of American Catholics away over the past several decades.  While our Church continues to play secular patty-cake with their leaders, those leaders are implementing powerful means to steal Catholics from the bosom of Christ’s Church.  That’s one of my greatest annoyances with post-conciliar ecumenism – the fact that Church leaders are so gosh-darned earnest about it all and really believe in it, while the protestants (especially those evangelicals Pope Francis has recently lionized) most often are not.  My perception is that they often use so-called ecumenism to defuse Catholic defenses to protestant predation at the official level, while at the grass-roots they ramp up their efforts to pick off naive nominal Catholics even more.  That was my experience, anyway.

I know a lot of sects view converting Catholics as about their highest priority.  One major reason for that is they view uncatechized Catholics as such easy prey, which, they generally are.   Thus recent very publicized events which show even the highest levels of the Church appearing to put protestants on the same level, and providing them with enormous moral prestige, are profoundly destructive.  It seems like each ecumenical “advance” is paid for by  souls falling away.

Sorry, rambling.


Is Pope Francis bidding God to do his will, instead of the other way around? July 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, disconcerting, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’ve been meaning for a while to link St. Corbinian’s Bear.  Reader skeinster tipped me to a post he did yesterday on Pope Francis’ most recent just amazingly bizarre and incomprehensible comments (considering the office he holds), but I found this other post from today even mas interesante.  What the heck, I’ll steal some of both, hopefully the bear will not mash me with his massive paws.  First, yesterday’s post:

Yay! It’s time to once again play our favorite game of What the Heck is the Pope Talking About?

The latest cryptic utterance from the Oracle of Santa Marta is:

“I ask you to pray fervently for this intention,” the Pope continued, “so that Christ can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn it … into a miracle. Families today need miracles!” [We do, but we do not provoke miracles by tempting God to fix a situation we’ve horribly broken ourselves. Miracles happen due to faithfulness and steadfastness in the Truth Christ has unalterably revealed]

Clearly this time the Pope is speaking of none other than himself and the bishops! What is more threatening, scandalous, and impure than the Pope surrounding himself with his favorite Germans and considering yet again how best to destroy the family and corrupt the Church?

Indeed families need miracles. So the Bear invites you to heed the Pope and pray that the machinations of the Vatican are miraculously thwarted and the ideal of the family shines forth in love and purity. The Pope is admitting that they can’t help themselves. It’s up to us.

Now some of today’s:

The Bear has noticed that whenever Pope Frances wants to destroy a doctrine of the Church, or promote mortal sin, he is often not content to merely do so on his own. Instead, he always enlists accomplices.

Most recently, Christ was dragged into whatever scandalous, impure and threatening designs Francis has on the family. There is no sin so foul that Christ cannot make fair by a miracle! [While this is true, it is also tantamount to sin by tempting God.  It’s basically saying: “we’re going to apologize for the most grievous sin and introduce incredibly destructive novelties into the Church, and just pray Christ somehow makes them right (or brings some benefit)!”  Like increased Church attendance for a few months!  That’s worth destroying the entire moral edifice of the Church, right?!?  Or another ‘man of the year’ award?]

When Francis wants to erase heresy and pursue his pan-Christian fantasy, why he says it’s really the Holy Spirit at work, not Francis.

And then of course, there’s always the God of Surprises to cover whatever crackbrain ideas he wants to foist upon his poor, suffering sheep.

We are told to do God’s will.

Pope Francis seems to have it backwards. God is always doing Francis’ will……. [I think that’s an astute observation. Do you agree?  And am I wrong in detecting more than a moderate whiff of protestantism in all this?]

…….Of course, you might say, well, he’s the Pope, and when he says God is a God of Surprises, Christ changes moral law on a whim, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t care about dogma anymore, then that’s the way it is. [Thus every hyper-montanist papal apologist out there, which is pretty much everyone on Patheos and the virtually every Catholic commentator that earns a dime through the Church.  Aren’t you glad I’m a GDI?]

Except it isn’t. The Catholic God (you know, the one Francis doesn’t believe in), is not some mad horror from H.P. Lovecraft. He does not change……

…..We have a Pope, not an Oracle. The Bear is sorry to presume to teach Pope Francis how to be Pope, but the job description is not “utter frequent cryptic statements that can only alarm and discourage the faithful, while maintaining for yourself plausible deniability by refusing to communicate clearly.” [Or perhaps he communicates more clearly than we think?]

I think this is the key: So the Bear invites you to heed the Pope and pray that the machinations of the Vatican are miraculously thwarted and the ideal of the family shines forth in love and purity. The Pope is admitting that they can’t help themselves. It’s up to us.

Whoever “they” are, I think that’s quite correct. There are plainly many bishops in opposition to these – is it not obvious at this point? – papal attempts to completely distort and gravely wound the entire moral construct of the Church.  They have to be driven by the papacy because elements that were rejected by the bishops at the Extraordinary Synod were included not only in its final report but also in the “instrument of labor” for the upcoming Ordinary Synod – and this under a Pope who is the most authoritarian, detail-oriented pontiff the Church has seen in a very long time.  These things are not happening behind his back.  They are happening at his behest.

As to this fall’s Synod, whether the opposition will be strong enough this time, in the face of obvious papal support, is anyone’s guess.

The miracle I’ve been praying for is the same one it seems “the bear” has been praying for, as well: that somehow this huge and all-but-mortally wounding advance of revolution in the Church may be stopped  I pray by some miracle the Synod may actually produce a document that actually condemns sin and greatly encourages families to continue making heroic sacrifices in the face of an indifferent hierarchy and an implacably hostile culture.

Are you praying for the Synod and our Church?  Are you offering the Chaplet of the Holy Face, continual Novenas to Saint Joseph, extra Rosaries, or anything else!  Prayer is our most effective (and nearly only) weapon in this fight, that, and penance.  I have always been much better at “doing more” than doing with less, so I tend to pray more.

A little prayer below.  Try not to laugh:

Lord, we know we have greatly displeased You. We know we are unworthy of Your great gifts, including the gifts of faithful Church leadership.  But we beg you to have mercy on us and end this nightmare of the Church at war with Herself.  Please give us the leadership we desperately need and not that which we so richly deserve.  Hearken not to the many who have fallen away in self-serving idolatry, but to the few who have tried to remain faithful.  We implore You to send us Saints as of old to lead Your Body, the Church, through this dark time.  Have mercy on our families and defend and protect us.  May we always be Your obedient and loving servants.


Father Lanzetta of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate gets reprieve July 7, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Latin Mass, martyrdom, persecution, religious, sadness, scandals, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Victory.
comments closed

I saw announced the other day that a Fr. Lanzetta had been made parish priest of Saint Mary’s in Gosport, England, and that he would introduce the TLM to the parish.  I did not at that time make the connection that this was substantial news since Fr. Lanzetta has long been a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and that he had been “banished” to an Austrian monastery since 2013.  He was one of many former leaders of the order deposed under Fr. Fidenzio Volpi’s shockingly harsh administration (God rest his soul).  Hopefully this is an indicator that the severe restrictions imposed on the Order are in the process of being lifted:

Father Serafino Lanzetta, one of the most brilliant minds of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, has been appointed the parish priest of Saint Mary in Gosport, England. For the last few weeks he has been already in place and has begun to make a biritual of a  New Rite parish. The end of his exile coincided with the agony and  death of Commissioner Volpi.[God rest his soul]

Father Lanzetta was among the first victims of the provisional administration of the until recently thriving Order. By August 11, 2013 he and all the priests of the Order had been banned from celebration of  the traditional rite  of the Holy Mass by  the Congregation for Religious. At the same time the Capuchin Father Fidenzio Volpi took control as Apostolic Commissioner of the Order.

With the beginning of autumn 2013, all the leading figures of the Order were dismissed from  their offices  and relieved of their duties. Father Lanzetta, then pastor of Ognissanti in Florence had to leave his parish on 4 October.  Due to bureaucratic difficulties he received a grace period  until October 21. While others were exiled to Latin America, Africa or Asia, his place of exile was the only monastery of the Order in the German-speaking world.

Since then, he had  lead a reclusive life in the monastery Kitzbühel in Tyrol. He took advantage of this time to complete his doctoral studies.  His thesis was supervised by the famous German dogmatist and Mariologist Manfred Hauke  “Il Vaticano II, un Concilio Pastoral” (Vatican II, a Pastoral Council. Hermeneutics of Council Teachings) was approved at theTheological Faculty of Lugano  in Switzerland. [that might make an interesting read, but I doubt it’s so critical of VII as some of Msgr. Gherardini’s works published by the FI’s.  I imagine that lesson – never publicly question VII in strong terms – has been learned.]

How it is this religious priest, who worked in Italy, is led to England to say the traditional Rite,  is not known, but the news gratifying yet in any case. [Concur]

According to website of the Diocese of Portsmouth in southern England, Father Lanzetta is to officially assume his pastorate on  September 8  on the Feast of the Nativity of Mary. In fact, it has been already since the feast of Corpus Christi that he is already filling his new place of work and the duties of the parish priest. In parish journal of Gosport he is already listed as such.

The parish of Gosport is run by Franciscans of the Immaculate under the guidance of Father Lanzetta since  a few weeks ago. The parish also hosts a branch of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate. [Hey FI’s, come to Dallas or Fort Worth!  The Franciscans of the Renewal just left, so we have a place for you!  Irving is as Catholic a town as there is in the Metroplex, conveniently located between Dallas and Fort Worth and adjacent to a major international airport – hint hint]

The current parish journal informs that starting next week at the St. Mary’s Church, Holy Mass will be celebrated from Monday to Friday at 7 o’clock in the morning and on Saturday at 9:30 o’clock in the extraordinary [sic] form of the Roman Rite: “All are invited to attend”.  A Sunday Mass in the old rite is not provided, but that seems to be only be a matter of time.

Via Eponymous Fowler.  Well, God bless Fr. Lanzetta and his order.  I pray this marks the beginning of a major change in administration of the order, with the end of harsh calumnies and arbitrary administration. Maybe this order can get back to being the growing, vibrant group it so recently was.   The damage done has been grave, however, and it will likely take a good number of years for things to improve.

Nevertheless, I believe this order is pleasing to God and thus will not be kept down.

Illegal Alien, deported 5 times, murders San Francisco woman in cold blood July 7, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, demographics, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

Just because he could, apparently.

So here’s a crime the US bishops might want to consider in their headlong and, I fear, rather self-serving commitment to totally unrestricted Hispanic (but not Chinese, or Iranian, etc) immigration into this country.  An illegal alien with numerous felony priors, deported 5 times from this country, shot and killed a San Francisco woman walking with her father in a busy tourist district apparently for the fun of it.  ICE had targeted him for deporting again but San Francisco, following their sanctuary policy which a good number of bishops have endorsed, refused to allow him to be deported and released him without contacting ICE.  So now a father is grieving and how knows how many other people have had their worlds turned upside down by leftist shibboleths (which are nothing but a vehicle to what they really crave -power):

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say.

Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released.

“DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored,” ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon.

Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 — one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city.

Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred.

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico.

“His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges,” ICE said in a statement.

ICE briefly had him in their custody in March after he had served his latest sentence for “felony re-entry,” but turned him over to San Francisco police on an outstanding drug warrant. At this time, ICE issued the detainer — effectively asking that he be turned back over to ICE when San Francisco was finished with him.

But ICE was not notified. The incident is sure to renew criticism of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies.

Social changes like immigration are always fraught with benefits and detriments.  But totally unconstrained immigration of the type advocated by many in the USCCB – and even pushed as policy – is not demanded by virtue nor is it counseled by the Doctrine of the Faith.  Surely we can be generous while still controlling the flow of dangerous individuals over our border, something almost impossible with present policy, which does nothing to deter dangerous individuals and simply tries to clean up the mess after some atrocity has occurred.  With a border fence, the rate of immigration can be controlled and dangerous individuals screened out from admittance.  Surely this is not a radical or hard-hearted step to take, it seems the bare minimum of prudence.

But too many profit illicitly off the present system, which actually encourages the “human trafficking” our Holy Father has been at such pains to deplore, for anything to change.  The powers that be want cheap labor and other “goods” the unconstrained immigration provides.  This includes the bishops, who can go to their ad limina visits to Rome boasting of far better numbers of faithful than they would were it not for the huge influx of temporarily Catholic immigrants, most of whom (or their children, at least) shuck the Faith after they’ve been here a few years.  But the faithful are left carrying the tab for the needs of those who arrive here penniless.  That many immigrants eventually work themselves into a more prosperous situation not requiring so much support is a testament to their virtue, not to any virtue in the present immigration policy of this country.

How is it that modernism came back so forcefully from St. Pius X’s crushing of it? July 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, Liturgical Year, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Another long-time query I’ve had, is how is it that modernism, which a good number of very solid historians and current-day commenters (for that time) were convinced had been completely shattered by the intervention of Pope Saint Pius X, came roaring back to be basically ascendant in all non-episcopal levers of power by the mid-1940s (heads of religious orders, secretariats of numerous dicasteries, a lot of ordained diocesan and other bureaucratic staff, etc, and of course almost all of academia, lay or ordained)?  Interestingly, Dom Prosper Gueranger, who died before modernism really broke out, may have the answer.  From his brief biography of Pope Saint Leo II, how is it that heresy formally condemned and even extirpated, seemingly, from the Church’s body can somehow resurrect itself, and often quite quickly?

The answer, in short, is lack of vigilance on the part of subsequent priests, bishops, and popes:

How was it that Saint Leo’s clear and complete exposition of the dogmas and the anathemas of Chalcedon did not succeed in silencing the arguments of that heresy which refused to our nature its noblest title, by denying that it had been assumed in its integrity by the Divine Word?  Because for truth to win the day it suffices not merely to expose the lie uttered by error.  More than once, history gives instances of the most solemn anathemas ending in nothing but lulling the vigilance of the guardians of the holy city.  The struggle seemed ended, the need of repose was making itself felt amidst the combatants, a thousand other matters called for the attention of the Church’s rulers; and so while feigning utmost deference, nay, ardor even, if needful, for the new enactments, error went on noiselessly, making profit of the silence which ensued after its defeat.  Then did its progress become all the more redoubtable at the very time it was pretending to have disappeared without leaving a trace behind.

————-End Quote————

I think that description of the constant rise of heresy in the early Church, even after its repeated “defeat” in being declared heretical, sums up what happened to the Church after Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of modernism.  It simply went underground, for a short while, and depended on lethargy in the hierarchy to easily resume it’s attack on the Church.

Coupled with a long but extremely interesting post at Rorate, wherein the highly problematic Fr. Louis Bouyer analyzes the “Lefebvre affair” from the point of view of 1978, and I think the answer – perhaps it’s been obvious to you for years, it hasn’t been totally clear to me – becomes apparent.

There were two essential and related factors in the resurrection of modernism.  One was lethargy, coupled with the constant temptation of our natures to reject God and His revealed Truth, seeking for a more “human” approach to divinity, but the other aspect was perhaps to be found in the very structure of the Church in that period. St. Pius X crushed modernism – it certainly seemed – decisively and thoroughly. But once that great shepherd was called to his well-earned reward, there was no one else of equal vigilance in the Church to insure the heresy remained crushed.  If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, then an orthodox Faith requires even more.

Bouyer’s analysis of the spread of the revolution in the Church – which I certainly disagree with in detail, and which reeks of Gallicanism – is I think correct in the fact that Vatican I and the definition of papal infallibility had perhaps resulted in an imbalance in the Church, with excessive obeisance towards the Holy See and, even more, a sort of deference that saw the Holy See as the only possible solution to all problems facing the Church.  As such, bishops and even priests began to lapse in their roles as guardians of the Truth, always expecting Rome to be that guardian.  Already by the 1940s bishops and heads of religious orders were tolerating a great deal of “dissent” and abuse (if not encouraging or taking part in it themselves, especially in Europe), sure in their minds that so long as Rome did not condemn whatever was going on, it must be OK.  Unfortunately for the Church and billions of souls, there has not been a pontiff of the vigilance and doctrinal certainty of a Pius X or Gregory XVI for a century or so now.

After Vatican II, when obedience shifted from the greatest virtue to a sad joke, the floodgates were open and generations of inactivity from the episcopate laid the groundwork for their – it must be said – pathetic response to the revolution in their midst (Bouyer does make another valid point – after VII the Church saw the spectacle of numerous pontiffs who had been the most stringently orthodox suddenly, faced with what I guess they thought was a real change in orientation in the Church, become fervent progressives. They did that because that’s the signal they picked up from Rome, rightly or wrongly, so that the imbalance in the Church of hypermontanism is double).  I have long thought that an excessive hyper-montanism played a role in the sudden and shocking collapse of every possible measure of Church life after Vatican II – when “collegiality” attempted to return some authority to the bishops, they were conditioned by the previous decades of relative inactivity to be quite unable to handle their responsibility.  Matters spun out of control in a matter of months, with the near total breakdown of ecclesiastical authority (only, it seems, exercised on those rare faithful victims whom that authority knows will respond), and that authority hasn’t even really begun a right restoration even to this day.

I hope this is not all obvious and a frightful bore.  It has always seemed somewhat inexplicable to me that men who professed such orthodoxy when they saw that as the reigning paradigm in the Church could, almost overnight, suddenly profess something radically different.  I’m sure many of these were perhaps charlatans during the “orthodox period” but I can’t believe that was most or all. They were obviously creatures of convenience chosen more for their administrative and fundraising capabilities than their stalwart orthodoxy, but I’ve always thought there had to be more to it than politicians in Roman collar bending with the wind. Why did so few rise up to defend the Faith?  Why did so many quite willingly sell their birthright for a mess of progressive pottage?  Why did so few take up the torch for the 2000 year old Faith that had been entrusted to them as the world’s most precious treasure?

Lack of vigilance.  Lack of faith. Convenience.  Conditioning.  And a firm belief that the Holy See, even in a “prudential Council,” could do no wrong?

As good an explanation for the collapse of religious life as I’ve read July 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, paganism, Papa, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me why consecrated religious proved so susceptible to the revolution that swept through the Church in the mid-20th century.  From rapid growth and solid orthodoxy to embrace of all manner of heresy, childish mythology, bitter hatred of authority and finally, total collapse…….it is such a remarkable devolution that it beggars the imagination.  Of all the segments of the Church, it is quite likely that no segment has experienced a more thorough and radical change than religious life.  Collectively, religious have gone from being one of the greatest bulwarks of the Church to one of its gravest liabilities.

Of course there are exceptions.  But how was it that hundreds of thousands of souls who had felt this great call from God, and cooperated sufficiently with it to pledge their entire lives to serving God in His Church (as it once was), over a period of a few years came to reject not just that call but the entire rationale behind it, going from lovers of traditional piety and devotion to radical leftist apparatchiks?  Yes embrace of heresy and the wiles of the devil were key elements, but why did religious (and, to nearly the same degree, priests) prove so such easy prey to these age old temptations?

Donna Steichen offers some compelling reasons in her book Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism.  I think much of the below correlates with what faithful Catholics already know, but she does posit that the rot set in earlier than some may have thought, and she also offers evidence of why religious proved unusually susceptible to the revolution in Church and culture.  All quotes below from Chapter 5 The Domino Effect (my emphasis and comments):

During the first half of the twentieth century, nuns were almost universally esteemed as living signs of Christian contradiction to the world.  Though most women’s religious communities now seem to be in terminal decline, reverential awe toward nuns still lingers among lay Catholics, so indelible is their old image and so recent their transformation into religious revolutionaries.  How did they get from there to here?  [I can attest that I have long had a great admiration – I think “reverential awe” sums it up nicely – for orthodox, habited women religious.  There is something amazing for me as a man to see women set their natural charms aside, not to mention their calling towards being a spouse and mother, and live a life of such enormous self-denial and offering of herself to Christ and the Church.  I think we can have no idea in this life what an enormous gift such women make of themselves (and become), and how much the loss of each individual vocation is such an enormous wound to the Church and world.  I pray fervently for more holy vocations to religious life, especially faithful, traditional nuns]

The feminism that is devouring them is an opportunistic disease, insinuated into congregations reeling in pain and confusion from encounters with “new theology.”  And while their disintegration reached crisis proportions only after the Second Vatican Council, the original infection was contracted in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when the Sister Formation movement began urging that American nuns earn the same academic qualifications as their secular peers. [It must be remembered, this initiative was strongly pushed by Pope Pius XII, as well]  That plausible idea floundered in practice because American higher education, Catholic and non-Catholic, was increasingly contaminated with error, especially int he disciplines nuns usually pursued: education, psychology, catechetics and theology.  John Dewey’s secularist theories, generic skepticism and a succession of popular psychological notions held sway at teacher’s colleges, while neo-modernism was sweeping into Catholic universities from Europe.  First exposed to neo-modernist theology in college classes, nuns proved highly susceptible…….

……..When the sisters went back to school, qualities that had been among their virtues contributed to their undoing.  They proved to be the same submissive, uncritical, naive, and assiduous students at State U – and, alas, at Catholic U – that they had been in the days of orthodoxy back at dear old Mount St. Swithin’s.  But what they were taught was notably different, and few had the sophistication to strain out the camels.  Along with educational theory and remedial teaching methods, many swallowed the neo-modernist reinterpretation of Scripture and catechetics, the new morality and new psychology, already prevailing among avant-garde professors.  The result was a rapid group conversion in worldview, quickly translated back home into a new vocabulary, new policies and the new excuses that eventually became cliches in the deconstruction.  Even before the death of Pope Pius XII, many Catholic grammar schools had ceased to require student attendance at daily Mass, explaining that routine is deadly; if the children attended less often, the Mass would “mean more to them.”  [What a crock.  It’s at least as likely they would come to think the Mass not very important, since their day no longer revolved around it.  But silly, bald assertions like this were extraordinarily commonplace during that time, and the obedience that had – for many good reasons, and some not so good – been drilled into Catholics as pretty near the prime virtue left entire generations completely unprepared to fight for the Faith they have received.  If some radical change came from someone they perceived as being in authority, the vast majority went along, no questions asked – lay or religious. I would say unquestioning obedience to human authority, rather than to the Doctrine of the Faith, played as big a part in the revolution’s spread as any other single factor. But in a hierarchical Church, and especially one that had been under siege to schismatic and heretical sects for centuries, unthinking, uncritical obedience was hardly surprising.  It also points to the moral quandaries we are increasingly faced with as the revolution seems to determined to advance to a new level right now.] During the late 1950s, nuns in classes I attended were already beginning to refer to Scripture as “mythology,” explaining to questioners that “calling it ‘myth’ doesn’t mean it isn’t true, because a myth is a story that communicates a kind of truth.”  [Again, what a crock.  And something even a 5th grader could walk away from concluding: Church = myth, myth = fake, ergo Church = fake. Fulton Sheen noted nearly 50 years ago that Catholic schools and universities were where faith goes to die.]The Second Vatican Council was not the cause, but the precipitating occasion, for a revolution already under way.  [I think that’s right, to a degree.  But Vatican II codified, in many respects, revolutionary ideals, while also providing an awesome novelty: formal Church documents seeming at war with themselves, with nebulous, easily abused statements following statements of relative orthodoxy.  As even many Cardinals have noted, various documents of Vatican II can be read in an orthodox or revolutionary manner, depending on one’s disposition. And when you have princes of the Church contradicting one another on the meaning of conciliar documents, what are the laity to do? This is an unprecedented characteristic of Vatican II compared to any of the preceding Church Councils, in that no Dogmas or anathemas were proclaimed and everything is left open to interpretation. The Council ultimately followed a Hegelian “thesis-antithesis” approach, with the “synthesis” to be worked out later.  Cardinal Kasper is very clear that his own proposals attacking the moral edifice of the Church are an attempt at that “synthesis.”]

……..Collapsing orders have tended to follow a standard sequence.  First, exposure to neo-modernist theology produced a counter-conversion, away from religious conviction (the belief that God is absolute Truth, that the Roman Catholic Church is His agent to reveal that Truth), to acceptance of secular values (autonomy and self-definition, freedom, commitment to secular issues, affirmation of themselves as “change agents” [which, Steichen shows, really means worship of the self] ).  Laxity in community prayer, especially Eucharistic prayer, soon followed.  Next came permissive new rules and refusal to obey ecclesiastical authorities. [On those few occasions when ecclesiastical authority has intervened, instead of trumpeting and championing the revolution]  Finally, feminism flowed in to fill the void where faith had lived.  “I will not serve” has become their common message.  Examples can be cited in a wide range of communities.  

———-End Quote———-

As I said, I think that’s about as good an explanation as I have read, and could apply equally well to male as female religious, though in reality, most of the men’s orders never really overcame the original infection of modernism and were generally (Jesuits) the leaders in the revolution.

Readers are probably aware of St. Alphonsus’ old adage (perhaps borrowed from Aquinas): “one bad book can ruin a monastery.”  In the pre-conciliar period, Church authorities were encouraging, and in some cases even demanding, religious be exposed not just to one bad book but to entire libraries full of them.  It must be said that Pius XII, who many view as the “last good Pope” (simply because he had nothing to do with the Council, I reckon), was a prime promoter of women religious’ exposure to Catholic and secular wolves.  He certainly did so with good intentions in mind, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Vatican II could not have happened without the steady erosion of orthodoxy (especially in academia) and increasing tolerance of abuse that occurred on his watch (in his defense, he did have a number of other pressing matters to occupy his attention, such as WWII and opposing communism, the latter of which became virtually the sole concern of the last 10 years of his papacy).  History has shown that the women’s religious education initiative was a catastrophic experience for most of the religious concerned and for the Church at large.  Good and obedient students always, these former nuns obeyed their modernist instructors and became quite willing disciples of this “synthesis of all heresies.”  It will take generations for Catholic religious life to recover.

It’s probable, however, that the general trends in society would have gradually infected some of the religious communities eventually, especially those with active apostolates, even without the forming of nuns in modernism.  But I doubt the rot would have set in so quickly and deeply in that case. Most of the women religious sent for the highest education, and thus exposure to the most revolutionary, anti-Catholic ideals, were leaders in their communities.  Obedience being what it is, they then turned entire orders over to neo-modernist paganism.

So here’s a question: was education turned into a form of idol, and the destruction of so many religious orders (and their baleful influence on so many souls) a form of punishment from God for that idolization?  What need does a contemplative nun have for a master’s or PhD, especially when virtually the entire higher education apparatus in the Western world is implacably hostile to God and any form of orthodox Christianity?

I could go full-provocative mode, and ask if women really possess the critical-thinking skills and ability to stand out from the herd to merit college education?  Why is radical feminism experiencing a huge resurgence in recent years, as young millenial women, who make up 60% of the college student body at present, are radicalized on campus in their fluffy soft majors?  I should add that I feel quite strongly that college has become not the realm of a relatively few truly bright individuals, but just one more hoop everyone is supposed to jump through. As such, it has become watered down, both in terms of the education received and the value of the degree.  I would rather see the ranks of the college educated in general shrink tremendously in size – I think we would be amazed the degree to which leftist influence in society waned if such were to occur.  I see little point in going $200k in debt for a degree in queer theory or English.

Put another way: is it possible that God really does intend primarily for women to be wives, mothers, and homemakers, and any large scale deviation from that plan will only bring pain and suffering?  In response to these last hypotheticals, I hope some ladies respond.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers