Inline image

YouTube video Muslim Child Brides

Muslim Child BridesPreview YouTube video The Child Brides Of Yemen (2014)

The Child Brides Of Yemen (2014)

ReplyReply allForward
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


How does a narcissist think and feel inside?


Phyllis Antebi, Ph.D Clinical Psychology (1990)

Updated Apr 20

When in the actual presence of a narcissist a healthy person tends to feel a sense of demoralization. There is a reason for this. The reason is that narcissism is an amorphous and fragmented personality structure.

This personality structure affects the Narcissist’s ability to feel anything remotely akin to love, loyalty, sincerity, or devotion. Their feelings are poorly developed and usually very fleeting. Their judgement is distorted as a function of distorted perceptions of themselves and others.

Narcissism is often described as a “hollow” or “empty” vessel who is constantly on the prowl for narcissistic supplies. Without the ability to self reflect the narcissist’s moral compass remains on an infantile level.

Lacking in the ability to empathize the Narcissist feels alienated from others. Loneliness and boredom are key manifestations of a personality who seeks instant gratification at all costs. This drive leads to reckless behavior in the areas of sex, work.

The narcissistic mask is a coverup and defensive process hiding an angry and bitter individual beneath. Overall, the Narcissist is an undefined identity; a mere stranger to himself. He/she is a fraud. A vampire by nature, sucking your energy and playing with your mind.

57k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The New Acceptance of Sodomy

Why? And What Now?

APRIL 20, 2019 



How could a Catholic priest ever come to think that it was morally acceptable for him to engage in sodomy? In the light of more than a dozen events or factors affecting one’s thinking since 1960, a priest with a same-sex orientation might ask, “Why not?” This article reviews such factors and offers practical ways to reduce their effect.

If a Catholic Rip van Winkle had gone to sleep in late 1942 and awakened thirty years later, he would have thought he was in a different world. World War II was not only concluded, but the victors had helped the defeated countries rebuild and were now enjoying commerce with them. But now the Catholic Church was at war within itself. In 1968, Pope Paul VI had not only reaffirmed the perennial teaching against unnatural forms of birth control that had been previously reaffirmed in 1930 by Pope Pius XI, but there was an active war being waged against that teaching by dissenting priests and laity.

If our Catholic van Winkle thought he needed another long nap and woke up another thirty years later, he would have been shocked again. In 2002 we learned that a small number of priests not only accepted sodomy but engaged in this sin with children, mostly adolescent boys. Now, slightly more than sixteen years later, we have been saddened by reports of bishops and even a cardinal who engaged in such immoral actions and/or covered up for others.

The first huge question is this: How did priests who took a promise of chaste celibacy come to think that it was now morally acceptable for them to engage in sodomy with consenting adults and even with minors — whether under the legal age of consent or psychological minors, such as seminarians under their influence? I am assuming that they did not engage in these behaviors thinking, I know this is a mortal sin but I am going to do it anyway. So my assumption is that somehow they rationalized their thinking so that they could call it acceptable. Another way of phrasing this question is this: how did they come to think they could accept the revised cultural practices as morally normative? My assumption here is that they were very much influenced by changes both in Western culture and also within the Church.

Cultural changes. The cultural changes have been huge and certainly predate the Second World War. In the nineteenth century there was a push by neo-Malthusians to promote a cultural acceptance of contraception. American cultural resistance was reflected in the state and federal anti-contraception Comstock Laws of the 1870s. The Church of England reaffirmed the Christian Tradition against marital contraception in 1908 and again in 1920 before caving and accepting it in 1930. (Their dissenting conservative bishops predicted that this would lead to the acceptance of sodomy, and how right they were!)

Margaret Sanger started her birth control movement in 1914 with actions that challenged the Comstock laws, gaining publicity and sympathy every time she was brought to court. Throughout the 1920s there was much talk about this, with increasing acceptance by the liberals of the day. In 1929, secular humanist Walter Lippmann wrote with great foresight about the revolutionary character of the acceptance of marital contraception. Noting the impossibility of keeping contraception restricted to married couples, he wrote: “Now this is what the Christian churches, especially the Roman Catholic, which oppose contraception on principle, instantly recognized. They were quite right. They were quite right, too, in recognizing that whether or not birth control is eugenic, hygienic, and economic, it is the most revolutionary practice in the history of sexual morals” (A Preface to Morals, 1999 ed., 291).

The acceptance of marital contraception by the Church of England in 1930 wrought a tremendous cultural blow to the West. This was the first formal acceptance of marital contraception by an organized Christian body, and it led to the acceptance of marital contraception by the vast majority of Protestants.

Changes within the Church. Since July 27, 2018 when a Pennsylvania grand jury released its report on sexual abuse of minors by priests, we have been deluged by talk about the Scandal. I maintain that there are more than a dozen scandals right within the Church that have contributed significantly to the Scandals of 2002 and 2018. I use “scandal” in the sense of Matthew 18:6, an occasion of sin for another. I submit that when you consider all these stumbling blocks, it becomes easier to understand 1) how a priest with same-sex attraction could rationalize sodomy, even with minors; and 2) how a heterosexual priest could rationalize fornication and adultery for himself. I think the following chronology may be helpful for recognizing these stumbling blocks to chaste thinking and acting.

1. October 11, 1962 – December 8, 1965: Vatican Council II. The Council indirectly played a part in the cultural change within the Church. The actual teachings of the Council supported in a general way the received teaching affirmed by Casti Connubii. However, the Council did not verbatim strongly affirm that encyclical. Instead, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI reserved to themselves the final word on that issue. In 1963, Pope John XXIII established a commission to study the factors that entered into the birth control discussion, and Pope Paul VI, after his election, renewed and expanded the commission. Unfortunately that led many to think that the Pope and his commission would somehow find a way to reaffirm the general principles but still allow the practice of marital contraception. Those who thought that change was coming wrote articles and brochures expressing their revisionist opinions but couched them with the reservation that they would accept whatever the Pope taught. Neither the change or the acceptance happened.

The biggest cultural change caused by Vatican II, however, had nothing to do with its actual teaching but with a vague cover-up phrase, “the spirit of Vatican II.” Regarding birth control, it went something like this: “Okay, in our ecumenical spirit we have admitted that the Protestants have it right about having the worship ceremony in the vernacular. We have also joined the Protestant practice and no longer bind meatless Fridays under the pain of a serious sin. So let’s be ecumenical and join the Protestants also in accepting marital contraception.” The necessary distinction between discipline and doctrine was lost by many.

2. 1966–68: The two-year delay. The Papal Birth Control Commission gave its two contradictory reports to Pope Paul VI in the summer of 1966, but he did not issue Humanae Vitae until July 25, 1968. The intervening two years provided time for endless speculation. The fact that he took two years was interpreted by many as meaning that he was confused. I suspect that more than a few married couples used this delay as an excuse to practice contraception. Once the Reports were made public, I could not understand the delay. The Minority Report clearly showed that the acceptance of contraception involved the acceptance of sodomy. I thought that the Pope should have taken a day to read and reread the Reports, and then a week to cool off. Then, I think, he should have clearly stated that the reports of the Commission made it clear that the acceptance of contraception logically includes the acceptance of sodomy, and therefore there was no way he could change the teaching. I think he should have repeated the crucial words of Casti Connubii and promised a longer explanation within a few months.

3. 1967: A challenge to the meaning of fidelity. A radically new view of fidelity may have also played a part in rationalizing priestly immorality. A Belgian priest and theologian argued for a revised meaning of “fidelity” in a liberal weekly newspaper widely read by clerics. Formerly it meant being faithful now to a promise taken in the past. In the present age, he posits, it should mean being faithful to yourself as you are here and now. If persons including priests are encouraged to think that infidelity to their vows and promises can be thought to be fidelity, could this not also affect a person’s thinking about chastity?

4. July 25, 1968 and continuing: The public dissent. The summer of 1968 was a time of significant cultural battles. The murder of the Rev. Martin Luther King on April 4th. The murder of Robert Kennedy on June 5th. The near riots at the Democratic national convention in Chicago for a week in late August. But the most enduring protest has been the dissent from Humanae Vitae starting on July 25th. Due to leaks, the principal dissenters read the encyclical before it was formally published. Thus, Father Charles E. Curran and others were dissenting publicly even before the American bishops had time to read the encyclical. And they have never stopped.

5. Forever: The logic of contraception. A few questions may help to illustrate what the acceptance of marital contraception actually entails. Imagine asking a theist this question: “Who put together in the human sexual act what we commonly call ‘making love’ and ‘making babies’?” The theist has to reply, “God”. Next question: “What is contraception except the deliberate effort to take apart what God Himself has put together in this one act?” There’s only one reply: “That’s precisely what contraception is all about.” Last question: “If we accept the idea that we can take apart what God has put together in the human sexual act, doesn’t this open the door, logically, to the acceptance of taking apart anything else related to the human sexual act?” I am not aware of any way to not apply that decision-making principle to any other imaginable sexual behavior. This obviously applies to the acceptance of sodomy, but it would also apply to the whole list of mutual-consent behaviors condemned in Sacred Scripture. In alphabetical sequence: adultery, bestiality, contraception, fornication, incest, prostitution, and sodomy.

5. November 15, 1968: The publication of “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent.” The dissent by many priests was bad enough, but it was compounded by the U.S. Bishops’ response to Humanae Vitae with a document titled Human Life in Our Day. Most of that document supported the encyclical, but it also included a section titled “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent.” The precise wording seemed harmless: “The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church, and is such as not to give scandal.” Clearly, the dissent movement could not have existed if the dissenters had followed those norms. But there were three major problems. First, with hindsight, we can see that the bishops should have foreseen the possibility of dissent and published these norms months before the encyclical was made public. Second, this response was not published until November 15, almost four months after Humanae Vitae, with dissent raging and well accepted. Third, it did not respond to a key issue of the encyclical — the Totality Thesis.

6. 1963–68: The Totality Thesis. A major problem with the dissent itself and any talk about licit theological dissent is that neither the dissenters nor the bishops were clearly pointing out to the Catholic public a core teaching of the encyclical — its condemnation of the Totality Thesis. In their search to find a way in which the Church could appear to uphold the received teaching and yet accept the use of unnatural forms of avoiding pregnancy, somebody developed a big-picture morality — the Totality Thesis. This looked at the marriage in its totality. If it was fruitful, then contraceptive acts could be considered as taking their morality from the non-contraceptive acts that caused pregnancy. In response to the Totality Thesis, Pope Paul reaffirmed the moral importance of individual acts. “The Church . . . teaches that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (HV 11). That “each and every” terminology is not found in Casti Connubii. It is clearly a response to the Totality Thesis.

It does not take much imagination to see that the adoption of such a big-picture morality could not be confined just to the marriage bed. What if one of the spouses is traveling? Can actions normally called adultery now be considered to take their morality from the overall fidelity of the spouses? What about ______________? Just fill in the blanks. Logically, dissent from Humanae Vitae entails the acceptance of a completely privatized morality. That’s the “new morality” of the West in which there is no form of sexual behavior that is forbidden if the parties are of legal age and give mutual assent. How many priests and laity who dissented with their words and their actions realized what their dissent really entailed?

7. 1970: The logic of dissent — bestiality. Michael F. Valente captured the essence of dissent in his book Sex: The Radical View of a Catholic Theologian (Bruce, 1970). According to the back cover, Valente was riding high at the time. He was the first Roman Catholic layman to receive a PhD in Religion from Columbia University. He had taught at both Notre Dame University and Manhattanville College and was the Chairman of the Department of Theology at Seton Hall University, “probably the first, and perhaps the only, layman to hold such a position at any large Roman Catholic university in the United States.” He was also President of the Institute for the Study of Ethical Issues.

He writes well from his perspective of total individualism regarding moral decisions. “To say that there is no intrinsic moral valuation in any species of sexual act is to say that moral valuation of any act derives from the context of an individual’s life, not from an abstract code” (24). “A new world view . . . makes it clear that each and every individual is uniquely capable of turning every interpersonal encounter into something new, something creative. . . . The case of bestiality provides an interesting example. . . . But, in any case, where is the harm in it?” (140). I have to give him credit for spilling the beans, so to speak, about what dissent from Humanae Vitae truly entails, and perhaps that’s why I have not seen him referenced by other dissenters. To repeat my question above: how many of those who rejected the teaching of Humanae Vitae have realized that the logic of the dissent movement cannot say NO even to bestiality?

8. 1971: The logic of dissent — spouse-swapping. While Valente clearly pointed out the consequences of his individualism and was largely ignored for being so open about the reality of dissent, others were less forthcoming. Father Charles E. Curran, the poster boy for the dissent movement, wrote widely but did not always point out the logical consequences of his arguments. So I tried to help. In 1971 I showed that his principles for decision-making could not say NO to spouse swapping, and no one, including Fr. Curran, accused me of creating a straw man (“Continued Dissent: Is It Responsible Loyalty?” Theological Studies32:1, March 1971).

9. 1977: Rejection of the natural moral law. The confusion caused by the dissent was amplified by the publication of Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought by the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1977. In my opinion, it simply mirrored secular writing about sexuality, disdaining the biblical norms and the natural moral law, and looking instead at surveys and anthropological research to attempt to come up with a sociologically based new morality. They wouldn’t condemn even adultery; they wanted more sociological evidence. I keep this book in my Forbidden Books box with twenty other sexuality books written between 1963 and 1977. Only six of these were published before Humanae Vitae. I would not recommend any of them to anyone looking for reasons to believe and practice in accord with the Commandments and the Catholic Tradition. Taken together, these books added to the difficulty of forming a right conscience during this time of social and theological ferment.

10. 1968–87: CUA. In addition to their inadequate Human Life in Our Day, the U. S. Bishops added to the confusion by keeping Fr. Charles Curran at Catholic University of America for nineteen years, until pressured by Pope John Paul II to remove him. Yes, they transferred him from the theology department to religious studies, but that still left him as a symbol of the bishops’ acceptance of dissent. A priest once accused me of being a dissenter because I had opined that Curran didn’t belong at CUA.

11. 1968–2018: Fifty years of episcopal laryngitis. In the face of surveys showing that a huge majority of fertile-age married Catholics were practicing contraception, there was relative silence on the part of the American bishops. Cardinal Timothy Dolan summed it up well not long ago by saying that he and his fellow bishops had laryngitis regarding Humanae Vitae.

12. Consequentialism. The defense of the received teaching regarding sexuality has been largely consequentialist — pointing up the bad and sometimes tragic consequences of adultery, fornication, incest, prostitution, and sodomy. There is no question that the consequences of these sins provide solid reason to avoid those behaviors. The problem is, however, that in an age of effective contraception, the risk of pregnancy from contraceptive adultery, fornication, incest, and prostitution is erroneously thought to be almost nil, thus greatly reducing the effectiveness of the consequentialist approach. Granted, Humanae Vitae 17 has also used this approach persuasively, and its negative predictions have certainly been validated.

13. The lack of preaching and teaching an intrinsic meaning. As part of his response to the Totality Thesis, Pope Paul VI taught that “it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life” (n. 14). If marital contraception can be described as intrinsically dishonest, then we need to describe the marriage act that is intrinsically honest. I have tried to do so.

The thesis I propose can be stated in seventeen words: “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be, at least implicitly, a renewal of the marriage covenant.” This was first published in “Holy Communion: Eucharistic and Marital,” seventeen months before Humanae Vitae (Ave Maria, February 25, 1967; it is explained more completely in Covenant, Christ and Contraception [Alba House, 1970] and in Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality [Ignatius, 2005]). This covenant theology of the marriage act is what helped Kimberly and Scott Hahn accept Catholic teaching on birth control when they were still Protestants, and then started them on their way to entering the Catholic Church. If this simple concept was that helpful to the husband who considered himself the most anti-Catholic student on his seminary campus, I suggest that it can be helpful to many Catholics as well. It needs to be said, however, that the Hahns had a great advantage over many Catholics. Kimberly’s father, a Presbyterian pastor, had taught her a prayer of discipleship that essentially said, “You call, and I will do it.”

14. Sodomy and the logic of dissent. The purpose of this article is to explain some factors that contributed to the acceptance of sodomy not only in the secular culture but also within the Church. Imagine a priest with a same-sex orientation. Review the list of factors confusing the issue of human sexuality. The “Totality Thesis”. A new idea of fidelity to vows. The de facto acceptance of marital contraception both before and after Humanae Vitae. Add to this a new acceptance of same-sex orientation by seminaries. In all of this, where was a person with a same-sex orientation finding clear and open teaching to support the traditional teaching of the Church regarding chastity, both lay and priestly?

All of this constitutes the intellectual and moral environment of the person who is afflicted with same-sex attraction. Since my work as a parish lay evangelist starting in 1963, I have sympathized with such men. One such person called me, identified himself — said, “I’m what they call queer,” assured me he was a chaste practicing Catholic, and then stated the problem. All the parish social activities were oriented toward heterosexuals. His was a very lonely situation. So I applaud the work of Courage ( that provides moral support and social contact to such men in a completely Catholic environment.

The second big question is this: What can bishops and priests do to correct this situation so that at least there are no grounds for confusion about what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality? I think our ecclesial leaders, both individually and collectively, can do much to correct the current situation both in the United States and around the world.

1. Reaffirm Humanae Vitae. Point out that the Pope simply had to reply to the Totality Thesis. Point out that the acceptance of the “big picture morality” logically involves the acceptance of any imaginable sexual behavior between parties of legal age and mutual consent and give some examples. What parents want a Catholic teacher telling their high school students that occasional acts of fornication take their morality from a life of most-of-the-time chastity? What teenagers want their parents thinking that it’s permissible for traveling parents to have sex with others?

2. Use marriage preparation as a wonderful occasion for one-on-one evangelization. Insist that any and all NFP programs explicitly evangelize and explain why Catholics believe what the Church teaches; that is, teach that Jesus continues to keep his threefold Last Supper promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, insist that all NFP programs be explicit in teaching about specific actions that constitute unnatural forms of birth control. Fertility awareness as an organ recital is insufficient. Insist on teaching that contraception contradicts the covenant meaning of the marriage act, and insist on promoting and teaching Ecological Breastfeeding — the pattern of breastfeeding that truly does space babies. Engaged and married couples have a right to know these things.

3. Condemn the whole idea of licit dissent from Humanae Vitae. There simply is no such thing as licit dissent from its teaching against the Totality Thesis and contraception.

4. Reaffirm the permanence of vows — both marital and priestly. Condemn the proposition that fidelity means being faithful to myself here and now as contrasted with being faithful to a promise made years ago. Let the mass of the laity know what sort of ideas were being promoted in certain circles back in the Sixties and may still be in play.

5. Reaffirm Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Reaffirm what Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen is purported to have told Catholic parents — that it’s better to hear the Church attacked at a public college than to hear the faith undermined at a nominally Catholic college. Parents should not have to fear the local Catholic college as a danger to the Faith.

6. Preach and teach 1 Cor 12:26. “If one member suffers, all suffer together.” What if 95% of the members of the body are suffering the sin of marital contraception? In my opinion, such massive deliberate sinfulness not only fails to build up the body of Christ and support the priest in his vocation of chaste celibacy but actually increases the difficulty of priests remaining faithful to their promises. All of us, laity and priests, are in this together, and each of us has an obligation to do our part to build up the Body of Christ.

7. Preach and teach personal discipleship. Is chaste abstinence sometimes a daily cross? Of course! Teach and explain the covenant theology of the marriage act. It gives a positive meaning to the human sexual act, and that in turn gives meaning to the negative teachings against all sins of unchastity. None of them are true marriage acts.


John F. Kippley

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel, between Christ and the Anti-Christ. We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” – Pope Saint John Paul II

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Amazon Synod: A Journey into the Heart of Antichrist

The Amazonian Synod and Teilhardian Evolution: A Journey into the Heart of Antichrist

By admin in Uncategorized on July 9, 2019By James Larson

Image result for Our Lady of Sorrows

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel, between Christ and the Anti-Christ. We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.”( Bicentennial talk given in the United States in 1976 by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, the future Pope John Paul II).

The final confrontation between the Gospel and the anti-Gospel, and between Christ and the Anti-Christ, would now appear to be coming to us with all the force of a demonic blitzkrieg in the form of Teilhardian Evolutionary theology. It is through the Amazonian Synod, to be held in Rome, October 6-27, 2019, that its proponents are seeking to irreversibly incarnate this theology in all the depths of Catholic belief, worship, and praxis.

Before entering into a deeper examination of Teilhardian theology, we offer the following succinct statement regarding its fundamental total inversion of Catholic Truth:

Teilhardian theology completely inverts the Catholic Truth concerning the existence of a Supernatural God, from Whom we receive all Life, Truth, and Grace. It replaces this Supernatural God with a belief in the Ultra-Human which, it alleges, will be the final fulfillment of a series of evolutionary leaps: from the most primitive state of matter – to human consciousness – and finally, to the convergence of all such individual consciousnesses in a final Omega Point of absolute perfection and unity. It is the ultimate expression of supreme Idolatry (literal “worship of self”) by which man “changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. (Romans 1: 25).

Teilhard de Chardin’s supreme blasphemy consisted in his total inversion of the Catholic truth about Christ and His Incarnation. St. Paul tells us that Jesus Christ is “yesterday, and today, and the same forever” (Heb. 13:8). As Infinite and Perfect God, He became incarnate, suffered, died and rose again in order that we might be lifted up to perfect Life in Him. On the other hand, Teilhard proposed for our belief a Christ Who is the “Prime Mover of the evolutive movement of complexity-consciousness”, and therefore the fulfillment and end-point of an evolutionary progression in which Christ also must be saved and completed through the evolutionary convergence and merging of all of creation into union and identification with Himself as the Omega Point (or what Teilhard also calls the Christic). Teilhard writes: “It is Christ, in very truth, who saves, – but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?” (The Heart of Matter, p.92). And he further adds: “the Christ of Revelation is none other than the Omega [End Point] of Evolution.” (ibid.).

And, in case we might still possess doubt as to whether all this is in direct denial of the absolute perfection, infinitude, and immutability of the Supreme Godhead, we also have the following from Teilhard’s pen:

Classical metaphysics had accustomed us to seeing in the World – which it regarded as an object of ‘Creation’ – a sort of extrinsic product which had issued from God’s supreme efficient power as the fruit of his overflowing benevolence. I find myself now irresistibly led – and this precisely because it enables me both to act and to love in the fullest degree – to a view that harmonizes with the spirit of St. Paul {this is nonsense]: I see in the World a mysterious product of completion and fulfillment for the Absolute Being himself.” (The Heart of Matter, p.5).

An Infinite, all-perfect God is in no way subject to ‘completion and fulfillment” by His creation. The God of Teilhard de Chardin is not the God of Christianity.

All of this obviously demands an entirely new view of Christ, the Church, Catholic Dogma, Morality, and the sacraments. This is precisely what Cardinal Hummes, relator general for the upcoming Synod, called for in his May 13, 2019 interview with Anthony Spadaro. In describing the purpose and goal of the Amazon Synod, he proclaimed, “All theology and Christology, as well as the theology of the sacraments, are to be reread starting from this great light for which ‘all is interconnected, interrelated’.”

The Tower of Babel Despite his rejection of Thomistic metaphysics (and its absolute necessity for overcoming the spectre which now hovers over the Church), Pope John Paul II (as in our opening quote) displayed at times a very acute sense of the coming of Antichrist. The quote at the beginning of this article is fairly well known, but equally important are the following less-known statements from his 1984 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church Today:
Now it can be said that the tragedy of humanity today, as indeed of every period of history, consists precisely in its similarity to the experience of Babel.”
And, in unraveling the nature of this experience, he writes:
If we read the passage in the Bible on the City and Tower of Babel in the new light offered by the Gospel, and if we compare it with the other passage on the fall of our first parents, we can draw from it valuable elements for understanding of the mystery of sin. This expression, which echoes what Saint Paul writes concerning the mystery of evil, helps us to grasp the obscure and intangible element hidden in sin. Clearly, sin is a product of man’s freedom. But deep within its human reality there are factors at work which place it beyond the merely human, in the border-area where man’s conscience, will and sensitivity are in contact with the dark forces which, according to Saint Paul, are active in the world almost to the point of ruling it.” 

And, in descending from the intellectual to the practical understanding as to how this mystery of evil plays out on the word’s stage, John Paul II writes:
“Intent on building what was to be at once a symbol and a source of unity [the Tower of Babel], those people found themselves more scattered than before, divided in speech, divided among themselves, incapable of consensus and agreement. Why did the ambitious project fail? Why did “the builders labour in vain”? They failed because they had set up as a sign and guarantee of the unity they desired a work of their own hands alone, and had forgotten the action of the Lord. They had attended only to the horizontal dimension of work and social life, forgetting the vertical dimension by which they would have been rooted in God, their Creator and Lord, and would have been directed towards him as the ultimate goal of happiness.”

Pope John Paul II’s analysis contains much of the depth of the traditional understanding of the working of the mystery of iniquitydown through history – of man forgetting the vertical dimension of God’s truth and life, and instead seeking to build the city of man on his own. It is the contention of this article, however, that an entirely new, and largely un-anticipated, dimension has now been added to the “spirit” and work of Antichrist – a depth of demonic activity and iniquity which could have only been dimly envisioned by the earlier centuries of Christianity. It is no longer just a question of man forgetting about God, or of his working in the “horizontal realm” to the exclusion of the vertical dimension of God. Rather, the dimension to which the spirit of Antichrist is now leading man consists of a full plunge of man into his own interior, in adoration and pursuit of the Ultra-Human which is to be attained through man’s conscious evolutionary Becoming. And it especially consists in the belief that man himself is now in possession of the power and obligation (through genetics and social engineering) to take command of his own evolutionary journey towards the Ultra-Human, and to exponentially increase the rate at which this is to be accomplished
Teilhardian theology, which has been fulsomely embraced in the “theology” of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope Francis (see our article The Third Sorrowful Mystery: The Agony in the Garden) and many others in the hierarchy and elsewhere, now seeks total “inculteration” into the Church – this to be accomplished through the Amazonian Synod and its proposed Integral Ecology, and convergence of all that is considered to be “the spirit of this world” in its evolutionary progress. The secular term “integral ecology” has now, in fact, been adopted as a euphemism for this Teilhardian Evolutionary theology. In other words, the Amazonian Synod is effectively being promoted as an interiorized Tower of Babel which will make man’s ascension over God complete.
The Tower of Babel InteriorizedNote: Much of the following analysis is taken from a 1951 essay written by Teilhard de Chardin, titled The Convergence of the Universe, which is to be found on the web here: Any quotations offered which are not from this document will be referenced to their proper source.
The primary thing that we must understand in regard to Teilhardian Evolution is that it is not properly symbolized or imaged by the conventional “evolutionary tree” which is ever branching upwards and outwards in evolutionary diversification and growth, and of which man is only one branch or leaf – advanced though he may be. Such a view sees evolution as an ever expanding process reaching upwards into a limitless and indeterminate future.
Rather, for Teilhard de Chardin, evolution is a directed process (involving a “cosmic drift”) of increasing complexity and convergence within (which he calls “psychogenic concentration“), in which matter (through the process of molecular complexification) evolves into organic life (the “Biosphere”), which then further evolves into self-awareness and reflection (Hominization).
But this is not at all the end of the process. Individual consciousness and self-awareness are only the beginning of “hominization”, which eventually has led us to the critical threshold of another evolutionary leap within which we now find ourselves.
Man, by nature, is not an isolated individual, but rather a social being. In Teilhard’s view, the internal pressure of human socialization, intercommunion, compression, and convergence (he even includes the concepts of “heat” or “temperature” in regard to the directive “drift” of this evolutionary process) has created a “special envelope” which “now stretches over the old biosphere, and which now “provides its own system of internal connexions and communications”. This “envelope” of interconnected and converging self-awareness and consciousness Teilhard calls the “Noosphere” (from the Greek Nous – “Mind”). He writes:
The irresistible ‘setting’ or cementing together of a thinking mass (Mankind) which is continually more compressed upon itself by the simultaneous multiplication and expansion of its individual elements: there is not one of us, surely, who is not almost agonizingly aware of this, in the very fibre of his being. This is one of the things that no one today would even try to deny: we can all see the fantastic anatomical structure of a vast phylum [social, psychic, informational, etc.] whose branches, instead of diverging [branching out] as they normally do, are ceaselessly folding in upon one another ever more closely, like some monstrous inflorescence – like, indeed, an enormous flower folding-in upon itself; the literally global physiology of an organism in which production, nutrition, the machine, research, and the legacy of heredity are, beyond any doubt, building to planetary dimensions [one can only imagine the ‘fuel’ which the Internet would have provided for Teilhard’s ‘Great Vision’]….Writing in the year 1950, I can say that the evolution of my inner vision culminates in the acceptance of this evident fact, that there is a ‘creative’ tide which (as a strict statistic consequence of their increasing powers of self-determination) is carrying the human ‘mega-molecules’ towards an almost unbelievable quasi ‘mono-molecular’ state; and in that state, as the biological laws of Union demand, each ego is destined to be forced convulsively beyond itself into some mysterious super-ego.” (The Heart of Matter, p. 37-38). [We might well imagine the delight of any sort of Antichrist figure at the prospect that he has both divine and evolutionary sanction to “convulsively force” all men into “some mysterious super-ego.”].

The earth itself, being part of this collective process of evolution from matter into spirit and beyond, plays an enormous part in this process. Teilhard in fact calls the earth a “thinking planet”. In itself, being a finite surface upon which millions of reflective hominids have proliferated, the earth is a primary factor in the cosmogenic “heat” or “pressure” which cause the compression and convergence (through social communication, etc.) which generates the Noosphere. By the very fact that mankind now is being forced by modern science, technology, and communications beyond himself into some sort of super-ego which is an evolutionary precursor to the Ultra-Human, and because this clearly negates any notion that the question of salvation must focus on the individual soul and its relation to God, then it becomes quite clear why the Amazon Basin is so crucial for the implementation of the Teilhardian agenda. The Instrumen Laboris for the Amazonian Synod, describes the Amazonian indigenous people as not only those who live in communion with the earth, but also as those who live in “intercommunication with the entire cosmos”, for whom “the land is a theological place by which the faith is lived”, and a “unique source of God’s revelation”. It therefore provides the perfect venue for promoting a “spirit of this world”, undermining the vertical dimension of Catholic belief and practice, in order to institute this new religion which will come from the evolutionary pressure and “heat” which is now rising and converging from below and within. Teilhard writes:
It is unmistakably apparent (as all of us can see) that at this moment we are irretrievably involved in a rapidly accelerating process of human totalization. Under the combined force of the multiplication (in numbers) and expansion (in radius of influence) of human individuals on the surface of the globe, the noösphere has for the last century shown signs of a sudden organic compression upon itself and compenetration. This is without any doubt the most massive and the most central of the events the earth has experienced in our day.”

Teilhard then proceeds to tell us that all of this places an extraordinary demand upon us to “make up our minds and get down to work, quickly, and immediately”. And he continues:
For, if it is really true that an ultra-human [destiny] can be distinguished ahead of us, to be attained by ultra-evolution, it is equally true that this ultra-evolution, operating henceforth in a reflective medium, can only be (at least in its most seminal and central axis) an auto- or self-evolution: in other words, it must be a consciously and passionately willed deliberate act. If the totalization of the noösphere is to be biologically successful, it cannot be simply instinctive and passive. It looks to us for an active and immediate collaboration, for a vigorous drive, based on conviction and hope. For evolution will not mark time.” 
In other words, according to Teilhard, we now must choose for the belief that mankind is evolving into the “Ultra-Human”, and act upon it. Again, Teilhard writes:
“That is the precise point upon which mankind is obliged to divide itself (as, indeed, we can see for ourselves it is actually doing) into two irreconcilably conflicting blocs. And, we can confidently predict, only that portion of mankind which has made the correct choice will survive—and super-live.”
Teilhard here makes an extraordinary proclamation, deserving of our most profound reflection. He flatly states that mankind is dividing itself into “two irreconcilably conflicting blocs”. Clearly, he is here contrasting those who agree to participate in his evolutionary agenda towards the Ultra-Human, with those who refuse. And also, clearly, anyone who believes according to the traditional Catholic Faith in a truly Supernatural God falls under the second category, and must be numbered among those who cannot survive.

Why is this so? It is because traditional Catholicism embodies that “static” and “rigid” presence in this world which clings to the notion that human fulfillment lies not in man’s evolutionary transformation into some future Ultra-human state, but rather in the fundamental act of faith by which he surrenders his mind and will to a God of infinite Truth and Love Who has fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. This places all faithful Catholics in the category of those who refuse to “move” and “act” in cooperation with Teilhard’s evolutionary mandate.
The “need to act now”, according to Teilhard, is absolutely imperative because of:
the duty and clearly-defined hope of gaining control (and so making use) of the fundamental driving forces of evolution. And with this, the urgent need for a generalized eugenics (radical no less than individual) directed, beyond all concern with economic or nutritional problems, towards a biological maturing of the human type and of the biosphere. Simultaneously, too, the necessity of drawing up as soon as possible the main lines of a spiritual energetics devoted to the study of the conditions under which the human zest for auto-evolution and ultra-evolution – which at the moment is dissipated in any number of different forms of faith and love – may be in a position to form a compact group [all of whom, we may presume, are One-World Teilhardian evolutionists], to safeguard itself and to intensify – to meet the requirements, and through the influence of, the new regime we have just entered: that of a world in a reflective state of self-transformation.”
As is the case with all such utopian programs (Gnosticism, Communism, etc.) which promote man’s becoming over God’s Being, this new regime will be in the hands of an elite. Teilhard writes:
It is a matter of bringing together a large number of minds that are sufficiently open and in tune with influences of the cosmic order to perceive, record and amplify [through eugenics] a movement of the noosphere in relation to itself. Such an enterprise, it is evident, can profitably be undertaken only after a very considerable preliminary work of discussion and tentative inquiry conducted by physicists and biologists.

But such eugenics will not confine itself merely to those such as traditional Catholics who refuse to cooperate with Teilhard’s evolutionary “vision”. It will also be applied to those peoples and races who are deemed to be “unprogressive”. Again, from Teilhard:
Now eugenics does not confine itself to a simple control of births. All sorts of related questions, scarcely yet raised despite their urgency, are attached to it. What fundamental attitude, for example should the advancing wing of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? [We do well here to pause, and consider what Teilhard’s view of the “indigenous” peoples of the Amazon would have been]. The earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects? Something profoundly true and beautiful (I mean faith in the irreplaceable value and unpredictable resources contained in each personal unit) is evidently concealed in persistent sacrifice to save a human existence. But should not this solicitude of man for his individual neighbor be balanced by a higher passion, born of the faith in that other higher personality that is to be expected, as we shall see, from the world-wide achievements of our evolution? To what extent should not the development of the strong (to the extent that we can define this quality) take precedence over the preservation of the weak? How can we reconcile, in a state of maximum efficiency, the care lavished on the wounded with the more urgent necessities of battle? In what does true charity consist?” (Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy, p.131-132).

We must realize, therefore, that while the coming Synod is being held under the ostensible theme and purpose of an “Integral Ecology” which will be inclusive towards the Amazon peoples (and inculterating many of their beliefs and forms of worship), the ultimate purpose of this “inclusiveness” (from the perspective of a Teilhardian agenda), lies not in any sort of ultimate respect for their traditions and beliefs (or even the value of their personal lives – they will be considered expendable after having performed their role in cosmogenesis). Rather, they and their diversified cultures are being employed in creating that “heat” and “pressure” ofconvergence of all peoples on the earth which will break down all rigid and static states of consciousness (especially traditional Catholicism), and thus accomplish the liberation of human consciousness necessary for the evolutionary leap by way of “forced convergence” into “human totalization”. It would certainly seem that the indigenous people of the Amazon would have to be considered among the most “unprogressive” peoples in the world, and therefore scheduled ultimately to be among those who will not survive.

In our article The Third Sorrowful Mystery: The Crowning with Thorns, we carefully detailed the extraordinary extent to which Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have embraced Teilhardian evolutionary theology. This does not at all entail the necessity that they have also embraced the program of eugenics detailed above. It is only necessary that such leaders of the Church have their fingers in the pie, in order for them to become profoundly effective tools in the hands of the enemy. The term “useful idiots” has been attributed to Vladimir Lenin in his characterization of those who, while they would certainly have rejected the hidden viciousness behind Communist idealism, yet became fellow travelers through the seduction of other attractive words and concepts. Such a language of seduction is now being perpetrated for the Amazonian Synod: “inclusiveness”, “mercy”, “integral ecology”, the “sacredness of creation”, etc. And beneath this language, as it is now being used, the jaws of Hell open widely.
In the future lies a new regime, employing every means conceivable towards the furthering of this Tower of Babel now being erected within the interior of modern man. It was Teilhard de Chardin’s greatest frustration that the Catholic Church was so slow to embrace this effort:
Why is it that in Rome, along with a ‘Biblical Commission’, there is no ‘Scientific Commission’ charged with pointing out to authorities the points on which Humanity will take a stand tomorrow – points, I repeat, such as: 1) the question of eugenics (aimed at the optimum rather than the maximum in reproduction, and joined to a gradual separation of sexuality from reproduction); and (2) the absolute right (which, of course, must be regulated in its ‘timing’, and in its conditions! ) to try everything right to the end – even in the matter of human biology….And while all this is going on churchmen really think that they can still satisfy the world by promenading a statue of Fatima across the continent! – This kind of thinking manifests itself here in New York too where Catholic organizations are noisily separating themselves from Trusts or Boards of charitable organizations which have agreed to associate with groups [Planned Parenthood] interested in methods of eugenics (even though these groups are just as interested in fecundity as they are in birth prevention) – O Pharisees!” (Letters from My Friend Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 1948-1955, p. 172).

The Church has not embraced such fulsome eugenics, and yet Teilhard would now be deeply pleased. If the Amazon Synod comes to its planned fruition, the Church will have much more than its fingers in the pie. It will be knee-deep in those deceptions necessary for it to be considered inconsequential by the rest of the world, and thus to have been “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2: 7).
Finally, we must also note that it is the opinion of many who consider themselves faithful Catholics that the crisis we now face is the temporary fruit of many priests who attended seminaries during the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, and who are now in prominent positions in the Church hierarchy. It is their further contention that this situation is changing, and that we now have more “conservative” priests emerging from current seminary training. It is such a view that allows these persons to convince themselves that all of this will pass, and that they can go about their business as usual.

But it is also true that the dialectical spirit of Antichrist always entails a swinging back and forth between “liberal” and “conservative”, and that such “swings” towards conservativism almost always prove deceptive (just as they do in the political realm) in the face of the unrelenting engine of modern progression towards the anti-Gospel and the Antichrist. Most significant is the fact that so many of these new priests have succumbed in one way or another to evolutionary theory in regard to man’s origins. They stand therefore at the very beginning of their priesthood – weak-kneed, and having already capitulated to reductive science – over an abyss of coming seduction and “pressure” (especially as encapsulated in Pope Francis’ oft-repeated mantra that ‘Time is greater than Space’) which it will be almost impossible for them to resist over the coming years of their priesthood. The depths of mind and heart necessary to resist such pressure can only be established upon complete rejection of all evolutionary theory. And the grace of this conviction and fortitude awaits them in the “space” of the Immaculate Heart of their Mother.
All that we have written above has only one purpose: to bring all faithful Catholics to a Nineveh-like awareness of what is about to descend upon us, and therefore to inspire every person to take upon themselves the passion and effort to act upon what is contained in our Original Proposal.

Hidden beneaththe broken-wings of Time,A Mother’s Heart WaitsAnd Whispers in Triumph
Please spread the word about the Rosary!

Fred Martinez at 3:15 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The Okie Traditionalist

The Culture War against European American, Conservative Christian, Catholic, and Masculine Men. Part Two (of Two)Posted: 20 Jul 2019 11:01 PM PDTIntroduction:

See Part One of “The Culture War Against European American, Conservative Christian, Catholic, and Masculine Men”  HERE.

In this second of two blog posts on the subject, I conclude by discussing the culture war against men, specifically those who are red-blooded, undoubtably masculine and heterosexual men, especially such religiously conservative men, in particular that of the orthodox, Catholic, Christian faith.

If you are reading this, odds are high you fall into several or most of those categories of reverse-bigotry as listed in the title.  You may be a conservative Catholic woman.  Or more a “traditionalist.”

You may or may not be of European decent.   But you experience the assault of the Secularist Left against those who believe in traditional, biblical morality, and the religion of Jesus Christ.

But there is a special kind of warfare being waged specifically against men, and we know the source of this attack as Feminism.   As I will try and elucidate, Feminism’s ultimate aim is the destruction of the Church and Christian society, by destroying traditional marriage and the family.

As a Preface, the Church traditionally upholds the sacred dignity of womanhood, femininity, the female gender, the place of women in the home, public society, and the Church.  The Church advocates for the rights and protection of women, to prevent their sexual exploitation, uphold their civic rights, their place in public leadership, their unique qualities imparted specifically to them by virtue of their gender.  

The only theoretically true kind of feminism is one rooted in God’s Revelation about how men and women are created with differences to compliment each other, how women are spiritually equal to men, and how the integrity of the family as the basis of public society is just as guaranteed by the unique gifts of mothers and wives, as it is by the unique gifts of fathers and husbands.

True Masculinity:

I think it is a mistake of those on the Right to portray what masculinity really is or should be in the same way that those on the Left do in a pejorative way.   The Left portrays masculinity as barbarism.  The masculine man to them is authoritarian (vs authoritative), brutish, and overly physical.

A true man does not have to be large, tall, muscular, very physically fit, very confident with high self-esteem.   A true man to be as such does not have to make an American middle-class salary,
or have such ambitious habits that would secure him that level of material security.  None of those things are bad, but they do not make a man masculine, or a fully developed male, husband, or father.  

God designed a natural cosmos, with definite chemical and biological natures, with human beings being imparted a soul and two genders, with maleness and masculinity being divinely drafted by the laws of nature, by biological laws.

Real masculinity in a man acts in respect of his physical and psychological constitution.  Men are designed more for physical labor, guarding and protecting, leading and governing, for the daily mental strain of dealing with public conflicts and hardships, and for looking far into future to plan for the family and other social institutions.  

A real man simply then is one who brings home the main income to support his family, to protect the home from potential invaders and social threats, to oversee order and stability in daily home life, and ultimately to sacrifice himself like Christ the High Priest for the faith and morals, for the salvation, of his wife and children.

The Culture War on Christian Masculinity:

I think this specific attack is so complex, to try and unravel and categorize its sub-errors would be like opening the gates to hell, looking down into hell, and trying to rationally describe the chaos of absolute evil.  I don’t even think God wastes time categorizing all the details of that eternal void.

There is something satanic, witch-like, and diabolically evil about feminism’s attack on masculinity, because it is really an wholesale attack on that way of life that masculinity is designed by God to protect.  That is chastity, moral order, religion, marriage, family, and a Christian society.

The fact that feminism is so largely to blame for the slaughter of tens of millions of aborted babies in the US alone, since Roe vs. Wade, is an indication how evil this phenomenon is.

Feminist women today do not respect the kind of masculinity described above.  Either they expect the man to be a Type A extrovert, with six pack abs, making a six figure salary, before they would even begin to consider him worthy of marriage and a family, in which the woman is financially secure enough to stay at home raising children.  Or they expect him to be an effeminate subordinate to Type A, aggressive women.

Either kind is sort of acceptable, but not that of a simple, devout, ordinary kind of man, who is a conservative, devout Christian, making a working class sort of income.  The Average Joe Gentleman is seen as a Loser, an object of scorn.  Hence the phenomenon of men aligning (misguidedly in my opinion) with the so-called “Alt Right” or online “Manosphere.”

If you are naturally fit, extraverted, Type A type of guy, the kind of guy who dominated high school sports and later in life business and profit, then God has given you certain gifts he did not give your average man, but those gifts do not spell masculinity.  

A quiet male school teacher, or truck driver, whose wife and kids live in a1000 square foot house and rarely go out to eat, who gets out of bed every day to put in an honest days work, to come home every night to spend quality time with his kids, to lead them in the nightly rosary, that is more a true man, with true masculinity, than an egotistical, self-centered, rich, successful businessman who treats his wife and kids like a burden or trophies to show off.


Don’t look to me, some anonymous guy with one among 40,000,000 blogs on the internet.  Look to Jesus Christ, to the Saints, to the guidance of the Catholic Church founded by Our Lord.  Let Our Lord and all those male saints, like St. Joseph, by our example!

In Summary:

Liberalism, modernism, Americanism, Protestantism, etc have resulted in this cultural crisis here in the West, especially in America.  The latest Culture War carrying out those false ideologies is from the disenfranchised classes against the common majority, a reverse bigotry on the national-cultural scale, made possible by the Left.

If you are a conservative, a Christian, specifically a Catholic, even more so if your ethnic heritage is that of the Founders of this country, that is European Christians, and even more so if you are the kind of man who is masculine and oriented to the serious responsibilities of marriage and family life…then you are Enemy Number One.  I am afraid.  In all my observation.

The solution is always the same.  To follow God, to follow his Divine Law, to find that spiritual peace that the world, especially this contemporary world, can never give.

The Culture War against European American, Conservative Christian, Catholic, Masculine Men. Part One.Posted: 20 Jul 2019 10:57 PM PDTIntroduction:

I’ve been watching lately YouTube talks with Charles Coulombe by Tumbler House, which I recommend for their informative and comically down-to-earth style.  Coulombe relates a story from his youth how he merely, courteously offered his seat to a woman standing in a bus who subsequently exploded into a tirade accusing him of being a chauvinistic pig.  For offering her his seat.  He replied “Pardon me Sir.”

True Story, Okie Trad!
I myself can recall dozens of similar acts of aggression by people in society merely for showing Christian civility, for trying to be a gentleman, for practicing in difficult social and public situations moral virtue, especially that of fortitude and justice as men in particular are called to defend.

I’ve also been listening as of late to someone I recently discovered whose social thought and commentary I think is a gold mine.  That is psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson, who lays out the post-modern social crisis in America so clearly and rationally, cutting through all the PC BS.   He is very Jungian in his approach to religion, but I think a Catholic in potentia. 

  Dr. Jordan PetersonProfessor, Clinical Psychologist

I found one observation made by Peterson to be very salient and illuminating.  He explained how socialism-communism has been transformed in the West.  Whereas before the class conflict for equality was the poor waging political warfare against those classes more predestined by God with wealth and natural constitution, now it is every previously disenfranchised class of people waging war against the common majority in America.   The result, he explains, is simple, absurdist disaster.

Our multiculturalist, liberalist, politically correct culture is not only threatening the dignity of every human person and citizen in this country, but the very pillars upon which the United States of America were founded:  Christianity,  Western Civilization, biblical and natural law morality, and especially traditional marriage and the family.

Let’s be factual.  Those disenfranchised social classes, as our public school system and Hollywood teaches, are African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Women, Liberals, Agnostics, Atheists, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transgender individuals.

For the sake of discussion, I won’t dispute that.  It’s not being politically incorrect (if that were even a social sin) to restate what our social and educational system is putting out there for us to consume en masse and believe.

And by logical extension, who then is Enemy Number One?   It is a simple deduction and observable fact that the categories inversely boil down to just a few.  And if fate should have put you in all of these categories at once, then God help you, you are now practically the new Oppressed Class.

European Americans – Conservatives – Christians – Catholics in particular – And Masculine, Heterosexual Men.  

  A European American, Conservative,Catholic Christian, and Heterosexual Man
This Culture War from the Left against Americans who fit into most or all of these categories needs to be discussed from a traditional Catholic perspective.  

The Culture War Against European Americans:

The obvious root is Americanism and Protestantism.  By the later part of the 20th Century, our European roots have become largely vilified, discarded, and forgotten.  Irish, German, Italian, and otherwise European American ethnic neighborhoods and communities have almost vanished.  Here in Tulsa, the Irish American and German American Society are mainly maintained by senior citizens, whereas the younger generations merely enjoy the beer and polka music one day a year.   

Unless by all appearance your ancestors come more from south of the equator–South America, Africa, Asia–it is assumed they originate north of the equator, i.e. Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Russia.  It is a historical fact against which the Culture War wages that traditional Christianity and Christian civilization was spread from the latter, whereas the former were on the receiving end.

If by any appearance you should look Irish or German or Italian, for example, your average politically correct liberal reflexively and instinctively has been brainwashed into looking and reacting to you with suspicion.  Especially should you exhibit anything remotely close to that level of culture, morality, civility, or etiquette exemplified in traditional, Christian, European culture.

I am thinking of my Bavarian, German, High Lutheran mother, who has lived in Oklahoma for over fifty years, who finds burping in public an offense to others.   

Solutions?   There are very good traditional Catholic responses to this particular attack.  Catholic ethnic associations.  Just as an example, every year the Society of St. Pius X encourages those who live in or near St. Mary’s, Kansas, home to 2-3K traditional Catholics, to come together in ethnic groups to share their Catholic, national heritage at the October Christ the King Festival.  Dozens of tables offer traditional foods, music, displays, information, and discussion about the Catholic history of their ancestors’ country, many from Europe, but also from those “south of the equator.”

I think the solution is to research, be proud of, and immerse yourself in your Catholic, ethnic heritage, to befriend those like yourself, to join ethnic associations.  If for example you are an Irish American, don’t be afraid to show your “Irish.”  Whereas the northern European Prots have calumnized us Irish Americans as hot-tempered, depressed, and lazy, be passionate, poetic, of the heart, and hard-working.  As Irish Americans were in decades past.

 The Culture War Against Conservatives:

This is obviously felt by social conservatives on the West and East Coast, and in strongly Democratic, socialistic states.  But this culture war is everywhere, including those states that “bleed red.”  In Oklahoma City, liberal Democrats (and some Republicans who are, truth be told, practical liberals) fight the social conservatism at least officially promoted by the Republican Party.  

But social liberalism is de facto the cultural norm even here in Tulsa, what I call the very “buckle” of the “bible belt.”  I think most here are okay with premarital sex, use of porn, intoxication, divorce, unlimited divorce, staying home from church on Sunday, piercings and tattoos of any sort, and whatever rough-neck lifestyle suits your fancy.  The Bible is relative to interpretation.  The state association of educators is known for advocating for “abortion rights,” transgenderism, multiculturalism, etc, etc.  The same association largely responsible for our public school system, ranked 48th in the nation!

Liberalism is the new social system everywhere, even in rural, central USA.  

Solution?   Promote the Republican party?  No.  Work to elect and support socially conservative politicians whose track record strongly suggests they will defend the sanctity of human life, the family, small business, local communities, and individual natural rights.

The temptation will be to set to the periphery traditional Catholic, magisterial, social teaching on these subjects, but to instead embrace as if it is a religion in itself the ideology of conservatism, or American conservatism.  

I strongly believe the key is the return to the study and implementation of the traditional Papal Magisterium which taught against liberalism and modernism.  And to consider the Popes’ solutions.  Solutions like the Social Kingship of Christ, a specific doctrine that requires Christ and the Church to be directly at the center of government and public life.  The result would be the death of liberalism, but not the rise of another false Christ in a fascist, dictatorial kind of conservative ideology.  Which are a dime a dozen.

But in Catholic Christianity itself.   That is the religion instituted by Christ Himself.

The Culture War Against Christians:

Here I am thinking of those that truly believe Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  Who without question profess the biblical morality commanded in the Old and New Testament.  That is, by and large, orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.

It is not hard to figure out that said coworker is, or likely is, a socially conservative Christian.  Or if you are one of those, for your co-workers to detect your faith and morals.  The subtle conflict is as diabolical as it is obtusely moronic.    By your very identity, you are a threat.  Even if you are as peaceful as a dove, as docile as St. Francis of Assisi, as compassionate as Mother Teresa.  Because you believe in objective moral truth, and the right to evaluate or judge with moral certitude the objective behavior of individuals or society itself, you are a mortal threat to the group dynamic.

I’ve thought about this.  The secularist liberal who despises the socially conservative Catholic or Protestant only pretends that the existence of the religiously conservative in their presence is a threat to their physical and psychological well-being.  They act as if your very existence itself proves that you will one day inflict upon them in your judgment psychological or even physical trauma.

It is a childish tactic.

Simply put, like Lucifer himself, the committed liberalist is desperately afraid of humility.  They are diabolically opposed to the spiritual order whereby they must submit to the commandments of God as written on the human heart.   The secularist is in a state of turmoil and rebellion.   In reality they are oppressed by demons, and under the trance of the dark side.   

Solution?   Follow the ten commandments and the beatitudes of Christ.  That is the Old Law fulfilled in the New Law.  If the teachings of Christ were hard for the Pharisees of the first century to hear, it is exponentially harder but more meritorious for us to listen to His infinite, divine words of wisdom.  Designed to set our hearts free and give us internal peace.

I myself am more and more coming to terms with the hard fact that this current environment can in no way give external, psychological peace.  I must accept that there will be daily mental agonies to endure at the hand of our persecutors.   That it is only after long practice of the science of prayer, penance, and almsgiving, in order to become detached, that I could even remotely achieve that interior, spiritual peace that sets yourself only on God.




Saturday Morning Musings: Bishop Gracida, Oklahoma Summer Heat, Minivacation, Blue HolePosted: 20 Jul 2019 05:26 PM PDTGood morning fellow Okie Trads and Beyond.  I’m perched at the end of my couch this fine Saturday morning giving my “Saturday morning musings” as I’ve been calling them.  Thoughts circulating this week in my mind.

Bishop Gracida:

Bishop Gracida, retired bishop of Corpus Christi, it seems follows yours truly.  I interviewed him a while back here about his proposal that the Cardinals evaluate the canonical legitimacy of the current pontificate.  Discussed here.  Some time back he remarked I reminded him of a contemporary Will Rogers which I found flattering.

His blog is one of the tiny few I check in on now and then, from my own little corner of the Traditional Catholic Blogosphere.  It seems he has made my own comment moderation approach his own, quoting me here.  Kudos good bishop.  By the way, he celebrates daily the Traditonal Latin Mass!  Probably the most traditional diocesan bishop in the world!!

Hey, I like You Okie Trad!

Oklahoma Summer Heat:

Heat advisories being issued here in Oklahoma this week.  One day I hear tell the heat index got up to 110 degrees F.  I sure did feel it, getting in and out of my car throughout the day as I need to do for work.  There was a spell yesterday when I had to be outside in the purgatorial heat for about 15 minutes around 2pm and it sucked the life out of me.  But I figure I am making up for my missed past opportunities for penance.  

There is a spiritual rule expressed in places that if one owes a large amount of “temporal punishment due to sin” that they can pay that debt even in a short amount of time when dealt heavy suffering, and when offered with humility.  

That will be my endeavor these next weeks ahead as I pass through this southern heat and humidity, this mental marathon until September or October.

July and August in OklahomaOur Penance


PTO has been saved up, and we are taking a mini-vacation next week from Wednesday through Sunday, to St. Louis, MO, then St. Mary’s, KS.  The tentative itinerary is leave Wed at 3am, arrive at 
the “Gateway to the West” at 9am, have breakfast at Union Station, settle into a hotel, see a church, tour the Anheiser-Busch factory, and have dinner at the Old Spaghetti Factory.  Thurs. Mass at the SSPX priory, go to the free city zoo, lunch, then go to the top of the Arch, see some more churches, then eat at this gourmet restaurant someone highly recommended.

Fri. morning Mass again at the SSPX, leave 9ish, arrive in St. Mary’s by 3pm, settle into a nearby hotel, evening Mass if they have it, that or Vespers, meet a friend for dinner.  Sat. will be Mass, go to one or two of the Divine Offices chanted by the Society Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters, visit a friend or two, stay out of the heat, then come back to Tulsa first thing Sunday morning after the High Mass.   Trying to convince the wife to visit one “Pope Michael” in Topeka on the way back, as I interviewed him here before as well.  Uniquely unique man, but edifying.  He’s actually emailed me before about info in my blog posts, so I have another very interesting reader to reach out to from my laptop!

Society of St. Pius X Building New Church in St. Mary’s (VIDEO)

Will make a blog post with pics and commentary of our trip!  

Blue Hole:

Well, it’s going to be hot again today I expect so I’m hitting the road now.  To get to Blue Hole early for a swim, picnic, and country drive back.  I love Blue Hole!

Lastly, I am planning a post about the “Attack on European American, Conservative, Catholic, Christian, Masculine Men” by the ‘”Culture War.”  A diabolical attack ultimately in the end on traditional marriage, the family, and Christian society.   Hope to write it this weekend!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


This hypothesis (that Francis’ manifest heresy is the basis for asserting the

invalidity of his claim to be Pope) is cut off entirely by the text and manifest

intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in His Apostolic Constitution, Universi

Dominici Gregis.

Heresy is a symptom, but not a cause of the invalid papacy.  Noncompliance

with Universi Dominici Gregis is the sole reason and cause for the nullity of the

Bergoglian papacy.  See, for example, ¶76 & ¶81 of Universi Dominici Gregis

and the Promulgation Clause at the end of Universi Dominici Gregis.  In other

words, the idea of overthrowing a bad Pope is extremely problematic.  Who

says a Pope is a heretic?  Who has the authority to say so?  Canon 333–§3 states:

“No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

So, even if what Saint Robert Bellarmine says is true, how does that work out?

How could it be that the College of Bishops would even have a unanimous opinion

about this?  In contrast, valid Cardinals need only meet, and if they compose a

majority of those cardinals not appointed by putatively invalid Pope, simply

enforce Universi Dominici Gregis by declaring the nullity in the context of also

declaring the violations of Universi Dominici Gregis which caused the nullity,

and then declaring an ongoing Interregnum and the reassembly of the

Conclave suchwise that they can thus elect a valid Pope.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Dear Bishop,

I wish to comment on your Open Letter to the Cardinals of the Church :

The above Open Letter is absolutely brilliant!  However, I would like to address the position that Robert Siscoe and John Salza, the Authors of “True or False Pope”, hold concerning the occupant of the Chair of Peter.  There is a full chapter in their book on what they call Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of a Pope.  This principle, I believe, is more properly expressed as the “Consensus fidelium” (the Consent of the Faithful).  Without going into a theological explanation, what this principle (Universal and Peaceful Acceptance) means is that when a particular individual has been elected as Pope it is an infallible Dogmatic Fact that he IS the true Pope.  And Siscoe and Sulza go on to show (correctly, based on the constant teaching of theologians) that any errors, illegalities, or improprieties are HEALED, and therefore that individual who was elected is indeed a true Pope. 

Most people have a very strong position that Francis is Pope due to the fact that an Infallible Dogmatic Fact arises when a Cardinal is validly elected as a Successor of Peter. The book by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope?, has been hailed as a powerful source for that position, given their treatment on Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of a Pope. However, I have challenged that position precisely because there is apostasy within the Church. Below is a brief resume of my position wherein I show how, in theological terminology, there cannot be a true Unanimous Consensus fidelium concerning the election of Francis.

Without going into theological detail, I have argued with Mr. Siscoe, advancing quotes in support of my position from the renowned theologian Canonist Canon Herve, that given the Apostasy WITHIN the Church today, (which was foretold by Our Lady at Fatima and indeed is part of the Third Secret of Fatima per Cardinal Ciappi, Papal Theologian to Pope John Paul II, when he said that “The apostasy in the Church begins at the top”), there CAN BE NO TRUE UNANIMITY, I.E., UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE.  In other words, there is no way that those who call themselves Catholic, who are officially in positions of authority on all levels of the Church, who themselves live and support immoral lifestyles can elicit a true “Consensus fidelium”!!!  And hence there can be no infallible assurance that just because there is a majority of Catholics who “vote”, as it were, for Francis proves that he is infallibly the Pope. 

Furthermore, St. Pius X states in his Encyclical on Modernism:  “And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to the synthesis of all heresies.  Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done.  Nay, they have gone further than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the DESTRUCTION NOT OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION ALONE, BUT OF ALL RELIGION.”  

Since that Encyclical how many modernists have entered the Church, are today running the Church and are bereft of “ALL RELIGION”?  I don’t know how Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza can argue that there is truly a “Consensus fidelium” and thus that we have the assurance that Francis is the true Pope.  In fact, they argue that to deny that Francis is the true Pope is a sin against the Faith.  And this is why I personally believe that Benedict, whose renunciation actually indicates that he intended to maintain the Petrine Office, is the true Pope and remains the true Pope until he dies.

– A Catholic Priest

July 20, 2019

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

German relief agencies financing Amazon Synod, predict ‘unmistakable’ change in Church. They cannot destroy the Church but they can deform it so that it will not be recognizable any longer as the Roman Catholic Church

Diane Montagna
Fri Jul 19, 2019 – 8:13 am EST

German relief agencies financing Amazon Synod, predict ‘unmistakable’ change in Church

ROME, July 19, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The chief executives of two German Church aid agencies, which have been funding the Amazon Synod preparations, have said the meeting will be “an unmistakable signal of departure” for the Church and a means of decentralizing Church governance away from Rome.

Much of the agency funding for the synod has passed through a Church network called REPAM set up specifically to prepare for the Synod, whose Brazilian director is Austrian Bishop Erwin Kräutler of the Territorial Prelature of Xingu in Brazil. Bishop Kräutler is advocating ordination of married men and women deacons at the synod, and has expressed support for women priests in the past.

According to a July 19 report by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, Father Michael Heinz and Pirmin Spiegel of Adveniat and Misereor said the upcoming meeting “will show that change is possible in politics, the economy, technology and, last but not least, in the Church.”

Adveniat and Misereor are respectively the German bishops’ relief agency for Latin America and the bishops’ overseas aid and development agency.

In a July 17 joint foreword to the German translation of the synod’s working document (instrumentum laboris), Spiegel and Heinz said the synod is “about responding to the challenges of the times by listening to the Spirit who demands the lives of men, peoples and creation as a whole be defended.”

They also said the working document calls for “a profound change in the Church” and that “what will be discussed in Rome will have significance for the Church worldwide.”

The two chief executives also said the document advocates decentralisation of Church governance “in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity” and consistent with Pope Francis’s 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

Adveniat’s president is Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck of Essen who said earlier this year that the synod will lead the Church to a “point of no return,” and, thereafter, “nothing will be the same as it was.”

The working document for the Oct. 6-27 synod, whose theme is “Amazonia: New Paths for the Church and for an Integral Ecology,” has sparked controversy with German Cardinals Gerhard Müller and Walter Brandmüller denouncing it as “heretical” and one of them saying it represents an “apostasy.”

Particular areas of controversy in the synod working document include a proposal to ordain married men, a push to establish an “official ministry” for women, and a description of the Amazon as a “source of God’s revelation.” Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has called the latter a “false teaching.”

Misereor and Adveniat helped found REPAM, which stands for the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network. Set up in 2014, three years ahead of Pope Francis’s announcement of the Synod, its official aim has been to “bring to the world’s attention the fragile situation of indigenous people in the Amazon and the critical importance of the Amazon biome to the planet — our common home.”

According to Cardinal Müller, the body was “tasked with the preparation” of the working document, adding it “was founded for that very reason in 2014.” The Vatican also signalled in comments to the Register that REPAM’s purpose was to help draft both the preparatory and working documents for the October synod.

REPAM and key figures from the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Synod were behind the private pre-synod “study-meeting” held in Rome last month, whose final report included a push for married priests and a reconsideration of the female diaconate. Cardinal Walter Kasper, Bishop Kräutler, and Bishop Overbeck also participated in the private meeting.

Cardinal Müller has described REPAM as a “closed group” made up of “absolutely like-minded people, as can easily be gleaned from the list of participants at pre-synodal meetings in Washington and Rome, and it includes a disproportionately large number of mostly German-speaking Europeans.”

Edward Pentin reports that Adveniat has supported several REPAM projects to the tune of $307,000 last year alone and the agency has an annual income of $56 million. He also reports a Misereor spokesman saying that although it is not funding the Synod, it has helped the funding of projects from “partner organizations” of REPAM. Last year, the agency had a total income of €232 million ($260 million), Pentin reported.

The Register contacted Cardinal Claudio Hummes, general relator of the Synod and REPAM’s president, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, and Caritas Internationalis about sources of funding for the synod and REPAM, but none of them responded.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments


Catholic Monitor
Saturday, July 20, 2019
Washington Post: Most Mexicans Oppose Francis’s Illegal Immigration Mania
The Washington Post reported:

“More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country… A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.”
(Washington Post, “Unauthorized immigration faces public backlash in Mexico,” July 17, 2019)

It looks like Mexico might be the next country to follow Italy in rejecting Francis’s mania for the chaos of open borders and illegal immigration.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of Mexico to its noble Catholic Cristero roots which raged war against the ignominious Masonic-Socialist overlords who were and are destroying the great country.
Fred Martinez at 11:07 AM

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Interview with Fr. Onoda in Japan

MAY 03, 2017

Rev. Fr. Thomas Onoda
In a wide-ranging interview, Fr. Thomas Onoda speaks of his conversion, mission, and the historical and current challenges of Catholicism in Japan. Father, thank you for accepting to answer our questions. Would you mind introducing yourself?

Fr. Onoda: I am a Japanese Catholic priest belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), ordained priest by His Excellency Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta at Ecône in 1993. Since my ordination until now, I have been assigned to Manila, Philippines, attending to missions in Japan and Korea. Have you always been Catholic?

Fr. Onoda: No, I haven’t. I am a convert. By the grace of God, I received the grace of Baptism on Christmas Day 1980 while a high school student. Instead of public school, my parents preferred to send me to a private Catholic Mission School to study, where we were taught the existence of God, the Ten Commandments, etc.

I was very much intrigued about this subject and wanted to learn more about it. After years of reading, research, and prayers, I came to the conclusion that God exists and created all things; that Jesus Christ is the true God, who became true man; that this God-man established His Church; and that without being baptized in the Catholic Church, I cannot go to Heaven.

So I asked my Catholic classmate to take me to church on Christmas Day in 1979, and after the midnight Mass, I asked the parish priest, Fr. Joseph Marie Jacq, M.E.P. for the sacrament of Baptism.

He then, said to me “No.” He asked me to come church to attend catechism class followed by the Rosary every Saturday, and to attend the Mass on Sundays at least for one year, if I want to be baptized. I obeyed. How did you discover your vocation? How did make your way to a SSPX seminary?

Fr. Onoda: It happened that Fr. Joseph Marie Jacq was one of the most conservative priests, I would say, in all of Japan. I discovered this fact later. He says the Mass, though Novus Ordo, with the first Eucharistic Prayer (i.e. Roman Canon) without omission, with his fingers joined after the consecration. He gives Holy Communion on the tongue of the kneeling faithful. He promotes the Holy Rosary ardently. He was the “problem” (as they say) of the diocese and was accused of being a “Lefebvrist.” I asked co-parishioners, then, who Archbishop Lefebvre was, but nobody answered me.

A few month later after my baptism, he was asked not to function as parish priest anymore and he left his position after having kept it for 30 years. Then, a new Japanese priest came and he changed everything. Fr Joseph would be sent back to France later.

The new priest even persecuted the old-timers. I started to become aware of the crisis in the Church. Meanwhile, while studying in Tokyo as university student, Divine Providence allowed me to discover the Traditional Latin Mass. When I wrote to Fr Joseph about my vocation, he strongly recommended me to go to Ecône. I followed his advice.

I was blessed to meet Fr. Frank Peek and Fr. Eric Simonot, who were sent to Japan while I was still there. I am also very grateful to Fr. Franz Schmidtberger for allowing me to enter Flavigny [Ed: The SSPX Seminary in France]. Did you have a cultural shock arriving in Europe to attend seminary?

Fr. Onoda: I did not have cultural shock arriving in Europe. I do not remember any until I came to the Philippines.

In Europe I felt at home because I could attend the Traditional Latin Mass daily. I was so happy. My stay in the seminaries, Flavigny and Ecône, is full of good memories, joy, and happiness.

I would like to say, however, that it was not cultural shock, but the unforgettable impression of the beauty of the sung Matins of Christmas in Flavigny in 1987 that most struck me. I was very much edified by the sung Divine Office. I admired the beauty of the tiny medieval village of Flavigny where we see a village church and two monasteries which many monks and seminarians are still using.

My challenge at first was the language, but thanks to very kind help of seminarians, I could overcome it. I remember, when I came back home after ordination, when asked to do something by my dad, I said automatically in French: “D’accord!”

Rev. Frs. Onoda, Stehlin and Laisney with the holy martyrs of Nagasaki What about your apostolate in Japan since your ordination?

Fr. Onoda: Since my ordination I was assigned to Manila, Philippines, whence I go to Japan for mission every month. But also, I translate Catholic literature into Japanese: the Archbishop’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics, sermons of our founder, official letters of the SSPX, and finally important papal encyclicals such as Quanta Cura, Pacendi, Quas Primas, Humani Generis, etc.

Thanks to the Internet, it has become easier to deliver information. I shifted from printing and sending by post monthly paper newsletter into sending electronic newsletters and using websites.

As of March 2017, we have two Mass centers in Japan: Tokyo and Osaka. Tokyo has had two Sunday Masses a month since 2016, and Osaka, one Sunday evening Mass, thanks to the indefatigable work of Fr. François Laisney. With the grace of God and the generosity of our faithful, we started to rent a permanent chapel in Osaka last May 2016, dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Thanks to Fr. Karl Stehlin, in August 2016, we organized a Montfortan retreat in Osaka for 31 retreatants. In August 2015, we gave an Ignatian retreat in which 26 retreatants participated.

Every year in May, from 2006, we make an annual pilgrimage to Akita. Around 50 to 60 pilgrims come to pray. In the past, the late Mr. John Vennari (Catholic Family News) and Mr. Christopher Ferrara (The Remnant), also joined us.

In 2016, we had six baptisms: three adults and two babies and a child. Right now, there are two postulants for female religious vocations from Japan: one for the SSPX Oblate sisters and another for the Sisters of the SSPX. We also have a Dominican lay brother from Japan in the Avrillé (France). What were the historic difficulties a Japanese person faced when wanting to convert?

Fr. Onoda: When St. Francis Xavier came to Japan to bring us the Light of Gospel, thousands of Japanese embraced the faith enthusiastically. There were public debates between Buddhist monks and Catholic catechists. Even former Buddhist monks became Catholic, as well as feudal lords and nobles.

They learned about the immortality and uniqueness of each soul rather than reincarnation. They understood the importance of accepting the suffering as our own cross rather than to try to avoid it as Buddhism teaches. They learned that there is a higher Lord of Lords, above their earthly feudal lords, Who gives all and loves us, to Whom we owe absolute allegiance.

In the ceremony of tea, which has developed greatly during the 16th century, we can see how these local Japanese appreciated the Christian ideas of humility, charity, service, sincerity, etc.

11 years later after the arrival of St. Francis Xavier, then Shogun, Yoshiteru Ashikaga gave a permit of evangelization in 1560. Nobunaga Oda, then leader of Japan, donated a good place to the Jesuits for their seminary, which opened in 1580. The difficulties were started by a proud man called Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Oda’s successor. Though Hideyashi welcomed warmly the official visit of the Jesuits and Christian warriors at his Palace in Osaka, in 1586, all of sudden, he banned Christianity, most likely influenced by his adviser Buddist monk Seyakuin. But this ban was only ordered; it wasn’t enforced at first. However, it was not cancelled officially, and so it was used 10 years later to confiscate the wealth of a Spanish trading ship which had shipwrecked on the Japanese seashore. In order to legalize this confiscation, the only way was use the earlier ban. Are there new obstacles for the conversion to Catholic Faith today? I read that the virtual life of young Japanese was so prevalent that they do not even have human relations and intercourse between them. They are too busy and satisfied with their electronic devices. Is that true?

Fr. Onoda: Yes, I think so. Today’s obstacles for conversion are still the historical prejudice against the Christian Faith (they think that Christianity is not for Japan); Japan’s social atmosphere; prejudice against religion in general because there are so many sects, etc.

The mass media makes reports on very particular cases of young people in Japan who are so taken to the virtual life, too busy and satisfied with their devices, but I do not believe that is common.

I believe, however, the new main obstacle for the Catholic Faith today is the situation of the Catholic Church itself following Vatican II. If the Church no longer has a missionary spirit, if she tells that any religions can save souls, if she gives importance to the construction of earthly paradise, why does anyone need to become Catholic? How many Catholics are in Japan today? Are the reforms of Vatican II affecting the faith and morals of Japanese Catholics?

Fr. Onoda: According to the statistics, there are approximately 500,000 Catholics in Japan, which has population of 127 million. That is only 0.4 per cent of the entire population.

It was only after World War II that the Catholic Church was officially recognized by the state. Before that it was only tolerated. Immediately after the World War II, there was a boom in conversions to the Catholic Faith, with thousands of adult baptisms. However, the growth stopped suddenly after Vatican II. The Church in Japan witnessed the secularization and laicization of many priests and religious. They saw churches built in a modern style along with the spread of the Novus Ordo Missae. The application of the conciliar reforms appear to have halted conversions. Are the Japanese Martyrs a source of inspiration and hope for the Catholics in Japan?

Fr. Onoda: Yes. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity. They are interceding for us from Heaven.

Follow Jesus Christ—Jesus Christ crucified for us; this was the desire for the martyrs in the past. Christ crucified is unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks (and Japanese, too), Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. “For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor 1:25).

In the midst of this modern world, we are invited to imitate the Catholics martyrs. When Japanese Catholics in the 17th heard about the apostasy of Fr. Cristóvão Ferreira [a Portuguese Jesuit missionary who famously committed apostasy under torture and whose life later became the basis for Shusake Endo’s work of historical fiction, Silence] , their reaction was prayers and sacrifices, i.e. reparation. Our Lady of Fatima says many souls go to hell because no one prays and offers sacrifice for them. Our reaction to the “silent apostasy” (John Paul II) in the Church today must be the same. We must heed the request of Our Lady of Fatima, with the help of grace of God.

Besides this, in our two SSPX chapels in Japan, every year in January, we make special ceremonies of reparation for the sins and blasphemies committed in the past by those in Japan who apostatized by trampling on holy images. As in Rome during Christmas time, the faithful are invited to kiss the Bambino Jesus. What is the relevance of Our Lady of Akita and Fatima for Japan?

Fr. Onoda: Fatima is a call for prayers and penance in reparation of sins through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lady of Akita had tremendous mercy towards her children of the rising Sun, repeating the message of prayers and penance in reparation of sins.

In order to atone the scandal of Fr Ferreira’s apostasy, St. Francis Xavier miraculously sent Fr. Marcello Mastrilli to Japan 400 years ago. In order to make reparation of sins of silent apostasy after Vatican II, Our Lady of Fatima was given to us. And her message was repeated in Akita:

Pray for the reparation of men’s sins. Pray much for the Pope, Bishops, Priests….I want souls who console the Lord….Together with My Son, I desire the souls who make reparation on behalf of sinners and ungrateful….Pray ardently in order to console the Lord.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment