THE FRED MARTINEZ REPORT
SEARCH
SEARCH
Words of Christ
In Adoration
June 16, 2022
“I came to earth that men might see My face and know Me,
And knowing Me, know the Father.
And when I left the earth, I sent My Spirit
So that men, walking with the Spirit, would forget Me not.
While on earth, I spoke words of truth,
Not twisted words or confusing words,
But words of clarity and precision,
So that men might embrace truth and shun error.
I did not appear to men with many faces,
For then they would have known not which one was Me.
I appeared before men with one face
That, seeing Me, they would recognize that, indeed, here was their Lord.
Therefore, why now do men seem confused?
Look, here I am, and I come not in the disguise of another,
And the words that I have spoken are clear.
So, therefore, if men speak my words and add a line here or there,
Or twist the words so that the meaning becomes another,
Then accept it not,
For it is not of Me.
Do you seek truth?
Then look here before you,
For here I am,
And here is Truth.
And Truth indeed has a face –
And it is Mine.“
In Adoration
June 16, 2022
“I came to earth that men might see My face and know Me,
And knowing Me, know the Father.
And when I left the earth, I sent My Spirit
So that men, walking with the Spirit, would forget Me not.
While on earth, I spoke words of truth,
Not twisted words or confusing words,
But words of clarity and precision,
So that men might embrace truth and shun error.
I did not appear to men with many faces,
For then they would have known not which one was Me.
I appeared before men with one face
That, seeing Me, they would recognize that, indeed, here was their Lord.
Therefore, why now do men seem confused?
Look, here I am, and I come not in the disguise of another,
And the words that I have spoken are clear.
So, therefore, if men speak my words and add a line here or there,
Or twist the words so that the meaning becomes another,
Then accept it not,
For it is not of Me.
Do you seek truth?
Then look here before you,
For here I am,
And here is Truth.
And Truth indeed has a face –
And it is Mine.“
Words of Christ
In Adoration
June 16, 2022
“I came to earth that men might see My face and know Me,
And knowing Me, know the Father.
And when I left the earth, I sent My Spirit
So that men, walking with the Spirit, would forget Me not.
While on earth, I spoke words of truth,
Not twisted words or confusing words,
But words of clarity and precision,
So that men might embrace truth and shun error.
I did not appear to men with many faces,
For then they would have known not which one was Me.
I appeared before men with one face
That, seeing Me, they would recognize that, indeed, here was their Lord.
Therefore, why now do men seem confused?
Look, here I am, and I come not in the disguise of another,
And the words that I have spoken are clear.
So, therefore, if men speak my words and add a line here or there,
Or twist the words so that the meaning becomes another,
Then accept it not,
For it is not of Me.
Do you seek truth?
Then look here before you,
For here I am,
And here is Truth.
And Truth indeed has a face –
And it is Mine.“
-S
![]() |
| FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2022Octopuses have a unique mental structure. It’s been said that each of these clever cephalopods’ eight arms has a mind of its own. But it may be more accurate to say every sucker has its own brain, Dominic Sivitilli, a behavioral neuroscientist and astrobiologist, told NOVA in 2019. Octopuses use their arms for many things—swimming, hunting, and sometimes even throwing shells at other octopuses—but how these animals control their eight limbs individually has always been mysterious. In 2019, a team of researchers set out to track how octopus arms “think” by filming captive octopuses as they explored new objects in their enclosures. With the footage in hand, the researchers used a computer algorithm to determine if the arms were working together, which would suggest central direction from the brain, or independently, which would suggest the arms were making decisions on their own. Here’s what they found: |
| NATURETHINKING IS FOR SUCKERS, BUT IF YOU’RE AN OCTOPUS, SUCKERS ARE FOR THINKING Octopuses “think” with neurons so distributed throughout their bodies that sometimes the left hand literally doesn’t know what the…left hand is doing. (from 2019) |
SEARCH
Addressing the Bifurcated Economy expandigo.com
DSP 249: Bifurcated Hand 2008-01-21 | Flickr – Photo Sharing!flickr.com
Tongue Bifurcation/Splitting/Forking – Body Piercing & Modificationlasvegasbodypiercing.weebly.com
Patrick Coffin:
So he’s already bifurcated the two in his thinking, dating back 60 years.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Precisely, I’m willing to debate this to try to get to the truth of the matter with whoever wants to debate me on this. – PCM interview of Catholic historian Edmund Mazza
In a PCM interview transcribed by The Catholic Monitor, Catholic historian Edmund Mazza explains why Pope Benedict XVI “bifurcated the [the papacy] in his thinking, dating back 60 years”:
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Not lawless like the old West, but lawless in the sense of something beyond the normal situation. In other words, the chief executive, when he invokes something like this, he’s destroying the constitution to save the constitution. It’s one of those things where you cannot in advance stipulate something. It’s a situation in place that the state, in order to continue existing, you’ve got to do something that on the face of it, seems to go against the constitution. I don’t know. I don’t know what to make of it.
In my early research on the subject, this phrase and other things led me to believe that perhaps Benedict had separated Vicar of Christ from Bishop of Rome, and maybe that’s why he still wears white and still gives apostolic blessings.
Patrick Coffin:
Feeling himself to be the former, but not the latter.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly, now what I looked up in my research is that if you look at, for example before Vatican II, between Vatican I and Vatican II If you look at dogmatic manuals of theology. I looked at about three or four of them that are solid, they all say that the majority of theologians believe Christ or Peter constructed Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome in such a way that they’re inseparable. But a minority of theologians believe, and have believed that it is possible for a Pope to separate Vicar of Christ from the Diocese of Rome and so I began to think, “Well, maybe that explains what Ganswein is talking about with the Immaculate Conception and what a tremendous thing Benedict did and why Benedict still wears white and why he still gives apostolic blessings.
But the thing is this, let’s just assume that the majority of the Church’s theologians throughout history had been correct and you cannot separate the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter from the Diocese of Rome, that they’re tied together you can never lose them.
Patrick Coffin:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Then his stipulating that he’s only gonna resign to become Bishop Emeritus or Bishop of Rome Emeritus or Pope Emeritus, would mean what? If a man becomes Bishop of Rome, what does he automatically become? Vicar of Christ. So if a man becomes Bishop of Rome Emeritus, what does he automatically become? Vicar Emeritus of Christ. Does that logically follow? And if that’s true, then not only would Benedict be claiming, the way he does claim publicly in writing, that he still has an ontological connection to the Diocese of Rome that can never be severed as Bishop Emeritus, but he would also have to claim a spiritual share of Vicarship of Christ only as the Emeritus Vicar of Christ.
Patrick Coffin:
Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
But actually this is formal error because in the 17th century during the height of the Jansenist heresy, a pope came out and said there’s only one vicar of Christ and he doesn’t share power because the Jansenists were trying to say that Paul was just as much the leader of the church as Peter was because they were both in Rome. Long story short, the church is on record as saying that you cannot share Vicar of Christ, but I would argue from my research so far to claim to be Bishop of Rome Emeritus or Pope Emeritus is to simultaneously claim to be Vicar of Christ Emeritus, and that’s a complete fiction. That’s a unicorn. It doesn’t exist. Again that would be substantial error because I argue he only resigned because he thought he was still going to be papal, he was still going to share in the shadow of Peter, so to speak.
Patrick Coffin:
And providentially, he foreshadowed all of this in his writings from the 1960’s and 70’s. We can look back and see revealed the foundation of this thinking, this minority version of identity.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Exactly.
Patrick Coffin:
Okay.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
What I hope my own contribution to this as a PhD and somebody who’s taught college for 20 years and I wrote a book on St. Raymond of Penafort, who actually codified Canon law back in 1235, and it stood until 1917. I hope my patron St. Raymond is looking out for me, but what I hope my contribution to this discussion is we’re not simply quibbling over munus versus ministerium. That is how this discussion started, but we’re way past that now. Anybody who does a deep dive into Benedict’s thinking will see here that we’re way past that. Like you said, we can go back to Vatican II and see that his ecclesiology is most likely erroneous, and if his ecclesiology is erroneous, it means that he probably committed substantial error, which means that his renunciation is probably invalid.
Patrick Coffin:
Okay, now I have a problem because I have 14 different possible follow-ups to what you just said. Maike Hickson over at Life Site News in commenting on, I believe it was the 2020 biography, where Pete Seewald says that that it’s kind of a myth that Ratzinger was sort of progressive at Vatican II, he was part of the German Rhine River Nouveau theology, the new theologians. I’ll put a link to what that means in the show notes. Congar, von Balthasar, let’s see Karl Rahner, Schillebeeckx.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Patrick Coffin:
Anything new or neo gets my attention and not in a good way.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Not in a Matrix way.
Patrick Coffin:
Right, that’s right. Ganswein’s saying, loading up all of these extraordinary and new and innovative and profound and apocalyptic. Whatever the phrases he used to show how radical this new understanding, there’s that word again, new. The idea of Ratzinger from the sixties and seventies, as progressive, then he was appointed by Paul VI as the Archbishop of Munich and that began his churchman career as a sitting Bishop. Then of course, he was brought to Rome by John Paul II as the prefect for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Then he became sort of traditionalist and fervently conservative. Seewald, if memory serves, says that’s not really true. He never really stopped being a progressive. In fact, he opposed the anti-modernist oath that was instituted. Am I misremembering? Have you heard this before?
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
I have heard this before so I don’t think you’re misremembering.
Patrick Coffin:
I’m going to put the link, just go to patrickcoffin.media. This occurred to me as you were talking.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Again to show his new Nouvelle Theologie street credit, listen to what he has to say about the teaching of Vatican II, specifically on this issue of munus and ministerium He says that the teaching of Vatican II, “Breaches the wall that separated the Middle Ages from the early church, and hence the Latin West from the Churches of the East.” Other words, Benedict by being fixated on the fact that to teach to sanctify and to govern is given at that sacred consecration or ordination, and that’s enough really, that’s the important thing, not the grant of jurisdiction that you might get.
Patrick Coffin:
Mm-hmm (Affirmative).
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
He’s trying to get back at the early church. That’s the claim of the Nouvelle Theologians. They want to get back to the early church, and this is what he says. He says, “We see the reason why future references to Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas Aquinas will no longer be meaningful in this issue.” What you talking about Willis? He’s chucking Peter Lombard, who wrote the Sentences, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas Aquinas out the window on this issue? Again, this just shows how far left of center he was.
He says, This passage, the passage from Vatican II that he’s talking about is the one I brought up before, Lumen Gentium 22, where he says, “This inconspicuous little statement that membership in the College of Bishops is attained through sacramental ordination and communion with the head and members of the College. This statement gives Episcopal Collegiality a double basis, but in such a way that these two routes are inseparably connected. The rigid, there’s that word again, rigid. The rigid juxtaposition of sacrament and jurisdiction of consecrating power and power of governance, that had existed since the Middle Ages and was one of the symptoms marking the Western separation of the churches from the East, has finally been eliminated. Our century’s liturgical and theological renewal has removed the basis for this division. We have no more right to speak of a ruling power neatly separated from the sacramental ministry than we have a right to speak of a separation between the mystical and Eucharistic body of Christ.” I rest my case.
Patrick Coffin:
So he’s already bifurcated the two in his thinking, dating back 60 years.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Precisely, I’m willing to debate this to try to get to the truth of the matter with whoever wants to debate me on this, but I think there’s a very strong case, that you could even read it in his decaratio. Let me go back to his actual English translation and the actual wording of… Did I lose it? I think I might have lost it. Oh, here I have it here.
He’s very careful in his declartio of February 11th, 2013 to never specifically renounce the munus itself. In other words, in that Latin quote that we began the show with, he says, “I’m no longer strong enough to wield the munus, practically speaking,” But he actually never renounces the munus itself. What he eventually says is, “Well aware of the seriousness of this act and with full freedom, I declare that I renounced the ministry of Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.” Now let’s look at the Latin. Bene conscious ponderis huius actus plena libertate declare me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri. Now, he used munus throughout his declartio, but at the very end in the Latin, he drops munus and inserts ministerio. Why? I think it’s plain as day. He does want to reject the active words and deeds, he’s no longer capable of that, but ontologically, he’s not rejecting the munus. As he says in his interview with Seewald and as Ganswein says in his speech, before and after his resignation, he understood and understands his current ministry as a participation in the Petrine munus. It’s why he wears white, it’s why he gives apostolic blessings, and it’s why Francesco Bergolio is now seriously thinking, rumor has it of coming out with a modal proprio, trying to either eliminate Pope Emeritus or talk about it in some legal sense, but that’s why I think this topic is especially germane to talk about right now. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/part-3-of-exclusive-transcription-is.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
The Subordinate Citizen
Americans feel that ordinary citizens like themselves
who follow the rules are treated more harshly by
their government than are both noncitizens
and our progressive elites.
By Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
June 8, 2022
I recently led a group of about 100 citizens to tour Israel for nearly two weeks. Before returning to the United States, all participants had to indicate their vaccination status and take a COVID-19 test for reentry.
Anxieties swept the group as Israeli testers swabbed them.
Anyone testing positive would have to delay his return. That quarantine would entail spending thousands of dollars in finding scarce hotel accommodations, additional living expenses, and rebooked airline tickets—depending upon the length of the mandatory sequestration.
Contrast the tens of thousands of foreign nationals now mustering to cross illegally into the United States again this summer. They follow the already 2 million who have entered the country unlawfully since Joe Biden became president.
Does any foreign national worry about being tested for COVID-19, much less fear being turned away if he tests positive or for lack of proof of vaccination?
Or do we scrutinize far more carefully U.S. citizens entering legally their own country than we do noncitizens crossing our borders unlawfully?
For that matter, the government is still determined to fire thousands of federal workers and U.S. military personnel who refused the new mRNA vaccinations. Most citizens who were not vaccinated feared that the inoculations were either possibly dangerous to their health or ineffective in preventing COVID-19 infections or would not necessarily lead to herd immunity.
Are 2 million nonvaccinated foreigners arriving unaudited from impoverished countries less of a threat during the pandemic than fully audited American citizens employed by the federal government? Why would we fire unvaccinated Americans but welcome equally unvaccinated non-citizens?
The Biden Administration blasted the Trump southern border wall and canceled all further funding.
Yet it just appropriated $40 billion to Ukraine to ensure that it does not lose its border war against Russian aggression.
That is a tiny percentage of the federal budget. But the aid is full of symbolic irony, nonetheless. The multibillion-dollar appropriation would have more than covered the completion of the entire wall along our southern border.
An outside observer might conclude that the U.S. government intends to uphold the universal idea of national sovereignty, internationally recognized borders, and the security of citizens inside their own country—as long as they are not American citizens.
There are currently over 550 “sanctuary” jurisdictions established by state and local governments. They aim to prevent federal immigration authorities from deporting illegal aliens, including tens of thousands detained by law enforcement for committing additional crimes.
The nation has not experienced such blatant nullifications of federal laws since the efforts of pre-Civil War Southern states—or the 1960s southern governors who defied federal efforts to enforce U.S. civil rights legislation.
So, can any citizens now simply vote to declare their hometown or local county immune from federal legislation?
That is, can a city or county nullify as it pleases the IRS tax code, endangered species laws, or federal gun registration legislation?
Or is nullification only permissible in the interest of non-citizens and lawbreakers?
These asymmetries also transcend noncitizens.
We have developed entire classes of American elite citizens who are not subject to the enforcement of the law—at least as it is applied to others either less influential or ideologically incorrect.
Federal prosecutors sought to jail Lt. General Michael Flynn for six months for not telling the truth to federal agents.
They put another Trump subordinate, George Papadopoulos, in jail for two weeks for lying to federal prosecutors.
Recently the FBI stormed into an airport to arrest former Trump advisor Peter Navarro for contempt of a congressional subpoena.
OK, defying federal law has consequences.
Or does it?
Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder brazenly defied congressional subpoenas and was found in contempt—an historic first.
Did the FBI ever arrest Holder, much less as he boarded an airplane?
James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, confessed he flat-out lied under oath to a congressional committee.
So did former Central Intelligence Agency chief John Brennan—twice!
Andrew McCabe repeatedly lied to federal investigators as acting director of the FBI.
Were any of them arrested or tried in the manner of Flynn, Papadopoulos, or Navarro?
If not, what then is left of the foundation of U.S. citizenship—universal equal treatment under the law?
There are lots of reasons why the looming November midterms will likely see historic levels of pushback against the Biden Administration, Democratic candidates, and the entire progressive agenda.
Take your pick of the many self-induced Biden disasters, among them hyperinflation, unaffordable gasoline, out-of-control crime, and foreign-policy humiliations.
But one reason why voters are furious is rarely expressed.
Americans feel that ordinary citizens like themselves who follow the rules are treated more harshly by their government than are both non-citizens and our progressive elites.
And they are right, and they are angry, and we will hear from them very soon.
_____________________
The Selfish Californian
The Silicon Valley motto should be
“I create inequality by hating inequality.”
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
June 12, 2022
(Emphasis added)
We hear plenty of reasons for the perfect storm that imploded California. One-party, progressive government, of course. Decades of unchecked illegal immigration, without a doubt. Years of mass flight out of the state of the productive middle classes, certainly.
But perhaps the most important, but overlooked, reason has been the infusion of trillions of dollars of mostly tech capital into the state. Unimaginable sums of market capital warped politics and led to a top-down, feudal society, run by progressive elites who are shielded from the ramifications of their toxic ideologies.
More specifically, the common denominator was the emergence in California of a selfish, monied, left-wing political class. In concrete terms, it cared little for others but masked that unconcern with abstract leftism, emulating medieval penance and indulgences to assuage guilt over its enjoyment of sheltered and very good lives.
California’s recent premier politicians at the local, state, and federal levels—Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, and Nancy Pelosi—all enjoyed wealth and power, whether by inherited money and family brand names, through marriage, or using their positions to leverage lucrative family and personal business with the Chinese.
Their lifestyles before, during, and after office-holding reflected both their privileges and the vast material differences between their own lives and the millions of Californians who suffered enormously from their utopian bromides. Yet a world away from their homes in Grass Valley, Kentfield, Lake Tahoe, Napa, Pacific Heights, or Rancho Mirage, the rest of the state’s residents who voted for them currently cannot afford a house, a full tank of gas, a chuck steak, or an air-conditioned afternoon.
At least the Church of the 15th century offered formal contractual indulgences and personal penance manuals for the guilt-ridden elite eager to abort their earned inferno-to-come. In California, however, to enjoy affluence and leisure without guilt or recriminations, left-wing power elites virtue signaled their progressivism, even as it wrecked the lives of distant others.
If it were a question of drilling more oil while transitioning to clean power or shrugging that the nobody José Martinez in Sanger would pay $6.50 a gallon to commute to work, it was a no-brainer: Mr. Martinez was simply out of sight, out of mind collateral damage.
So too all of California’s poor and lower-middle classes who could not afford to flee and now cannot afford shelter, food, fuel, and safety, due to decades of policies that zoned away new home construction, strangled the gas, timber, and mining industries, taxed and regulated gas and diesel to the point of unaffordability, neglected the needs of the state’s once rich farming industry and loved fish far more than people. Apparently, these well-educated and self-declared Socrateses believed that Californians could drink Facebook, eat Google, drive Twitter, and live on Snapchat.
The far-left Atlantic’s various contributors for years have been cheerleading most of the policies adopted by the Bay Area elite—defunding the police, decriminalizing an array of crimes, appeasing homelessness, ignoring dangerous drug use and dealing, and urging more redistributive taxation and entitlement.
But now Atlantic essayist Nellie Bowles warns us that San Francisco is a “failed city.” And she is correct in that the city is increasingly medieval. Its downtown is emptying, filthy, toxic, dangerous, and pre-civilizational—perhaps an unfair term since it was rare in pre-Roman Gaul or nomadic North Africa for tribal residents to sleep in the village pathways, fornicate and defecate openly among children, and violently attack random passersby.
In truth, the implosion of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and California more broadly is no accident. Destroying all the bounty that was inherited from far better and far-seeing generations was the logical result of deliberate policies—reflecting the self-interest of a few million rich, educated professionals. They apparently decided that their genius and superior morality had transcended worries over ancient challenges of food, water, shelter, and transportation, and received law and custom.
California’s anointed enjoyed safe neighborhoods from Malibu to Presidio Heights. They inherited or purchased beautiful coastal corridor homes worth $1,200 a square foot, from La Jolla to Berkeley. They drew income from the trillions of dollars invested in Silicon Valley and the new globalized and Asia-centric economy that opened markets of multibillions of consumers for entertainment, media, finance, law, academia, corporations, and the accompanying credential professional classes.
And so, they grew hubristic and stupid. In their arrogance and ignorance, they began to feel their bounty and leisure were birthrights. Free from worries about who brought them their water, food, safety, energy, and shelter—or how—they were liberated to institutionalize their visions of 21st-century-correct living to less fortunate others, albeit from a properly segregated distance.
Freeways were obsolete ideas. The fewer built, and the even fewer maintained, the more likely the clueless could be crowded into cost-effective, clean, and safe mass transit.
So, a $15 billion high-speed rail disaster arose and remained inert like Stonehenge monoliths. Meanwhile, thousands of the poor on the obsolete Highway 99 continued to die and were maimed in daily accidents on a Road Warrior-esque obstacle course. The nearby Amtrak trains still sat delayed on side-tracks, for want of a simple, 19th-century two-track rail. How strange that bankrupt 21st-century visions came at the cost of easy 20th-century solutions.
Aqueducts, reservoirs, dams? These were likewise relics of previous delusional generations. That the coastal corridor’s water came from aqueducts across vast distances was mostly unknown to those who crowded into one of the most naturally unsustainable regions on the North American continent—a coastal strip mostly dry and bereft of an aquifer to sustain its tens of millions.
So, the state stopped building water storage. More often, it released snowmelt and runoff water into the ocean rather than to farms and to replenish aquifers.
Fires? Let forests of evergreens burn as they had in primordial times, better to burn to provide mulch for worms and birds—and scare away the deplorable foothill folk who had no business living in the mountains, anyway.
The elite now dreamed of returning to a half-million-person California of the 19th century, reputedly with lush riverbanks from the sea to Sierra, with salmon runs to the mountains. They recoiled at the very idea that a 40 million-person state of mostly poor immigrants—over a quarter of the state’s population was not born in the United States—might need water for their towns or for the farms they worked.
How ironic that millions fled Mexico and Central America to enter, often illegally, the once golden California, land of plenty. They were welcomed by the state’s business and political elite but not to be housed, fed, and schooled as were the elite. Their directive was to vote correctly for their supposed betters and to supply janitors, landscapers, nannies, cooks, and housekeepers for those who welcomed them in—on the condition that they not dare demand the state’s green resources for good homes, affordable gas, or a nice lawn or long shower.
Let them instead eat a solar farm, bike path, or Tesla.
And so it went, each carefully placed brick in the once sturdy long wall of California, laid carefully over the past 150 years—to ensure a naturally fragile state with affordable food, energy, security, housing, transpiration, schools, and education—was ripped out, mocked as obsolete, and written off an embarrassment to the present.
Californians who look at their aging dams, their granite classical civic buildings, and their large municipal parks, are like Dark-Age Greeks who stumbled around the ruins of Mycenaean palaces and walls, wondering who were the demi-gods who built such things that now were impossible to emulate. So, too, we are bewildered at Balboa Park or the California aqueduct, or rather saddened that simply copying them is beyond our moral power or expertise.
The state was once rich and secure in gas and oil, nuclear power, cutting-edge freeways and airports, water storage, law enforcement, a topflight public school system, and an effective higher education triad. All these resources have become either politicized or taboos that are neglected, dismantled, or destroyed by a class that commuted little, was nonchalant about their power bills, put their kids in private schools, and enjoyed neighborhoods whose zip codes and private security patrols bounced away revolving-door felons and homeless far distant to the haunts of the middle class and poor.
Rich leftists quote the Gini coefficient chapter and verse, oblivious that they have created a state of affairs in which California ranks second to the bottom—below even New York—in such calibrations of inequality. The Silicon Valley motto should be, “I create inequality by hating inequality.”
We have not built a major mountain reservoir outside of Los Angeles in over 40 years even as the population has soared. The main north-south laterals of the state—the 101, I-5, and 99—often narrow into four-lane deathtraps. SFO and LAX are among the more nightmarish airports in the nation. California’s test scores rank in the nation’s bottom 10 percent of schools.
Over one-fifth of the state lives below the poverty rate. Urban geographer Joel Kotkin recently noted that African Americans and Latinos in California suffer among the lowest real incomes in the nation, 48th and 50th respectively. How could that be true in the land of Mark Zuckerberg, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Brown?
One-third of Americans on public assistance live in California. To drive through the rural center of the state is to revisit the 1930s world of the Joads. Ramshackle farmhouses now house 20 or some immigrants. Many of them reside here illegally, in trailers, shacks, and illegal add-ons. A state famous for regulating the life out of the middle classes simply ignores systemic flagrant violations of sewage, water, power, and building codes, in the manner of the exemptions given to the homeless: out of sight, out of mind.
California’s mid-size cities nudge out other blue-state metropolises to rank among the nation’s leaders in property crimes. The nation’s highest gas taxes, income taxes, and near highest sales taxes either do not mitigate the above pathologies or perhaps help fuel them.
If our liberal political elites lived in crime-ridden Stockton, San Bernardino, or Modesto, had two children in the Los Angeles City public schools, commuted daily on the 99 from Delano to Visalia, flew weekly commercial out of LAX, tried to buy a California home on their salaries as public officials, rode BART to Oakland each evening home, or depended on a business supplying the state with lumber, gas or oil, food, transportation, or construction—the stuff of life—then they might fathom how assuaging their left-wing guilt in the abstract destroyed the lives of those they never see and never wish to see.
So, in a word, California’s debacle was the work of the self-absorbed.
The self-declared most caring, virtuous, and moral in the end proved the most narcissistic, selfish, and self-centered. Yes, the rich left-wing California elites are many things, but utterly selfish explains what they do unto others.
___________________________________________________
SEARCH
On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium):
The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false.
The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium.
As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burke must certainly be aware that an apostolic constitution is necessarily official magisterial teaching; in fact, it has the highest level of legal authority of any document issued by the Holy See. For Cardinal Burke to dismiss an apostolic constitution’s teaching as “false” is therefore astonishing.
I would have to have the text in front of me, but it seems to me that the Holy Father made a very clear statement at the beginning that these are a number of reflections that he’s making, that he doesn’t intend them to be part of the papal magisterium.
The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching. Pope Francis makes clear, from the beginning, that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is not an act of the magisterium.
He has asserted this more than once.
The Holy Father says himself – in the document – that he’s not presenting the Magisterium – it’s a kind of reflection.
This is contrary to what numerous cardinals have asserted and to what Francis himself has said:
Over the course of the Exhortation, current and concrete problems are dealt with: the family in today’s world, the education of children, marriage preparation, families in difficulty, and so on; these are treated with a hermeneutic that comes from the whole document which is the magisterial hermeneutic of the Church, always in continuity (without ruptures), yet always maturing.
What he wrote in that letter simply means that this is his personal understanding of the matter. But that letter hardly could be considered an exercise of the papal magisterium. And so, it’s a painful situation in which to be involved but we simply have to press forward to clarify the matter.
While each of these contradictions between Cardinal Burke and the Magisterial teachings of the Church is troubling, what separates Cardinal Burke from an ordinary Catholic who dissents from one or more magisterial teachings is Burke’s insistence that he is the one teaching the authentic Catholic teaching. He continually shows no deference to Pope Francis’s teaching authority or the ordinary Magisterium. In fact, he seems to reject the notion that Francis’s official teachings are magisterial at all.
Why does Cardinal Burke seem to reject everything that Francis officially promulgates as magisterial teaching?
[…]
The clear implication here, as well as the explanation for Cardinal Burke’s rejection of virtually everything that Pope Francis has formally taught, is that he thinks Francis hasn’t taught anything magisterial because he doesn’t believe Francis is pope – Where Peter Is [https://wherepeteris.com/does-cardinal-burke-think-francis-is-an-antipope/]
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
In a 2020 interview with Ed Pentin published at the National Catholic Register, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke went into greater detail than before, regarding the mysterious disappearance of the promised “formal correction” upon which so many had pinned their hopes.
Why has no group of Cardinals challenged the openly heretical, openly abusive, and questionably legitimate Bergoglio? Pentin and a growing number of faithful demand to know. The stance adopted by His Eminence, if reported accurately by the utterly reliable Pentin is to be believed, is positively mind-boggling for an attitude which can only be characterized as elective futility.
“Is there such a group?” Cardinal Burke is said to have responded, as though this rhetorical question of his might substitute for vindication of Christ’s truth against the assaults of Amoris and the Amazonian Synod. A shrug at the crack of a gun; a sigh at the sight of a rape. It is being reported elsewhere that–to his credit, as far as it goes–His Eminence did attempt to assemble such a group, to no avail. In which case, why not act alone?
Two reasons, apparently: one, that throughout the history of the Church, only groups and not individuals like himself have approached an errant Pope in this way, and secondly, that he himself, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, is not “the savior of the Church.”
Here His Eminence echoes a mentality if not peculiar to modern man, then certainly showcased by him. Showcased, in particular, by a man noted in history as “Henry Q.,” who offered as justification of his conduct and that of his confreres, to researcher Robert Jay Lifton, that:
we suffered and acted within the limits of the possible.1
They did what they could, in other words, and what they could not do they did not attempt. They had not the position nor the numbers to make any real difference–or so they judged, regarding as meaningless or (far worse) as misguided any gesture through which the less prudent might be tempted to catch sight of a glimmer of the one real fault a person can commit in their sight; namely, heroism itself. Theirs is a colorless cosmos in the last analysis, these calculating moderns. It isn’t as though Henry Q. wasn’t a good man, in his heart. It’s just that the term “good German” has come to mean something very evil indeed. The ones who “suffered and acted within the limits of the possible” were, of course, those who collaborated in the National Socialist program of the destruction of life devoid of value—in the euthanasia program which led up to the Holocaust, in other words, and generally speaking in the Holocaust itself.
Anyone who has read through the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials is very familiar with the particular excuse which Cardinal Burke has so staggeringly, so stereotypically proffered. War criminal after war criminal advert to it repeatedly throughout the transcripts—how they were only “doing their duty,” how nothing else was to be attempted against a system so omnipotent and perverse. The same mentality crops up in our own culture when someone proclaims, always hollowly, “It’s above my pay grade!” Another form of the stance of assumed powerlessness is the “Catholic” politician who rather conveniently claims to be “personally opposed to abortion, but . . . “
Neither Cardinal Burke nor any one of us has any right to be “personally opposed to Bergoglio, but . . .” It is profoundly anti-Christian to “suffer and act within the limits of the possible,” when the Sacred Scriptures assure us that through Our Blessed Mother, “nothing shall be impossible with God” (Lk. 1:37). Do you think it is humble of Cardinal Burke, to assert that he himself is “not the savior of the Church”? What if God Almighty both wants and intends him to be (in an instrumental but providential sense), as was Saint Athanasius during the Arian Crisis, as were Saints John Fisher and Thomas More in the days of Henry VIII? It is as though the child from whom Our Lord once asked for some loaves and fishes (Jn. 6:9) should have refused Him instead, declaring, “I’ll keep what I have, which is little enough, thank-you-very-much. Can’t you count? Who do you think I am, anyway–the savior of this hungry crowd?”
1. In Lifton, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic, 1986), p. 238.
Note: This article is by a Catholic Monitor contributor.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.SHARE
SEARCH
It’s very interesting that in 2012 even the leftist America was saying about a pope’s resignation:
“This had to be cleared by canon law; it was determined that if the resignation was voluntary, enacted properly and absolutely necessary.” – The Catholic Monitor
There are three basic schools of thought on this phenomenon, the first of which has been nicknamed “Benevacantism.” The first two theories were openly discussed by Burke and Coffin (and summarized by Alt in his post), the third was only hinted at. The three theories are:
[…]
In a December 2016 interview with Catholic World Report, Burke was asked what might lead to the abdication of a pope:
CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?
Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.
CWR: That could happen.
Burke: Yes.
The clear implication here, as well as the explanation for Cardinal Burke’s rejection of virtually everything that Pope Francis has formally taught, is that he thinks Francis hasn’t taught anything magisterial because he doesn’t believe Francis is pope. – Where Peter Is [https://wherepeteris.com/does-cardinal-burke-think-francis-is-an-antipope/]
Recently, the Modernist leftist America is discussing the possibility of Francis resigning:
This announcement might have gone unnoticed had it not been that Celestine V was the first pope to resign voluntarily, and that Benedict XVI had made a pilgrimage to the same pope’s tomb four years before announcing his resignation from the chair of Peter. It was this, Gerry says, “that provided ammunition for the guns of speculation.”
And while neither Gerry nor Colleen believes a papal resignation is imminent, on this episode of “Inside the Vatican” they consider the reasons to heed, or not, the rumors that Pope Francis will soon follow in the footsteps of Benedict XVI and Celestine V.[https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/06/09/pope-francis-retire-resign-podcast-2022-243132]
Moreover, why might Francis have been talking in 2021 about Dante since he is apparently only mostly interested in the socialist this-world utopias and rarely, if ever, talks about the Heaven and Hell of the poet’s epic?
Might it have something to do with Dante’s calling one of Pope Benedict XVI’s favorite popes, Pope Celestine V, who resigned a coward in Hell?
In 2013, Mark Giszczak wrote:
St. Celestine V. Scott Hahn made an interesting post in which he mentions Pope Benedict’s two trips to pray by the tomb and relics (respectively) of Celestine V–notably the Pope left his pallium on Celestine’s tomb on April 29, 2009. (Interestingly, as Rocco Palmo notes, this pallium was the one with which Benedict was originally vested. The pope “retired” it from use and went to a smaller size of pallium. More here: Fr. Z, NLM)…
… Now, on to Dante! In his Inferno, Canto III, lines 58-63 (in Dorothy Sayers’ translation) we read:
And when I’d noted here and there a shade
Whose face I knew, I saw and recognized
The coward spirit of the man who madeThe great refusal; and that proof sufficed;
Here was that rabble, here without a doubt,
Whom God and whom His enemies despised.
Now, Celestine is found in Hell’s “vestibule” here with the futile, who run around after meaningless banners, goaded by hornets. They are at the very “top” so to speak, of Dante’s Hell. Dante’s condemnation of Celestine V was rooted in the problematic reign of his successor, Boniface VIII, who imprisoned his predecessor. Apparently, Dante felt that Celestine should have embraced the office and out of cowardice or a faint heart, he abdicated, which led to very bad things in the reign of the next pope. Celestine died in a fetid jail cell.[https://catholicbiblestudent.com/2013/02/pope-benedict-xvi-resigns-dante.html]
Did Boniface kill Celestine by jailing him?
Francis apologist Fr. Dwight Longenecker shows that Francis knows all about Celestine:
Dante placed Boniface in hell for his crimes and it was Boniface VIII who pushed papal claims to worldly power to their most extreme point. A corrupt and ambitious man, Boniface demanded that all people be subject to the Roman Pontiff and insisted that kings and princes bow to his power. After power struggles with King Philip IV of France, Boniface was imprisoned and it was rumored that he took his own life — by gnawing off his own arms and bashing his head against a wall. Boniface was accused of many horrible crimes by his enemies, and even if innocent of the worst offenses, he was still a completely worldly man world who stands as the stunning contrast to Celestine’s simplicity and godliness.
By proclaiming a jubilee year in honor of Celestine Pope Francis is making a clear call for all Catholics to turn away from the worldly values of power, pride and corruption and walk in the way of Christ. [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/the-real-celestine-prophecy.html]
In 2012, the Francis apologist leftist America magazine wrote an article about “Celestine’s Prophecy”:
Celestine V, the pope who quit, is remembered mostly as a footnote. Histories of the popes treat him as a medieval curiosity. Dante condemned him to the inferno for his cowardice. More recently, his resignation has been viewed as the odd precedent that would permit an ailing pope to step down…
… He [Celestine] announced that he would resign, the first and only pope to do so.
This had to be cleared by canon law; it was determined that if the resignation was voluntary, enacted properly and absolutely necessary—if the pope was useless or suffered a serious impediment such as insanity—resignation would be acceptable.
The holy man, officially deemed useless, fled. But his authoritarian successor, Pope Boniface VIII, was evidently uneasy with having another pope about and ordered him imprisoned. It is “not far-fetched” to suggest that Boniface had Peter [Celestine] murdered.[https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/culture/celestines-prophecy ]
It’s very interesting that in 2012 even the leftist America was saying about a pope’s resignation:
“This had to be cleared by canon law; it was determined that if the resignation was voluntary, enacted properly and absolutely necessary.”
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.SHARE
Biden And Pelosi Silent On Anti-Catholicism June 15, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way President Biden and Rep. Pelosi have addressed bigotry: President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are both self-described “devout Catholics.” Given the rash of attacks on Catholics and Catholic Churches, it would be reasonable to expect that they would condemn these acts of anti-Catholicism. Yet neither has said a word. It is not as though they are indifferent to bigotry—they are quick to pounce on prejudice and discrimination when non-Catholics are targeted. Here are some comments they made either this year or last year: Biden Asians: “The Federal Government should combat racism, xenophobia, and intolerance against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and should work to ensure that all members of AAPI communities—no matter their background, the language they speak, or their religious beliefs—are treated with dignity and equity.”Blacks: “In my campaign for President, I made it very clear that the moment had arrived as a nation where we face deep racial inequities in America and system—systemic racism that has plagued our nation for far, far too long.”Jews: “In the last weeks, our nation has seen a series of anti-Semitic attacks, targeting and terrorizing American Jews….These attacks are despicable, unconscionable, un-American, and they must stop.”Transgender Persons: “My entire Administration is committed to ensuring that transgender people enjoy the freedom and equality that are promised to everyone in America….To transgender Americans of all ages, I want you to know that you are so brave. You belong. I have your back.” Pelosi Asians: “While Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have long been the targets of racism and xenophobia, the pandemic has fueled a heartbreaking wave of hateful speech and violent attacks against these communities…let us always stand with our AAPI friends, family and neighbors….”Blacks: “As we remember with open eyes the injustices of the past, we also recognize the inequities of the present: from the scourges of systemic racism and police violence to the plights of economic inequality and health disparity, which have been exacerbated by the pandemic.”Jews: “Antisemitism cannot be tolerated.”Latinos: “As vile, xenophobic rhetoric continues to target Latino communities across the country, House Democrats remain committed to embracing America’s beautiful diversity and building a more just future.”Muslims: “Racism and bigotry of any form, including Islamophobia, must always be called out, confronted and condemned in any place it is found.”Transgender People: “This year in particular, our transgender neighbors and loved ones have endured a heartbreaking and accelerating campaign of violence and persecution….” We could not find a single instance when either Biden or Pelosi condemned anti-Catholicism, despite the fact that they have been in government for a combined total of 85 years. Even when Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was subjected to blatant anti-Catholic attacks by Sen. Dianne Feinstein—”the dogma lives loudly within you”—neither Biden or Pelosi complained. The best they could do was to say that her faith should not matter. How to explain their silence, especially in light of their extremely strong denunciations of bigotry against other demographic groups? That’s not as hard to figure out as some may think. Consider what has been happening lately. The recent rash of vandalism against Catholic churches, firebombings of crisis pregnancy centers, Masses being interrupted, illegal protests outside the homes of Catholic Supreme Court Justices, coupled with an assassination plot against one of them—these are all the acts of pro-abortion zealots. Neither Biden nor Pelosi has done anything, or said anything, to stop or condemn these despicable acts of anti-Catholicism. Catholics would merit a better response from fair-minded agnostics than they are receiving from these two pro-abortion zealots. Looks like they checked their “devout Catholic” status at the church door. Contact White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre:Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov Contact Pelosi’s chief of staff: terri.mccullough@mail.house.gov |
___________________________________________________
The Selfish Californian
The Silicon Valley motto should be
“I create inequality by hating inequality.”
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
June 12, 2022
(Emphasis added)
We hear plenty of reasons for the perfect storm that imploded California. One-party, progressive government, of course. Decades of unchecked illegal immigration, without a doubt. Years of mass flight out of the state of the productive middle classes, certainly.
But perhaps the most important, but overlooked, reason has been the infusion of trillions of dollars of mostly tech capital into the state. Unimaginable sums of market capital warped politics and led to a top-down, feudal society, run by progressive elites who are shielded from the ramifications of their toxic ideologies.
More specifically, the common denominator was the emergence in California of a selfish, monied, left-wing political class. In concrete terms, it cared little for others but masked that unconcern with abstract leftism, emulating medieval penance and indulgences to assuage guilt over its enjoyment of sheltered and very good lives.
California’s recent premier politicians at the local, state, and federal levels—Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, and Nancy Pelosi—all enjoyed wealth and power, whether by inherited money and family brand names, through marriage, or using their positions to leverage lucrative family and personal business with the Chinese.
Their lifestyles before, during, and after office-holding reflected both their privileges and the vast material differences between their own lives and the millions of Californians who suffered enormously from their utopian bromides. Yet a world away from their homes in Grass Valley, Kentfield, Lake Tahoe, Napa, Pacific Heights, or Rancho Mirage, the rest of the state’s residents who voted for them currently cannot afford a house, a full tank of gas, a chuck steak, or an air-conditioned afternoon.
At least the Church of the 15th century offered formal contractual indulgences and personal penance manuals for the guilt-ridden elite eager to abort their earned inferno-to-come. In California, however, to enjoy affluence and leisure without guilt or recriminations, left-wing power elites virtue signaled their progressivism, even as it wrecked the lives of distant others.
If it were a question of drilling more oil while transitioning to clean power or shrugging that the nobody José Martinez in Sanger would pay $6.50 a gallon to commute to work, it was a no-brainer: Mr. Martinez was simply out of sight, out of mind collateral damage.
So too all of California’s poor and lower-middle classes who could not afford to flee and now cannot afford shelter, food, fuel, and safety, due to decades of policies that zoned away new home construction, strangled the gas, timber, and mining industries, taxed and regulated gas and diesel to the point of unaffordability, neglected the needs of the state’s once rich farming industry and loved fish far more than people. Apparently, these well-educated and self-declared Socrateses believed that Californians could drink Facebook, eat Google, drive Twitter, and live on Snapchat.
The far-left Atlantic’s various contributors for years have been cheerleading most of the policies adopted by the Bay Area elite—defunding the police, decriminalizing an array of crimes, appeasing homelessness, ignoring dangerous drug use and dealing, and urging more redistributive taxation and entitlement.
But now Atlantic essayist Nellie Bowles warns us that San Francisco is a “failed city.” And she is correct in that the city is increasingly medieval. Its downtown is emptying, filthy, toxic, dangerous, and pre-civilizational—perhaps an unfair term since it was rare in pre-Roman Gaul or nomadic North Africa for tribal residents to sleep in the village pathways, fornicate and defecate openly among children, and violently attack random passersby.
In truth, the implosion of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and California more broadly is no accident. Destroying all the bounty that was inherited from far better and far-seeing generations was the logical result of deliberate policies—reflecting the self-interest of a few million rich, educated professionals. They apparently decided that their genius and superior morality had transcended worries over ancient challenges of food, water, shelter, and transportation, and received law and custom.
California’s anointed enjoyed safe neighborhoods from Malibu to Presidio Heights. They inherited or purchased beautiful coastal corridor homes worth $1,200 a square foot, from La Jolla to Berkeley. They drew income from the trillions of dollars invested in Silicon Valley and the new globalized and Asia-centric economy that opened markets of multibillions of consumers for entertainment, media, finance, law, academia, corporations, and the accompanying credential professional classes.
And so, they grew hubristic and stupid. In their arrogance and ignorance, they began to feel their bounty and leisure were birthrights. Free from worries about who brought them their water, food, safety, energy, and shelter—or how—they were liberated to institutionalize their visions of 21st-century-correct living to less fortunate others, albeit from a properly segregated distance.
Freeways were obsolete ideas. The fewer built, and the even fewer maintained, the more likely the clueless could be crowded into cost-effective, clean, and safe mass transit.
So, a $15 billion high-speed rail disaster arose and remained inert like Stonehenge monoliths. Meanwhile, thousands of the poor on the obsolete Highway 99 continued to die and were maimed in daily accidents on a Road Warrior-esque obstacle course. The nearby Amtrak trains still sat delayed on side-tracks, for want of a simple, 19th-century two-track rail. How strange that bankrupt 21st-century visions came at the cost of easy 20th-century solutions.
Aqueducts, reservoirs, dams? These were likewise relics of previous delusional generations. That the coastal corridor’s water came from aqueducts across vast distances was mostly unknown to those who crowded into one of the most naturally unsustainable regions on the North American continent—a coastal strip mostly dry and bereft of an aquifer to sustain its tens of millions.
So, the state stopped building water storage. More often, it released snowmelt and runoff water into the ocean rather than to farms and to replenish aquifers.
Fires? Let forests of evergreens burn as they had in primordial times, better to burn to provide mulch for worms and birds—and scare away the deplorable foothill folk who had no business living in the mountains, anyway.
The elite now dreamed of returning to a half-million-person California of the 19th century, reputedly with lush riverbanks from the sea to Sierra, with salmon runs to the mountains. They recoiled at the very idea that a 40 million-person state of mostly poor immigrants—over a quarter of the state’s population was not born in the United States—might need water for their towns or for the farms they worked.
How ironic that millions fled Mexico and Central America to enter, often illegally, the once golden California, land of plenty. They were welcomed by the state’s business and political elite but not to be housed, fed, and schooled as were the elite. Their directive was to vote correctly for their supposed betters and to supply janitors, landscapers, nannies, cooks, and housekeepers for those who welcomed them in—on the condition that they not dare demand the state’s green resources for good homes, affordable gas, or a nice lawn or long shower.
Let them instead eat a solar farm, bike path, or Tesla.
And so it went, each carefully placed brick in the once sturdy long wall of California, laid carefully over the past 150 years—to ensure a naturally fragile state with affordable food, energy, security, housing, transpiration, schools, and education—was ripped out, mocked as obsolete, and written off an embarrassment to the present.
Californians who look at their aging dams, their granite classical civic buildings, and their large municipal parks, are like Dark-Age Greeks who stumbled around the ruins of Mycenaean palaces and walls, wondering who were the demi-gods who built such things that now were impossible to emulate. So, too, we are bewildered at Balboa Park or the California aqueduct, or rather saddened that simply copying them is beyond our moral power or expertise.
The state was once rich and secure in gas and oil, nuclear power, cutting-edge freeways and airports, water storage, law enforcement, a topflight public school system, and an effective higher education triad. All these resources have become either politicized or taboos that are neglected, dismantled, or destroyed by a class that commuted little, was nonchalant about their power bills, put their kids in private schools, and enjoyed neighborhoods whose zip codes and private security patrols bounced away revolving-door felons and homeless far distant to the haunts of the middle class and poor.
Rich leftists quote the Gini coefficient chapter and verse, oblivious that they have created a state of affairs in which California ranks second to the bottom—below even New York—in such calibrations of inequality. The Silicon Valley motto should be, “I create inequality by hating inequality.”
We have not built a major mountain reservoir outside of Los Angeles in over 40 years even as the population has soared. The main north-south laterals of the state—the 101, I-5, and 99—often narrow into four-lane deathtraps. SFO and LAX are among the more nightmarish airports in the nation. California’s test scores rank in the nation’s bottom 10 percent of schools.
Over one-fifth of the state lives below the poverty rate. Urban geographer Joel Kotkin recently noted that African Americans and Latinos in California suffer among the lowest real incomes in the nation, 48th and 50th respectively. How could that be true in the land of Mark Zuckerberg, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Brown?
One-third of Americans on public assistance live in California. To drive through the rural center of the state is to revisit the 1930s world of the Joads. Ramshackle farmhouses now house 20 or some immigrants. Many of them reside here illegally, in trailers, shacks, and illegal add-ons. A state famous for regulating the life out of the middle classes simply ignores systemic flagrant violations of sewage, water, power, and building codes, in the manner of the exemptions given to the homeless: out of sight, out of mind.
California’s mid-size cities nudge out other blue-state metropolises to rank among the nation’s leaders in property crimes. The nation’s highest gas taxes, income taxes, and near highest sales taxes either do not mitigate the above pathologies or perhaps help fuel them.
If our liberal political elites lived in crime-ridden Stockton, San Bernardino, or Modesto, had two children in the Los Angeles City public schools, commuted daily on the 99 from Delano to Visalia, flew weekly commercial out of LAX, tried to buy a California home on their salaries as public officials, rode BART to Oakland each evening home, or depended on a business supplying the state with lumber, gas or oil, food, transportation, or construction—the stuff of life—then they might fathom how assuaging their left-wing guilt in the abstract destroyed the lives of those they never see and never wish to see.
So, in a word, California’s debacle was the work of the self-absorbed.
The self-declared most caring, virtuous, and moral in the end proved the most narcissistic, selfish, and self-centered. Yes, the rich left-wing California elites are many things, but utterly selfish explains what they do unto others.
___________________________________________________
You must be logged in to post a comment.