jump to navigation

Pope Francis’ careening, “off-the-cuff” sermon to Cuban yutes about what you’d expect September 22, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, disconcerting, error, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I could throw out a lot of adjectives, but I’d just be repeating what has already been said many times before. Via Mahound’s Paradise (original here), some excerpts from Pope Francis’ sermon to the glorious progressive people’s children of the future (I add emphasis and comments):

You said a phrase that I underlined and took note of: “that we might know how to welcome and accept the one who thinks differently than us.” Truly, sometimes we are closed in. We shut ourselves in our little world: “This is either the way that I want it or we’re not doing it.” And you went even further, “that we don’t close ourselves into the ‘little convents’ of ideologies or in the ‘little convents’ of religions. That we might grow in the face of individualism.” [Submitting to the Doctrine of the Faith is the opposite of individualism.  

When a religion becomes a “little convent” it loses the best that it has, it loses its reality of adoring God, of believing in God. It’s a little convent of words, of prayers, of “I’m good and you’re bad,’ of moral regulations. I have my ideology, my way of thinking and you have yours; I close myself in this “little convent” of ideology. [Does Pope Francis believe that Sacred Doctrine given by God directly to the Church for the conversion and salvation of mankind equates to mere ideology?  He has said this so many times, it seems impossible to conclude he does not.  How is this different from what has been enacted in the dying, most liberal protestant sects? Once again Pope Francis decrees Doctrine – directly revealed by God! – to be somehow in opposition to God, or to a right relationship with God.  And then he decries “moral regulations,” while he constantly lays out his own, deeply progressive, moral universe! Are these moral regulations simply the traditional moral Doctrine of the Faith?]

Open hearts. Open minds. If you are different than me, why don’t we talk?  Why do we always throw rocks at that which separates us? At that in which we are differing? Why don’t we hold hands in that which we have in common? Motivate ourselves to speak about what we have in common, and then we can talk about the differences we have. [Does that last bit ever happen, or do they tend to get ignored and papered over?  Or worse, does a least common denominator approach prevail, where critical distinctions are lost and important truth cast overboard in the interest of a worldly, false, and ineffectual sense of “unity?”] But I said, talk, I didn’t say fight. I didn’t say close ourselves in. I don’t say “shut ourselves into our little convent,” to use the word you used. But this is possible only when I have the capacity to speak of that which I have in common with the other, of that by which we are able to work together…….[I have to conclude based on this the audience consisted primarily of 5 and 6 year olds?]

………This is called social friendship: to seek the common good. Social enmity destroys. A family is destroyed by enmity. A country is destroyed by enmity. The world is destroyed by enmity. And the biggest enmity is war. And today we see that the world is destroying itself with war because people are incapable of sitting down and talking. OK, let’s negotiate. What can we do in common? In what things are we not going to give in? But let’s not kill more people. [Does Pope Francis really believe ISIS, for instance, will respond to negotiation?  Please. Should the Allies have negotiated with Hitler?  But I thought the Allies were really bad because they failed to bomb the railways to the concentration camps?!?  Is this the kind of contradiction that emerges from a simplistic and naive world view?]  When there is division, there is death, death in the soul because we are killing the capacity to unite. We are killing social friendship. And that’s what I ask of you today: be capable of creating social friendship……

………Hope is fruitful. Hope is given in work, and here I want to mention a very grave problem that is being experienced in Europe: the number of youth who don’t have work. There are countries in Europe where as many as 40% of youth 25 years old and younger live unemployed. I am thinking of one country. In another country, it’s 47% and in another 50%. [Yes, why is that, Pope Francis?  Why is that problem closely correlated with the degree of socialism in the government and the influence of trade unions over those governments?  In France, Spain, Italy, and many other European nations, youth cannot find work because the socialist economies are incredibly anemic and do not create new jobs, while trade unions protect current members at the expense of young people.  All of this is a direct product of left-wing political-economic policy.]

Evidently, when a people is not concerned with giving work to youth — and when I say “people,” I don’t mean government, I mean the entire people — it doesn’t have a future. [I have a huge problem with this statement. I think it very revealing.]

The youth become part of the throwaway culture and all of us know that today, in this empire of the god money, things are thrown away and people are thrown away, children are thrown away, because they are unwanted, because they kill them before they are born, the elderly are thrown away — I’m speaking of the world in general — because they don’t produce anymore. In some countries, there is legal euthanasia, but in so many others there is a hidden, covered up euthanasia. Youth are thrown away because they are not given work. So then? What is left for a young person who doesn’t have work? A country that doesn’t invent, a people that doesn’t invent employment opportunities for its youth, what’s left for this youth are addictions, or suicide, or to go around looking for armies of destruction to create wars……..[Like the muslim hordes descending on Europe, which development you have endorsed?]

……..And I, Cuban young people, though you think differently from each other, though you have your own points of view, I want you to go along accompanying each other, together, seeking hope, seeking the future and the nobility of your homeland. We began with the word hope and I want to conclude with another word that you said and that I tend to use a lot: the culture of encounter. [Groovy, man]  Please, let us not have “un-encounter” among us.[Yeah, that would, like, be a total drag] Let us go accompanying each other, in encounter, even though we think differently, even though we feel differently, but there is something bigger than us, which is the greatness of our people, which is the greatness of our homeland, which is this beauty, this sweet hope for the homeland to which we have to arrive.

I think the bit about people failing to “give work to youth” is quite revealing.  First of all, governments don’t create jobs, vibrant economies do.  Secondly, it reveals a fundamentally socialistic, or at least progressive, outlook to demand that people be “given” jobs.  I don’t believe in that.  I love this bit from the John Wayne movie McClintock! below, beginning at 21:00, where a young farmer new in town hits up John Wayne for a job.  I think Wayne’s response really dead on.

Aid in the form of “handouts” are certainly necessary for many at various times, but if relied upon for a long period  of time inevitably poison one’s sense of self-worth.  Ask anyone who volunteers at food banks or similar places about how folks who have relied on such aid for long periods of time frequentlyimages (10) become very demanding and unappreciative.  The same mentality is operative when one speaks of “giving” jobs to youth (and this is not the first time Pope Francis has used this language).

Certainly the destructive effects of lavish, unaffordable welfare states and incredibly stagnant economies unable to cause new job creation even among Europe’s very few young people (relatively speaking) are very bad things.  But the language of the speech seems to operate from the very mentality that gave rise to this unproductive form of political-economic system in the first place.  It’s not about “giving” jobs to the young, it’s about the young being able to find positions to fill where they work an honest day for a fair wage.  This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning and I think these words are very important.

All in all, I really do wish this Pope would be afflicted with severe laryngitis for the rest of his pontificate. Is that bad?

PopekissesdePaolishand-640x426

Advertisements

Enzo Bianchi, close papal consultor: “Mary is not a suitable reference point for…..women in the Church” September 16, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Our Lady, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

WOW.  What a blasphemous statement.  What an insult to Our Lady and true womanhood.  It’s an insult to women everywhere, really.  What is being said in reality is: “Mary’s humility, patience, and constant correspondence with Grace are unsuitable to revolutionary ends.  Thus, she is not an adequate example for feminists and other leftists committed to working revolution in the Church and world.”

This via Eponymous Flower:

Mary can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church.” In reality,  Bianchi is a layman. He gave an interview to the daily newspaper La Repubblica, which was published last September 9th. Bianchi was appointed by Pope Francis as Consultor in  July 2014 of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity[He must be popular with his ecumenical friends.  Mary is the reference point for us all, but most especially for women, of whom she represents the ideal.  Mary is the holiest pure-human to ever live.  She was not God and man, but she corresponded with grace at all times and remains the only sinless person to ever live.  Only a demonically blinded fool, and a thoroughgoing leftist ideologue, could make such an asinine statement. And yet he holds an important post in this pontificate]

La Repubblica published an interview under the title “The church of the future,” of Enzo Bianchi by Sylvia Roochney. Bianchi explained it: “In the Church there are good intentions, but about there are unreal expectations about women:  The model Maria, Virgin and Mother, can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the church. The fashionable, subliminally alleged idea that Mary was more important than St. Peter, is a stupid idea, just as the wheels of a car would be more important than the steering wheel.” [We can see a theme among many associated with this pontificate, that the Christian ideal, adhered to and promoted for 2000 years, is now suddenly become “too hard” and “unrealistic.”  You know who also said that?  The Arians.  And the protestants.  And many other heretical sects]

Next Bianchi said, “We are not yet able to take unequivocal equality between men and women seriously. The path of the Church is still very far, because even today men solely are at the decision-levers, while women are restricted to low services,” said Enzo Bianchi. [If one considers raising up new Saints to God, or being a holy nun, or teaching children the traditional Faith, a “low service,” one is seriously sick in the mind.  This man, like all leftists, appears obsessed with marxist power dynamics.  Those dynamics are, in fact, how they create envies with which to divide society.]

That the Magisterium says the exact opposite, does not move “Prior” Bianchi. Bianchi wants to flatter Pope Francis with his sudden emphasis of the apostle Peter, although he  himself called for the  “overcoming” of  the papacy “in a spirit of ecumenism” in 2013…..

…..Bianchi is known for his heterodox statements: Last August, he claimed that “family is a form that is given by society”. Specifically, he said, so that the family could be changed by the society.

fox-henhouse-600x400

There’s been a lot of “volpi’s” get into the hen house of the Church lately, no?  Bianchi had better be careful, however, Our Lady, the hammer of heretics, is not one I would want to offend.

Blessed-Virgin-Mary-Exterminatrix-of-Heresy

 

A warning from God to proud, false shepherds September 10, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

From Ezechiel chapter XXXIV.  I add some comments for context, but I think the text largely self-explanatory.

Background – the Jews were constantly falling into heresy and idolatry through their associating with members of foreign, satanic religions (an interesting commentary on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, no?).  They intermarried and under various influences embraced the barbaric, demonic practices of the religions of Ba’al and other false gods.  This included sacrificing their own infant children to a supposed god of fertility, burning them to death in the arms of a brass idol heated to terrific temperature by fires lit for the purpose (shades of our rampant abortion, today).  After several hundred years of disasters, prophetic warnings, and God literally begging his people to stop, He finally had enough and allowed the Assyrians under Nebuchadnezzar to crush them.  Some of the worst fates were reserved for the priests and Levites who had not only tolerated this heresy but often taken part in them, as well.

I’ll let the great prophet Ezechiel take it from there:

1 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

2 Son of man, prophesy concerning the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to the shepherds: Thus saith the Lord God: *Wo to the shepherds of Israel, that fed themselves: should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?

3 You eat the milk, and you clothed yourselves with the wool, and you killed that which was fat: but my flock you did not feed. [Seeking to serve themselves and please the powers of the world, they allowed their flock to starve, spiritually.  That was a significant factor, according to the inspired Word of God, in the Israeli’s falling into idolatry and even apostasy]

4 The weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed; that which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost: but you ruled over them with rigour, and with a high hand. [They enforced cold, man-made laws that did not instill a love of God in souls but just a rigorous following of rules.  But most of all, they left people in ignorance and false practice, afraid of displeasing men rather than God by telling people to stop their wicked ways.  The parallels to today should be readily apparent]

5 And my sheep were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and they became the prey of all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.

6 My sheep have wandered in every mountain, and in every high hill; and my flocks were scattered upon the face of the earth, and there was none that sought them; there was none, I say, that sought them. [How many millions have wandered from the Church during the reign of the false “spirit of Vatican II?” It must be in the hundreds of millions by now, with tens of millions pouring out of the Church and into the sects (esp. in Latin America), seeking even the fake, moldy bread of protestantism to the dust and ashes they have been “fed” by so many wayward shepherds in the Church.  And yet these shepherds proclaim the leftism and worldliness they offer a banquet, pretending it is a gourmet feast, as the spiritual skeletons drag themselves away seeking something, anything to fill themselves with]

7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:

8 As I live, saith the Lord God, forasmuch as my flocks have been made a spoil, and my sheep are become a prey to all the beasts of the field, because there was no shepherd; for my shepherds did not seek after my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flocks:

9 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:

10 Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I myself come upon the shepherds, I will require my flock at their hand, and I will cause them to cease from feeding the flock any more; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more: and I will deliver my flock from their mouth, and it shall no more be meat for them.

[And yet we must have hope, for Our Lord will not leave us abandoned if we remain faithful……]

11 For thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I myself will seek my sheep, and will visit them.

12 As the shepherd visiteth his flock, in the day when he shall be in the midst of his sheep that were scattered; so will I visit my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered, in the cloudy and dark day.

13 And I will bring them out from the peoples, and will gather them out of the countries, and will bring them to their own land; and I will feed them in the mountains of Israel, by the rivers, and in all the habitations of the land:

14 I will feed them in the most fruitful pastures, and their pastures shall be in the high mountains of Israel; there shall they rest on the green grass, and be fed in fat pastures upon the mountains of Israel.

15 I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God

16 I will seek that which was lost; and that which was driven away, I will bring again; and I will bind up that which was broken, and I will strengthen that which was weak, and that which was fat and strong I will preserve: and I will feed them in judgment.

17 And as for you, O my flocks, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, of rams and of he-goats. [According to Fr. George Leo Haydock, who compiled this excellent study bible: “The crimes of the pastors do not excuse the flock.”  This is a most excellent warning.  I know many good souls who piously hope that the fact that so many souls are left ignorant of many aspects of the Faith will excuse them from their sins.  And it might, for some. But much of the moral law is plainly evident from the natural law (such as not killing your own offspring), and the natural law is given to all who have the faculty of reason, or can be plainly arrived at by anyone with a modicum of discernment.  In such areas, proclaiming ignorance of the law may be no defense.]

18 Was it not enough for you to feed upon good pastures? but you must also tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures: and when you drank the clearest water, you troubled the rest with your feet. [A warning for those who destroy or waste the great spiritual gifts they are given, lay or clerical.  But this is especially intended for the false shepherds, the wolves in sheep’s clothing]

19 And my sheep were fed with that which you had trodden with your feet; and they drank what your feet had troubled.

20 Therefore, thus saith the Lord God to you: Behold, I myself will judge between the fat cattle and the lean.

21 Because you thrusted with sides and shoulders, and struck all the weak cattle with your horns, till they were scattered abroad.

22 I will save my flock, and it shall be no more a spoil; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

23 *And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd……..

———–End Quote———–

Obviously, this Scripture from the Old Testament has to do with the fall of Israel, their subsequent chastisement by God, and the coming of the Messiah.  But we must keep in mind that so many Old Testament texts, and especially the prophetic ones like this, are types not only of the New Testament but also for the New Covenant.  That is to say, while this hard rebuff and chastisement from God was certainly intended for the Levites and priests of the Old Covenant day, they also apply to the priests and bishops of the New Covenant.  Christ will come again.  And I fear Our Blessed Lord’s telling question “Yet the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on the earth?” (Lk xviii:18) was rhetorical.  I think Our Lord was telling us that there would not be much faith in those coming days.

Let us not be among the sheep of the flock who wander away due to wayward pastors!  Let us always remain faithful to Holy Mother Church, no matter how deranged those appointed to shepherd souls may become.  I like Saint Corbinian Bear’s phrase: nail your foot to the floor in front of your favorite pew and die there.  I know we sometimes have to find parishes that best meet our spiritual needs, and those of our family, but you get the point.

Pray fervently for our pastors!  To those to whom much have been given, much will be required!  (Lk xii:48)!  But one major reason for the lack of leadership in the Church could be lack of prayers by the faithful on their behalf.  Absolutely pray for good pastors, but also pray, perhaps even more, for the conversion of those who are not so good.

Video: how leftism and Peronism in particular destroyed Argentina’s economy September 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I think this has great relevance from a Catholic perspective, even though the video does not approach the topic from that 51Yplq909dL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_persective, per se’.

Understanding of the history of Argentina is generally very weak in the United States.  I am by no means a great expert.  However, I would argue that the video-creator errs a bit in claiming that Argentina had the second largest economy in the world after the US in the early 20th century. I imagine Germany would have something to say about that, and possibly Britain.  I think what he meant to say was that Argentina had the 2nd largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, that it was diversified, productive, and growing, to the extent that some foreign observers (such as some Brits) openly wondered whether Argentina or the US would emerge as the dominant Western Hemisphere power in the early 20th century.  I think that was a bit of wishful thinking on the part of certain elements of Peronismo-adoctrina-ninios-primaria-propaganda-1British society that still had heartache over the American Revolution, but whatever.

Nonetheless, the general course of the video is quite correct.  Argentina had a vibrant economy with high productivity until a radical leftist party, preying on the deadly sin of envy, convinced a good number of Argentines that some had it better than them and were deliberately keeping them mired in relative poverty.  Similar governments rose to power in various parts of the world during this same time-frame, it was the beginning of the third phase of the great anti-Catholic Revolution, the instigation of hard socialist and communist governments.  526991

Later on, Peron perfected the art of the demagogic, charismatic and totalitarian South American dictator, using class envy to divide opponents and build up a base of support.  He deliberately courted the Church as part of this process, and did win over large segments of the Church in Argentina.  Peron’s model was less Hitler (with whom he maintained warm relations, however) than Mussolini.  It was Peronism that cemented highly destructive leftist economic policies (very high taxation, nationalization of key industries, massive wealth transfers (vote buying), and government economic planning) and a totalitarian yen into Argentine society that is still present to this day.  Even though he was ousted in a military coup, he returned to power twice, and his daughter just finished up her turn as El Presidente.  Over the course of decades of Peronist control, Argentina’s formerly vibrant economy has been turned into a pathetic wreck.

The concern for Catholics is quite clear.  Maureen Mullarkey argues quite persuasively of Pope Francis’ fundamentally Peronist attitude towards many economic, political, and social issues.  But if Peronism has already been tried and proven a failure, what is being advocated by Francis is not a fresh new approach towards government economic policy from an authentically Catholic perspective, but yet another re-hash of failed South American populist socialism, the same kind of socialism presently so resurgent on that unhappy continent,spreading misery from Venezuela to Ecuador images (9)to Bolivia.  In fact, socialism has never been so widespread in South America as it is now.  And yet all of these countries are experiencing critical shortages of even the most basic necessities, while the authoritarian leadership, like the Peron’s, secretly acquires massive wealth by pilfering it from a deluded, gullible public.  Some of that wealth is used to buy off more support, but most of it fills the fabulous gold-lined pockets of the dictators of these banana republics.

I think it should go without saying that Peronismo is not a politico-economic system that accords well with the Church’s well-developed Magisterium on these matters.  It stands in marked contrast, for instance, to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno on the proper arrangement of the Christian corporatist state.  For one thing, any economic system or political philosophy grounded in the deadly sin of envy and which purports to create an earthly paradise of strictly human construction is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of the Faith.

I just wanted to provide some background on what Peronism is and the extremely negative effect it has had on the nation of Argentina.  I don’t think Francis can be rightly understood without understanding Peronism, of which his family were fervent supporters. For more on that, read this post from Sandro Magister, including this incredible quote from Pope Francis:

I come from a radical family, my uncle was a ‘radical of ’90’ [editor’s note: the party born from the revolutionary movement that overturned the ruling regime in 1890]. Then, as an adolescent, I also got a crush on the ‘zurdaje’ [editor’s note: Argentine term that indicates the left], reading books from the Communist Party that were given to me by my teacher Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, a great woman who had been secretary of the Partido revolucionario febrerista paraguayo. [You know the old saying, about the acorn not falling very far from the tree?]

“In those years the political culture was very lively. I liked to get in on everything. Between 1951 and 1952 I would wait anxiously for the arrival, three times a week, of the socialist militants who sold ‘La Vanguardia.’ And naturally I also frequented social justice groups. But I never signed up for any party.”

The “social justice groups” that Pope Francis said he frequented were precisely those of the followers of Perón, who called his own ideology “justicialista” – a blending of “justice” and “socialism” – and gave his party the name of “Partido justicialista”.

In the five pages of reminiscences that Pope Francis dedicates to politics in the book cited, there is not even one word that sounds the least bit critical of Perón, in spite of the anti-Catholic character of the end of his first presidency and the excommunication issued against him by Pius XII in 1955.

Others appear to be taking note, as well.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Francis is the most narrow, provincial Pope elected in at least the last 300 years, and probably far longer back than that.  He is what he is, but what of the men who willingly elected him?  They connived and cajoled and got their man, apparently.  May the Lord have pity on His Church.

1679236w300

What the Church really believes regarding poverty, charity, socialism, etc….. September 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, reading, sanctity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
comments closed

…….is I think very well transmitted in The Catechism Explained by Father’s Spirago and Clarke.  Written in the late 19th century, this very practical Catechism is devoid of the baneful influence of modernism and leftism and gives the constant belief and practice of the Faith in a clear and relatively concise manner.

The sections excerpted below are quite counter to so many opinions we hear bandied about in the Church today and might even find disagreement in the 1997 Catechism.  It is certainly opposed to much of the rhetoric we hear from so many priests, bishops, and others in the hierarchy, who have turned poverty into an intrinsic evil and its “eradication” (impossible, according to Our Blessed Lord) into a paramount moral obligation.  This is quite contrary to what the vast majority of the Church, in her history, Saints, popes, and faithful, understood on this vital subject. I think you can also discern, in reading the below, the marked contrast – one might even call it a gulf – between recent addresses made by the highest authority in the Church on these subjects, where class warfare seems frequently to lurk just below the surface, if it is not boldly proclaimed:

God does not distribute talents to all alike; to one He gives five, to another two, to a third only one (Matt xxv).  It is in wisdom that He thus acts: for if the same were given to all, every one could stand alone, and there would be no need of mutual good offices.  What opportunity would there be for the exercise of brotherly love, what occasions of merit?

Poverty is no disgrace in God’s sight; to be poor in virtue and in good works is the only thing of which one need be ashamed, for it leads to eternal damnation.

In the eyes of eternal Truth poverty is not the slightest shame (Lev xiii).  Our Lord Himself being rich, became poor (II Cor viii:9).  He Who was the King of Heaven and of earth passed His life in constant privations; He had not where to lay His head (Lk ix:58). What could exceed the poverty of His birthplace!  A man may be poor in the world’s good sand exceedingly rich before God; and on the other hand, a man may be rich in earthly possessions and utterly destitute before God (Lk xii:21). “The fear of God is the glory of the rich” (Eccl x:25).  Virtues, not earthly treasures, constitute true riches. “He,” says St. Augustine,”is not rich who possesses chests full of silver and gold, but he in whom God dwells, who is the temple of the Holy Ghost.”

The poor save their souls more easily than the rich.

Our Lord declares that ti is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (Mt xix:24).  Wealth affords its possessor the means of gratifying every inordinate desire………The poor man is better prepared to resist the temptations of the devil, being long accustomed to self-denial.  Consequently many of the poor will have a higher place in the Kingdom of Heaven than their richer brethren…….

God often sends poverty upon a man for his salvation.

Many, if they were rich, would misuse their wealth, lead a vicious life, and be eternally lost.  This God foresees, and therefore He takes their earthly possessions form them. “Poverty and riches are from God” (Eccl xi:14).  Saint Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, saw angels descending and ascending around a certain house; on hearing that the inmates were a poor widow with three daughters, he made them a liberal allowance. Later on he saw evil spirits coming and going about that same house; he made inquiries and learned that the people he had assisted now lead an idle and dissolute life.  Thereupon he immediately withdrew his gift.  God deals in like manner with us.   [Would that our social welfare programs faced similar scrutiny as to the moral effect such largesse has had on their recipients!  How counter this is to so much rhetoric in their favor!]

The poor are beloved by God.

Those who are unhappy and forsaken by the world are especially dear to God. Christ calls the poor blessed (Mt v:3).  He invites all that labor and are burdened to come to Him, that He may refresh them (Mt xi:28); the oppressed and persecuted are objects of His particular favor.  These truths ought to serve as an encouragement to the poor, and repress the pride of the opulent and powerful.  To the poor first of all the Gospel is preached (Mt xi:5).  The offerings of the poor are more acceptable to God than those of the rich.  Our Lord said the widow’s mite was of greater value than all the gifts that the rich cast into the treasury (Mk xii:41-43)………There is no respect of persons with God (Rom ii:11).  Poor and rich are alike His children (Pr xxii:2).

The poor man who leads an upright life will never be forsaken by God; more, he will enjoy happiness and contentment in this world.

God Who feeds the birds of the air, and clothes the lilies and grass of the field, will also provide for man, who is of so much more value than they (Mt v:25-30).  God does not allow the just to want the necessaries of life. Our Lord says: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice [i.e., be solicitous for your salvation and keep the Commandments] and all these things [i.e., the wherewithal to live] shall be added unto you” (Mt vi:33)……..Virtue is generally attended by temporal blessings here below (Ps cxi:2-3).  A poor man may be very happy despite his poverty.  Happiness by no means consists in the abundance of things that one possesses (Lk xii:15), but in interior peace and contentment, and these the just man enjoys, whether he be rich or poor. [And in fact being rich almost invariably involves attachment to one’s possessions (this is our fallen nature), so that the rich man is taken up with concern for worldly things and finds focus on the interior life much harder.  Thus Christ’s statement on the camel and the eye of the needle] St. Paul speaks of himself as having nothing, and yet possessing all things (II Cor vi:10).

The poor are not warranted in wresting from the rich the alms which they have a right to expect; they should rather bear their lot patiently and rely on help from God.  

The duty of giving alms is not required by justice, except in cases of dire necessity.  It is a duty of Christian charity, consequently no man can lawfully be compelled to give.  The Fathers of the Church constantly exhorted the rich to give alms.  “Thou art master of thy property, and canst give or not give at they will,” St. Jerome said to the rich: “Distribute a portion of thy wealth. But if thou refusest, I cannot force thee. I can only entreat.”  The poor can however demand that their labor be sufficiently remunerated. Doubly indeed is that poor man to be commiserated who forsakes God and transgresses His law; for in that case he has nothing in this life, and after death everlasting perdition awaits him.

———–End Quote———–

I don’t think I have to spell out how different so much of the above is from what we so commonly hear regarding poverty today.  Poverty is very frequently – and I speak of within the Church – described as an evil of itself, and even more, the fault of someone else.  We have heard much of late that either directly says, or can be taken to mean, that because one man has more than another it is very frequently, if not always, because he has unfairly taken more than his share.  This fundamentally revolutionary, communist outlook is the source of great misery, causing great discontent among the poor and encouraging strife among the various classes, instead of the concord and mutual concern and caretaking which should be the foundation for inter-class relationships.

A further quick note: “charity” performed at government behest, at the point of a government gun, is not virtuous.  Socialism, thus, is not charity.  Voting for candidates that promise to rob from the rich to give to the poor does not make up for one’s personal failing to give generously to those in need, but the Revolution constantly touts this kind of moral preening.  We are being confronted today even with many prelates who seem to have deeply imbibed the rhetoric of class warfare. Among their many criticisms of Catholics (does one ever get the impression they simply do not like Catholics very much?) is their failure to practice so-called class consciousness.

They have, in essence, supplanted leftism for Catholicism as their religion of choice.

Rome names square after Luther; Vatican says great! August 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society, the return.
comments closed

Ecumania!

The Vatican has given its backing to a central Rome square being named after Martin Luther, a church reformer excommunicated by the pope nearly 500 years ago……..

……..Luther was excommunicated in 1521 and was never allowed to return to the Catholic Church, but now the Vatican’s views have changed. [As much as I’d like to, I really don’t think I can rebut this statement]

Next month a hilltop square in Rome is due to be named Piazza Martin Lutero, in memory of Luther’s achievements. The site chosen is the Oppian Hill, a park area that overlooks the Colosseum.

The move has been six years in a making, following a request made by the Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant denomination, Italian daily La Repubblica said. The original plan was to inaugurate the square in time for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s historic trip to Rome in 2010. City officials were not able to discuss the process behind naming the square or the reason for the holdup.

Despite Luther being thrown out of the Catholic Church during his lifetime, the Vatican reacted positively to news of the square’s upcoming inauguration. “It’s a decision taken by Rome city hall which is favorable to Catholics in that it’s in line with the path of dialogue started with the ecumenical council,” said the Rev. Ciro Benedettini, deputy director of the Vatican press office, referring to a gathering of churchmen to rule on faith matters.

The move contrasts sharply from views held by Luther around the time of his visit to Rome, when it was said he repeated the saying“If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.”…… [also: “Rome is a satanic city,” “Rome is the seat of the antichrist,” and “The Pope is the devil’s servant.”]

…….within Italy there are very few Protestants; just 435,000 Italian citizens identify as Protestant, according to research published in 2012 by the Center for Studies on New Religions. Catholicism continues to be the dominant religion, with 97.9 percent of Italy’s 60 million residents having been baptized Catholic as of 2009.

Which makes one wonder if this was really an innocent decision made by Roman city authorities, of if there might even have been Vatican pressure applied to induce them to rule favorably.  Given that the officials sat on the request for 6 years, and then, a couple of years into Francis’ reign, there is suddenly a change, I have to wonder if there is not a connection.

But with only a handful of Italian protestants, it seems incredible than a major Roman piazza would be renamed in Luther’s honor.  What an affront to the millions of Catholics killed at protestant hands, and the great sufferings of so many Saints to win souls back to the Faith!

This different religion thing is getting out of hand, is it not?

Pope Francis falsely accused and grievously insulted President of Paraguay during SA trip+Peronism! August 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Has anyone else seen this?  Reported by Sandro Magister, when in Paraguay, Pope Francis – on the thinnest of grounds – accused the government of having kidnapped citizens and held them forcibly.  The government of Paraguay is conservative.  This was after he had praised the leftist governments of Bolivia and Ecuador to the skies.  Pope Francis appears to have assumed the worst about Paraguay being a “right wing dictatorship” and using ugly, inhumane methods against its citizens, but he got one small fact wrong: the citizens were actually kidnapped by a Marxist group that has received support from leftist elements in the Church, and which has been waging a low-level guerrilla war against the government for years.  Oops:

But it can be added that Francis is also beginning to weigh the disadvantages of an excessively nonchalant communicative orality.

When for example he insists on the necessity of subjecting his own words to a correct “hermeneutic” – as he did in the press conference on the return flight to Rome from his latest journey – Francis may have had in mind the colossal gaffe into which he fell on July 11 in Asunción, speaking off-the-cuff to representatives of civil society and to the highest public authorities of Paraguay.

There, at a certain point, he said:

“Before ending, I’d like to make reference to two things. In doing this, as there are political authorities present here, including the President of the Republic, I wish to say this fraternally. Someone told me: ‘Look, Mr so-and-so was kidnapped by the Army, please do something to help!’. I do not know if this is true, or if it is not true, if it is right, or if it is not right, but one of the methods used by dictatorial ideologies of the last century, which I referred to earlier, was to separate the people, either by exile or imprisonment, or in the case of concentration camps, Nazis and Stalinists excluded them by death. For there to be a true culture of the people, a political culture, a culture of the common good, there must be quick and clear judicial proceedings. No other kind of strategy is required. Clear, concise judgments. That would help all of us. I do not know whether or not this exists here, and I say it with the greatest respect. I was told this as I came here, I was given this information here. I was asked to make a request about someone I do not know. I did not manage to grasp the surname of the person involved.” [One imagines that Pope Francis was probably here used as a puppet by the very left-wing group that did the kidnapping to embarrass and undermine the government]

The name that Francis had not “grasped” was that of Edelio Murinigo, an official abducted more than a year ago not by the regular army of Paraguay – as the pope had understood – but by a self-proclaimed “Ejército del pueblo paraguayo,” a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group active in the country since 2008.

And yet, in spite of his stated and emphasized ignorance in the case, Francis was not afraid to use the paltry and confused information gathered shortly beforehand to “fraternally” accuse the blameless president of Paraguay of nothing less than a crime compared to the worst misdeeds of the Nazis and Stalinists. [Indeed.  A diplomatic gaffe of the highest order, and one that was completely unnecessary.  Even had the accusation been true, bringing this subject to the fore at that setting would have been a grave mistake. The Pope who could not bring himself to condemn a blasphemous, politicized crucifix falsely accused another government of murderous acts. This despite the fact that leftist regimes (including the Nazis and Stalinists) have killed far more citizens than any ostensible “right wing” governments]

Another interesting article from Magister here.  Consider it a proposition for weekend reading.  This second article looks at the upcoming presidential election in Argentina and Francis’ clear alignment with the socialist-Peronist Kirchner camp.  An excerpt from this later article:

But the true political “manifesto” of pope Bergoglio was the lengthy speech he gave in Santa Cruz, Bolivia to the anti-globalization “popular movements” of Latin America and the rest of the world, which he gathered around him for a second time less than a year after the previous meeting in Rome, in both cases with a seat in the front for the “cocalero” president of Bolivia, Evo Morales……[Saying, in effect, I’ve got your six, bro!]

Rereading these two speeches, it is striking how their “distinguishing mark” – to borrow the words of Marco Olivetti – is “populism, identification with a good ‘people,’” precisely what characterizes in Argentina the socialistic Peronism of the Kirchner era, during which the recipients of state funds tripled and now total 15.3 million, 36 percent of the population.

The “people” in which Pope Francis sees the avant-garde of a worldwide revolution against the transnational empire of money is the one that he himself describes as made up of “waste-collectors, recyclers, peddlers, seamstresses or tailors, artisans, fishermen, farmworkers, builders, miners.” To them belongs – he says – the future of humanity. Thanks to a process of their rise to power that “overflows the logical procedures of formal democracy.”

In the judgment of James V. Schall, former professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University in Washington, the speech in Santa Cruz is “pure Bergoglio,” with a political vision “closer to Joachim of Fiore than to Augustine of Hippo”[Ouch. Given that Joachimite ideas were condemned by the Church (though Joachim himself was not) and thoroughly refuted by Aquinas, that’s not a positive comparison.  Joachimites believed in a “new age” of the Holy Ghost in which the Church would fall away, or no longer be necessary, and Catholics, heretics, and pagans would unite in a new, worldly, invisible Church of “good works.”  Doctrine was not important, even works were not so important as intent, the desire to “do good.”  Sound familiar?  Actually I’m narrowing Joachimite belief a bit for effect, but you get the picture]

But also from Cristina Kirchner’s party and from the Bergoglian circles there have come gestures of calculated support for these perspectives of the pope.

Last March, Argentine minster of culture Teresa Parodi organized in the immense and jam-packed Teatro Cervantes, in downtown Buenos Aires, a Foro Internacional por la Emancipación y la Igualdad that lined up the worldwide “stars” of the anti-capitalist opposition. [“International Forum for Emancipation and Equality]

And on the afternoon of March 13 there came to the microphone one after another the Brazilian Leonardo Boff, the liberation theologian who converted to the religion of mother earth, the Italian Gianni Vattimo, philosopher of “weak thought,” and the Argentine Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, archbishop chancellor of the pontifical academies of sciences and of social sciences and a key advisor of pope Bergoglio. [And whom we have seen veer very hard left under this pontificate, while behaving in an indecorous and unworthy manner, ascribing, without ANY justification, the most hateful motives to critics of Laudato Si and the embrace of abortionists and population control freaks by the Vatican]

To great applause and with a satisfied Sánchez Sorondo beside him, Vattimo made the case for a new communist and “papist” International, with Francis as its undisputed leader, the only one capable of leading a political, cultural, and religious revolution against the excessive power of money, in the “civil war” underway in the world that – he said – is disguised as a fight against terrorism but is in reality the class conflict of the 21st century against the multitude of all the opponents of capitalism. [Wow.  Is this what Francis believes?]

Seeing is believing. Vattimo’s harangue, in Spanish, is between the 15 and 51-minute mark of the video of this session of the forum, followed by remarks from Sánchez Sorondo and Boff:

For fluent Spanish speakers, the video is here.

Just unbelievable.  It truly is 1963 all over again, but the second time as farce.  All these dried up old men trying to pretend they are the vanguard of something new.  I don’t know why, I just have a feeling whatever it is they are trying to achieve is going to end in embarrassing failure.  These guys are not the vibrant actors they were 30-40 years ago.  They’re very tired old men, acting out a fantasy.  Oh, incredible damage will be done, no doubt, but I have a growing suspicion that they simply won’t be able to get away with what they got away with in the late 60s – early 80s period.

We shall see.  Stay vigilant and pray pray pray.

New book coming from prelates opposed to Kasperite gambit at Synod August 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, General Catholic, manhood, Sacraments, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Last year, prior to the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, five cardinals – Burke, Brandmuller, Muller, Caffarra, and De Paolis – published a book plainly in opposition to the attempts to redefine Church Dogma – “pastorally” – by the modernist/progressive faction at the Synod.  There was much scandal surrounding this publication, both from the exasperated Kasperites who felt it an attack on their false thesis and even the Holy Father, but also in how hundreds of copies of the book were blocked from distribution to Synod fathers during its deliberations by Archbishop Baldisseri, Pope Francis’ hand-picked synod-director.  An archbishop also contributed to the book.

News has been trickling out regarding another book published by a further 11 prelates, only one of whom contributed to last year’s book, which will also oppose any attempts to change doctrine through ostensibly “pastoral” applications (which have the deliberate purpose of undermining and changing doctrine in practice).  These prelates include:

Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna; Baselios Cleemis, Archbishop of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and President of the Episcopal Conference of India; Paul Josef Cordes, Presidente emeritius of the Pontifical Council «Cor Unum»; Dominik Duka, O.P., Archbishop of Prague, Primate of Bohemia; Willem Jacobus Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht; Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne; John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja (Nigeria); Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, Archbishop emeritus of Madrid; Camillo Ruini, Vicar General emeritus of His Holiness for the Dioceses of Rome; Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino, Archbishop of Caracas, Venezuela.

Unlike the prelates who contributed to last  year’s book, most of those involved in this latest effort are not widely known for strong adherence to orthodox/traditional beliefs.  Well, more the former than the latter, anyway.  And many of them, as you can tell by their titles above, have been entrusted with lead positions in many key institutional offices, meaning they are consummate insiders.  One wonders whether the same retribution which afflicted last year’s authors, especially Cardinal Burke, who was seen as the effort’s spokesman and leader, will be meted out to these prelates?

More from Rorate:

Will all of them be accused again of obstructing the debate and even worse, of opposing the Pope? Someone might try to, attempting to incite a game of [opposing] sides that tends to create alliances and supporters, but the eleven cardinals on the field don’t seem at all disposed to being crushed on their half of the field. Neither do they seem inclined to play a tight defensive game, which is what they would like to accuse them of, making them appear banal “crystallizers” of doctrine.

As far as we know, the questions the 11 cardinals want to respond to are absolutely pastoral and touch (actually, they bend to) the lives of all of us. How can we accompany best those who have been abandoned by their spouses and remain faithful to a marriage they have been released from in such a manner? In which way can marriage preparation better face the situation of young couples who are barely catechized and are profoundly influenced by a secularized culture?

For the answers to these and other similar questions, we will have to wait for the publication of the book at the end of September. All the evidence indicates that the publisher is once again Cantagalli. We will be just a few days away from the Synod, and from among the possible pastoral answers on the themes of marriage and the family we will also have to reckon with these ones as well.

In conclusion, the latest news. Along with the book by the 11 cardinals, another text of great interest should be coming out. In this case there will also be 11, between bishops and cardinals, but they are all African; to tell us about Africa, in fact, to let the voice of Africa be heard on the Synod themes – and not only. It will be wise to pay attention and listen as rumour has it that the title is “Nova Patria Christi Africa”.

So yet another publication out giving the African viewpoint, which one would think, barring any backroom deals with the Germans, would tend to be rather hostile towards any pastoral/doctrinal novelties.
Shocking and as sad as it may be, this Synod will probably be a close run thing.  But since the Synod has no doctrinal authority (but plenty of PR value), and since the official “interpretation and implementation” of the Synod’s deliberations will come via Pope Francis in a post-synodal encyclical (is it already written?), maybe all of this sturm and drang is just window dressing.  I think it is, but it isn’t – if the Synod votes down any dangerous propositions, then it’s just window dressing, if they vote in favor of it, then we’ll be told how we all must immediately submit.
This Synod is much more than mere worldly debates and under the table arrangements, it’s mostly a battle of principalities and powers.  The best way to affect the outcome of the Synod is through our prayer and penance.
Argh!  So confusing to be a Catholic today!  When will the Lord have mercy on us and gift the Church with an that Pope we so desperately need to reform the Church?  One that will do the consecration Our Lady has made plain is so vital to that restoration!??

Fr. Carota on living in the present moment August 18, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Papa, persecution, priests, sanctity, scandals, Society, SOD, the return, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Super post from Fr. Carota:  don’t let your legitimate worries and concerns get the best of you and ruin your relationship with God and His Church (all as in original I add only comments):

Every one of us has a list of serious concerns right now, (or what we call problems).  Having problems is simply part of being human.  Believe it or not, everyone, no matter how it may appear, has problems, concerns and cares.

So there is IMMEDIATE HELP to help us deal with our problems.

  1. First, turn to God right now in prayer and trust, with blind faith, so that He will help us right now with our problems.  It may not be instantaneous, but He will show us a way to get through what we are now experiencing.
  2. Then, put these problems in perspective, so that you stop worrying and have PEACE right now.  That is what this article is about.

So the first thing to do is write down a list of everything that you are worried about right now, (use the list below as suggestions to get you personal list started).

I am worried right now about;

  • Our pope, cardinals, bishops, religious, priests,
  • Our Church,
  • Our country,
  • Our president,
  • My family,
  • My marriage,
  • Our children, grandchildren and godchildren……..
  • My Temptations,
  • My vices…..[More suggestions at Fr. Carota’s blog – you get the point]

Now take time to go over this list and write down exactly what it is that you are concerned about this problem.  Then put your worries in order, according to how serious or urgent the problem is.

Then go over this list, starting with the worst problem, with these criteria.

  • Am I absolutely sure this problem will happen?  When?
  • Do I have the resources, knowledge and intelligence to handle this problem?
  • Is there a solution I have forgotten about?
  • Who can I get to help me with this problem?
  • Am I making my problem bigger than it really is?
  • When will I begin, (not procrastinate), to deal with my problem?
  • Is this problem something I have no influence over and need to let go of?
  • When I worry about this problem, do I pray to God, Mary, the Angels, saints for help?
  • Does fear keep me from confronting my problems?
  • Are my fears realistic?
  • Have I overblown the problem?

Now you need to come up with a Godly attitude about the situation, or problem, you are so worried about.  Here is an example.  Say you are worried about your husband who has left you.  A Godly attitude will tell you to do all you can to be reconciled, but keeping in mind that you only can control your own actions, not his.

The other very very important ATTITUDE to have is reminding ourselves that we only have this moment right now.  We have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER WHAT COULD HAPPEN THE NEXT MOMENT.  Yes, we have control in the sense that we can make wise decisions right now on how we will live the next moment, but in all truth, we only have this moment.  We could die right now.  The people causing the problem could die, move, change their mind, repent, at any time too…….

Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.  Matthew 6:34.

The passage that comes right before this shows how to avoid problems and to receive from God what we need.

Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 6:33.

If we are seeking to serve Christ the King first in our life, then all else will eventually fall in place for our good………

……….Please keep your list of problems and concerns.  A week, a month, a year later, review it again.  You will be very surprised that most of what you were concerned about never came to anything and that somehow or other you pass through the rest, (hopefully with prayer for God’s help, good decisions and actions and the help of good people).

We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics and to know, that in the end, God is incharge and will take care of us and bring good out of all our sufferings and problems.  We are truly in HIs loving hands……..

………Above all, pray for those who are going through difficult situations and problems.

———-End Quote———-

I note from the above that I do worry and get excited about things that I have no worldly or natural control over.  I worry about the upcoming Synod, about Pope Francis, the Kasperite gambit, the modernist revolution, etc.  I have precious little way, aside from prayer and penance, to influence any of those things.  I try to make people aware of what’s going on and, I think more importantly, to help reassure souls that action X is wrong and why matter Z is scandalous.  But that’s a very long way from solving what tends to concern me.

Some folks may not like this post. They may think it overly minimizes righteous indignation at the state of the Church and the ongoing scandals we are surrounded with.  That’s not my intent, nor do I think it is Father Carota’s, either.  I would hope that anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows that I am not some on-the-payroll apologist or Pollyanna.  The point is that while we all get scandalized by things, don’t let  yourself get scandalized out of the Faith!  That does happen, and we may have even more abundant reasons in the future to be tempted to do just that.  Certainly be concerned and involved but use that as something that draws you closer to our Lord and a more perfect practice of virtue, not as an excuse to give up, become a rage-aholic, or God forbid, leave the Church for the sects or somewhere else.

In Narcotics Anonymous, there is a saying, which I will paraphrase as: don’t mess yourself to get revenge.  Sometimes when recovering addicts get really hurt by someone they are tempted to use again.  They go back into active addiction to hurt the one who hurt them back, but the one who really pays the price for such folly is the addict.  Likewise, many of us feel hurt and wounded by the leadership of the Church of late.  You get the point.

Turn it to something else.  Keep that fire of zeal that scandal can inspire but direct it towards becoming a Saint.

h/t reader Skeinster

How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church? August 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, reading, secularism, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Commenter JL apprised me (well, all of us, but I noticed it first – heh) of a new book by David Wehmoff with the ponderous title: John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA’s Doctrine Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church.

From the Amazon synopsis, the books aims at revealing the following:

In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his famous “Four Freedoms” speech. In that speech, FDR set forth a vision for the reengineering of societies around the globe. The means was psychological warfare, involving the manipulation of ideas, words and symbols to divide target societies and convince these societies of the ideology that formed America. The most important society America targeted was the Roman Catholic Church. Media mogul Henry R. Luce, founder and publisher of enormously influential magazines like Time and Life, used the CIA’s doctrinal warfare program to turn the Catholic Church into a promoter of American ideas. This struggle reached its culmination at the Second Vatican Council with the promulgation of the document Declaration on Religious Liberty. Catholic doctrine did not change, but, defeated at the Council, the Americanists used their media power to win the battle over who got to interpret the Council with disastrous consequences for both the Church and the world. 

I haven’t read the book.  It weighs in at essentially 1000 pages, which is a bit daunting even for a voracious reader like me.  Given that I read about a dozen books simultaneously, anywhere from 5-15 pages a day each, it would take me 2-3 months to finish that book.

Also, I think the writer has some association with E. Michael Jones.  I’ll admit I was not overly impressed by Jones’ biography of Cardinal Krol, it felt pretty dated when I read it almost 20 years after it was written.  I’ll admit to also having a problem with that sort of Neil Sheehan-esque biography.  But maybe this is totally different.

However this subject is right in my wheelhouse – how on earth did the Church, or at least the the vast preponderance of the leadership of the Church – come to embrace such novel views at Vatican II, even over the strenuous objections of a minority of bishops?  Assuming that Doctrine was not formally changed – thank God – even the broaching of these subjects as a matter of debate gave the enemies of the Church, and particularly the press, a PR bonanza in which they could, rightly or wrongly, present the Church as having turned some huge corner and basically repudiated much of her former character and belief!  The mere fact of even discussing potential changes to what had previously been settled matters of faith and morals was in and of itself a signal of a massive shift in the Church.  Anything that sheds light on how that happened is profoundly interesting to me.

Here is an interview with the author made when the book was still being written:

And another interview, I think this is more recent:

I only had time to listen to the beginning of the first interview. What I heard was cogent and well thought out if not particularly revelatory.  I think the “meat” is further on, but I simply haven’t the time right now to listen.

However, I thought I’d throw out a post to see if anyone has read the book, or knows more about it, and maybe provide some motivation for me to buy it.  Also, I thought some readers might be interested in acquiring a copy for themselves.