CALL ME A PRO-LIFER


Maligning Pro-Lifers

June 20, 2022

The following article was written by the Catholic League’s communication director Michael P. McDonald:

The National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) “2020 Violence and Disruption Statistics” report has a dearth of information to support any of its claims. But what NAF lacks in facts, it makes up for it in hyperbole, innuendo, and hypocrisy designed to portray pro-life activists, many of whom are Catholic, in the most negative light possible.

On the first full page of the report, NAF lists the first major instance of “violence” by pro-life advocates to be “anti-abortion protesters congregated outside abortion clinics.” The problem with calling this “violence” is that this is totally legal. It is true that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act creates a bubble around abortion clinics where pro-life advocates cannot demonstrate; however, as long as they stay outside of the bubble, pro-lifers can congregate to their hearts content.

What is not legal are the pro-abortion advocates protesting outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices. 18 US Code Section 1507 clearly states, “Whoever…with the intent of influencing any judge…in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge…or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” The pro-abortion advocates clearly violate this statute making their congregating an illegal act.

NAF should know all of these rules, but it would rather make a scurrilous and hypocritical claim to portray pro-lifers as the wrong-doers.

In addition to “congregating,” NAF points out that many of these pro-life advocates failed to observe “stay-at-home orders and public health guidance to avoid group gatherings.” But when Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa took to the streets in 2020, failing to observe stay-at-home orders, over a thousand doctors declared these actions justified because “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue….”

Even government officials, tasked with enforcing stay-at-home orders, cheered them on. Former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, for instance, decreed, “We’re in the middle of a national crisis.” Of course, he was referencing systemic racism and used this logic to justify easing COVID-19 restrictions for BLM and Antifa.

NAF also asserts that many of the congregators were “white supremacist individuals.” Yet it provided no evidence to prove this. How did it know these people were white supremacists? Did everyone outside have a swastika tattooed on his forehead? Without any evidence to back up this claim, NAF just grabbed the current buzzword the Left has adopted to attack people that do not agree with its policies.

Another act of violence NAF highlights is “protestors co-opting language of the movement for Black lives in their attempts to intimidate providers and patients.” This is a preposterous claim. Just because BLM uses certain words does not forbid anyone from using similar slogans. Further, employing copy-cat language for a peaceful demonstration does not constitute violence.

After making these arguments, NAF attempts to appeal to authority in an effort to add a veneer of credibility. Citing a January 2020 unclassified report from the FBI, NAF declares that “there is an ongoing increase in anti-abortion threats, disruptions, and violence.” Setting aside the over-politicized nature of the FBI, there is a serious flaw citing this bulletin. If one reads the first bullet from the FBI, the Bureau uses information provided by NAF. They are quoting themselves as a source.

Finally, NAF attempts to present data to support its several pages of innuendo that pro-life activists represent a clear and present danger. But even in this section, the facts are weak.

They claim that their “members report an increase in assault and battery outside of clinics with the majority of incidents involving anti-abortion protestors having altercations…[including] shoving, pushing, tripping, and spitting on clinic escorts, staff, and others outside of clinics.”

While no one should engage in such actions, a little perspective is required. The BLM and Antifa riots in 2020 caused over two billion dollars in property damage according to insurance payouts. They also left at least 25 people dead. Pushing, shoving and tripping are not even in the same league as BLM and Antifa. 

In addition to “pushing” and “shoving,” NAF claims that there were 115,517 instances of picketing. However, the “picketing” NAF describes is not similar to a wildcat strike with disgruntled laborers physically attacking scabs for trying to get to work. Starting in 2011, NAF’s own statistics make a distinction between people obstructing the entrance to a clinic and people picketing, which is to say peacefully protesting. In other words, pro-life advocates exercising their constitutionally protected right to assemble is what NAF considers violence. 

Ultimately, no one should consider “2020 Violence and Disruption Statistics” a serious report. Rather than using facts and data to support their claims, NAF does everything it can to make pro-lifers look like violent extremists, when, in fact, they are honest, God-fearing folks. No, if one really wants to see genuine abortion-related violence, they would do well to look at the pro-abortion camp, particularly Antifa-affiliated Jane’s Revenge or Ruth Sent Us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I AM A RESTORATIONIST!!!!!!!


I Am a Restorationist

ANTHONY ESOLEN

Hello. My name is Tony. I am a restorationist.

I wasn’t always this way. I grew up in the 1960s and the 1970s, and we all took for granted everything the priests and bishops said we had to do according to the directions of the Second Vatican Council. None of us had read the documents, but we figured that our leaders had, and we obeyed. They counted on it.

When our pastor removed the marble communion rail with its mosaic inlays of Eucharistic symbols (a basket of five loaves, two fish, a bunch of grapes, the Lamb of God), we figured he knew what he was doing, and we submitted. When he whitewashed the church walls, eliminating stenciled patterns of the fleur-de-lis, so that what had been warm and shady was now bare, with no color connection between the stained-glass windows, the mural paintings of figures from the Old Testament, and the painted ceiling above, we figured he knew what he was doing, and we obeyed. When he covered the hexagonal floor tiles, white and dark green in cruciform patterns, with a bright-red carpet, we wiped our feet and obeyed.

We obeyed a lot, then. The bishop had caught the fervor of the council, and soon the diocese was peppered with billboards reading “Project: Expansion.” It was an expansive time, we thought, a time for building new diocesan high schools, new parochial schools, new parishes. And all that expansion cost money. Every family was asked to pledge what they could afford. My family pledged—I don’t know how much, but my father and mother were devout and generous and obedient Catholics, and what they pledged, they paid. 

I don’t blame the bishop. How could he know that we were on the brink of a calamitous collapse? Our parish school, built by the family money of an Irish pastor a hundred years ago, is now the borough offices and lockup. There is but a single high school left for the diocese.

In another shift, all at once, we were going to be singing hymns. The strategy was to teach them to the school children, and then have them attend the 9:15 Mass, the third of five every Sunday, to sing them and thus teach them to their parents. I remember learning “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” which I liked a great deal. The others? Well, most of them were dull (“This Is My Body”) or sappy (“Sing to the Mountains”), but none of us knew a thing about the long tradition of Christian hymnody. 

Most of the men did not sing. We had Mass in high school on All Saints’ Day and other feasts, and then we did bring out the guitars, and pretty much everybody did sing the songs. We didn’t know anything else. Those songs would wear thin over time. As music, they were and are pretty bad, like clumsy show tunes for an off-Broadway romantic comedy. Their theology was worse and the poetry worst of all. But I obeyed.

We learned almost no prayers in those days. In elementary school, on the afternoon of every first Friday, the nuns trooped us to the church for confession, boys on one side, girls on the other. After that, we prayed the Rosary, and then came Benediction. I remember now that the priest would kneel before the altar and lead us in the Divine Praises, and I can still hear the responses of the nuns, who knew that when he said, “Christ, hear us,” the reply was, “Christ, graciously hear us.” 

I liked Benediction. I did not know, then, that in a few years that rite would be forgotten in most places and that I would meet many Catholics who had never seen it or even heard of it. But that did not scandalize me. Again, I figured that the people in charge knew what they were doing.

The one thing that did hurt people in my town, as far as I remember, was that certain beloved saints were struck from the calendar—Barbara, Lucy, Christopher, George—as being the stuff of mere fables. That was a shock. If the Church could be wrong about that, what else could she be wrong about? If the Church had to be brought up to date on her own calendar, perhaps she needed to catch up in other ways as well. 

Sexual morality was the obvious candidate for progress. I understood nothing of it when I was a schoolboy, but when we high school freshmen had a “values clarification” class instead of a real study of Scripture or the catechism, I figured the sister knew what she was doing. It was a feature of the new Church—the Church knew more and better about sex than she used to. 

Though most of us in that high school bore an old residue of moral sense, by the time I went to college in 1977, the Church in her ordinary life—in her preaching and her obvious practice—offered us no guard rails, no direction. I never thought of myself as disobedient because the Church, in her practical life, did not think of me so, either. Love pastes over a multitude of sins.

I didn’t care for modernist church architecture, but I didn’t care enough to get up a real loathing. I had grown weary of the bad songs, but again, I knew of nothing else. I thought that having altar girls was a good idea, mainly because I didn’t care one way or another about vocations to the priesthood, and I didn’t see it as part of the furious attack on the sexes as such. If women wanted to be lectors, let them. I didn’t care for the shrill voices, but who really paid close attention to Scripture anyway? The first Bible I ever bought for myself was The Jerusalem Bible, and I thought it was great, especially in its translation of the prophets. 

Hans Kung’s Does God Exist? helped keep me in the fold because of its sweep through the history of philosophy and theology, most of which I was ignorant of. I told my father that the Church had stifled the greatest theologian of his time, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. See what an obedient fellow I was! If there ever was a Ghost of Vatican II, I had my Catholic Ouija board, and I jotted down messages from the great beyond.

But slowly, so slowly, I began to learn things. Part of it came from my study of Medieval and Renaissance literature. Part came from my ending up as a professor at a Dominican-run college, so that I—whose boyhood church and school were named after him—was reading Thomas Aquinas for the first time. Part came from my having to teach Renaissance and Medieval art and architecture. A great part came from my dear wife, a Protestant, who knew the old hymns, so that I was singing, for the first time in my life—because she insists on going to Mass only where the music is real—such powerful songs as “The King of Love My Shepherd Is,” and “Thine Is the Glory.”

Much came from reading. C.S. Lewis once quipped that an atheist had better be careful about what he reads, lest he be ambushed by the truth. I was ambushed by beauty, spiritual depth, and coherence. I confess—I heard Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli, and I thought I had entered another world. I confess—I have learned koine Greek and can fight my way through Old Testament Hebrew, and I own Bibles in those languages as well as Latin, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Welsh, and Russian, so that the Jerusalem Bible no longer impresses me, let alone that bathwater version we hear in the lectionary every week. 

I confess—I own an old Gradual for use by francophone Canadians, and I have seen the chants that the choirs in our old fishing village used to sing. I confess—I have looked at the portions of Scripture deliberately Swiss-cheesed out of the readings for Mass. I confess—I have looked over, and I often pray from, the Treasury of Prayers printed at the back of the old Saint Joseph Missal, which everybody used to own. I confess—I have translated 100 psalms for a breviary in use by Eastern-rite Catholics in America, and I have learned to appreciate the fine old canonical hour of Prime. 

I confess—I have come to see the connections between minimalism in art and minimalism in morality, between minimalism in our appreciation of the sexes and minimalism in our sense of the fatherhood of God, and between all forms of minimalism, that is, modernism, and the scrubbing-out of vast fields of learning and beauty; between the priest who scorns what our Lord Himself says about fornication because what He says is supposedly old and time-bound and the student who scorns reading Chaucer, or even Dickens, for the same reasons.

I have read too much, I have beheld too much, I have heard and sung too much. I am a restorationist. I am like someone who knows there are riches around a corner, and I want everyone to come and see. I can’t help it anymore. The experience of beauty is alcoholic. It gladdens my heart. Pope Francis cannot, I am afraid, teach me to love the ugly or muscle-headed or incoherent, nor can he teach me to despise the beautiful and rational, and mysteries beyond reason. Let him pray for me, then, that the wine that has gone to my head may be turned back to water. Nothing else will serve.

ReplyReply allForward
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WHAT IS CAUSING THE MASS DEATH OF BEEF CATTLE ON THE RANGE?

Mass CATTLE deaths send shockwaves through food supply as speculation rises: Are they being poisoned on purpose?

Jun 16, 2022

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailCopy LinkShare

By Mike Adams

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author

HRR-2022-06-16-Situation-Update Mike Adams: Mass CATTLE deaths send shockwaves through food supply as speculation rises: Are they being poisoned on purpose? Featured Opinion [your]NEWS

(Natural News) Following over 100 fires that appear to be acts of sabotage against food facilities across the United States, speculation is now running rampant about thousands of cattle that appear to have died suddenly in Kansas over the weekend. According to the corporate media which also claims all covid vaccines are “safe and effective,” these sudden mass deaths are the result of heat. Yet cows are incredibly resilient and frequently endure the same temperatures that the Midwest is experiencing right now. Why are thousands of cattle apparently dying so suddenly?

AgDaily.com, like the rest of the conventional media, says the deaths were caused by a combination of heat, humidity and lack of wind. CNBC is also reporting that the The Kansas Department of Health and Environment agrees with this assessment.

Yet I am personally near hundreds of head of cattle in central Texas where temperatures are the same (and the days are even longer this time of year due to the more southern latitude). I see Longhorn cattle, Angus, Blanco and other breeds abound in Central Texas, yet I don’t see thousands of cattle dropping dead anywhere.

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/84fada6e-b40c-4c5d-9606-378c5a97d647

Digging into this issue further, I called one of my friends who owns several hundred head of cattle. He was already aware of the Kansas “mass death” event and had been discussing it with other cattle owners. I asked him if he believed the media story that all these cattle suddenly died from heat exposure. His answer?

“I doubt it very seriously that so many would drop dead all at the same time,” he told me. “In a heat-related incident, they wouldn’t all drop dead at the same time. You would see a few dead at a time, scattered across the herd, but not so many deaths all at once.”

When I asked him if he thinks these are natural deaths or something more like sabotage, he said, “I’m thinking it’s something nefarious.”

Bovine epidemics can also cause large-scale simultaneous death, but no one is claiming these are bovine epidemic deaths. So that leaves only a couple of possibilities in the realm of sabotage: 1) Poisoning of the water, 2) Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

This is on top of over 100 documented cases of arson sabotage of food facilities across the USA. Our research staff has put together the full details on each of these (date, location, facility name, description of the fire incident) and we will be publishing this new, updated list soon.

The deliberate take down of the economy and the food supply

What many Americans are waking up to now is the reality that our own government is at war with We the People. They are deliberately destroying the energy infrastructure and obliterating the economy. They are crashing asset markets and utterly destroying the future viability of pensions. And now, it’s clear they’re taking down the food supply chain on purpose, thrusting the American people into food scarcity, food inflation and real famine.

It seems as if the illegitimate Biden regime — which was never actually elected into power — wants to create nationwide riots before the mid-term elections so they can justify a declaration of martial law or some other national emergency. They need something big to break so they can try to cancel the elections or force nationwide mail-in voting so they can steal the election results yet again (like they did in 2020).

With each passing day, they tear down something else that keeps the economy running: Pipelines, international trade, railroads, infant formula manufacturing, etc. Week after week, the food collapse intensifies while food prices skyrocket. The end result is abundantly obvious: Widespread food scarcity combined with sky-high prices that few will be able to afford.

And then on top of that, the question now emerges: Are they deliberately running out and mass murdering cattle, too? We know the Biden regime is run by insane, criminal lunatics who despise beef and ranching operations, but are they really willing to go that far to create a food crisis and try to suspend the elections?

Of course they’re that crazy. They’re Democrats, the party that celebrates murdering their own children after they’re born. Mass murdering cows is nothing to them. In fact, a recent poll shows that nearly half of young male democrats believe that assassinating a politician is completely okay. This poll, astonishingly, was carried out by the left-wing SPLC. As the Daily Caller reports:

Forty-four percent of the “younger Democratic men” surveyed in the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) poll approved of “assassinating a politician who is harming the country or our democracy.” That was the highest rate of any gender, party and age combination.

Remember, these same left-wing fascists believe that carbon dioxide is killing the planet. Thus, they have no problem justifying mass murder of animals or humans as long as they believe it “saves the planet.”

California, run by these same death cult Democrats, has just approved an actual infanticide bill that legalizes the murder of a perfectly healthy child up to 7 days after birth, reports Charisma News.

So yes, these same people who gladly murder their own children and who justify murdering political opponents would not hesitate for a second to mass murder cattle if it meant creating a food crisis that leads to the chaos they want.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE WORLD IS RAPIDLY SLIDING INTO TO TOTAL INSANITY

A man who habitually donates blood has had his donation refused after he failed to indicate on a transgender ideology-inspired official form whether or not he was pregnant.

Britain’s socialised healthcare service is reported as refusing a blood donation over the fact that the potential donor — a male in his sixties — refused to say whether or not he was pregnant.

Reportedly arising out of a transgenderism-inspired push to “promote inclusiveness”, the rejection is only the latest incident related to militant trans ideology to hit the media in the UK and Ireland.

According to a report by the Daily Mail, Leslie Sinclair was turned away by staff at a clinic in Scotland after failing to indicate whether he was either pregnant, or had been pregnant within the last six months.

“I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn’t give blood,” the 66-year-old told the publication.

“It is nonsensical and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help,” he continued. ” But they’ve been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can’t possibly be answered.”

In response to the incident, the head of Scotland’s blood donation service — which exists as part of the UK’s larger socialised National Health Service — emphasised that the decision was made out of “inclusiveness”, saying that it is not always clear whether someone is or is not pregnant.

“As a public body we take cognisance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same question,” organisation director Marc Turner said.

Rights of Transgender Rapists Being Prioritised Over Women and Victims – Reporthttps://t.co/Pwq6SqVBbM

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) May 31, 2022

Sinclair’s bizarre experience with Scotland’s blood service is only the most recent example of trans-ideology causing chaos within the UK and Ireland, with major stories emerging in both countries in recent weeks in relation to militants pushing to have their way on the matter.

For example, a report that examined the effect transgenderism is having on the UK’s justice system recently found that the rights and safety of transgender rapists are being put ahead of victims of sexual assault.

According to the document, the country’s prison service in particular is putting women in danger by recognising biological males as women — even if and when they still have male genitalia — even forcing the fellow female inmates to use said males’ preferred pronouns under the threat of having their prison sentences extended.

“The safety of female prisoners is being put at risk, and their dignity and privacy undermined, by being incarcerated with biological males, some of whom are known sex offenders,” the report read.

“The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that this is causing high levels of fear and anxiety to women who are often already traumatised by their experiences of sexual assault and domestic abuse, yet the wish of trans-identifying males to be placed in the women’s estate is given priority,” it continued.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, pro-transgenderism militants have been attacking the country’s state-owned broadcaster, after a radio show broadcast by the company enabled open discussion of transgender ideology.

‘Triggering’ – Pride Org Drops Partner for Daring to Discuss Trans IdeologyPeter CaddleThe LGBT organisation has dumped its state media partner after the broadcaster dared to enable an open discussio…

Critics of the open discussion — which included a father phoning into the show to describe how his lesbian daughter was labelled “transphobic” for not dating a male who identified as a woman — was slammed as “triggering” by state-sponsored parade organiser Dublin Pride.

“Dublin Pride is both angered and disappointed by the recent unacceptable, triggering and extremely harmful anti-trans ‘discussions’ that have been given a platform on Joe Duffy’s Liveline on RTÉ Radio 1,” a statement from the organisation previously read.

The public debate was also criticised by the country’s Minister for Children, who made the statement that transgender ideology shouldn’t be “debated quite so vigorously”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PROOF THAT THE WORLD IS RAPIDLY SLIDING INTO INSANITY


A man who habitually donates blood has had his donation refused after he failed to indicate on a transgender ideology-inspired official form whether or not he was pregnant.

Britain’s socialised healthcare service is reported as refusing a blood donation over the fact that the potential donor — a male in his sixties — refused to say whether or not he was pregnant.

Reportedly arising out of a transgenderism-inspired push to “promote inclusiveness”, the rejection is only the latest incident related to militant trans ideology to hit the media in the UK and Ireland.

According to a report by the Daily Mail, Leslie Sinclair was turned away by staff at a clinic in Scotland after failing to indicate whether he was either pregnant, or had been pregnant within the last six months.

“I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn’t give blood,” the 66-year-old told the publication.

“It is nonsensical and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help,” he continued. ” But they’ve been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can’t possibly be answered.”

In response to the incident, the head of Scotland’s blood donation service — which exists as part of the UK’s larger socialised National Health Service — emphasised that the decision was made out of “inclusiveness”, saying that it is not always clear whether someone is or is not pregnant.

“As a public body we take cognisance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same question,” organisation director Marc Turner said.

Rights of Transgender Rapists Being Prioritised Over Women and Victims – Reporthttps://t.co/Pwq6SqVBbM

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) May 31, 2022

Sinclair’s bizarre experience with Scotland’s blood service is only the most recent example of trans-ideology causing chaos within the UK and Ireland, with major stories emerging in both countries in recent weeks in relation to militants pushing to have their way on the matter.

For example, a report that examined the effect transgenderism is having on the UK’s justice system recently found that the rights and safety of transgender rapists are being put ahead of victims of sexual assault.

According to the document, the country’s prison service in particular is putting women in danger by recognising biological males as women — even if and when they still have male genitalia — even forcing the fellow female inmates to use said males’ preferred pronouns under the threat of having their prison sentences extended.

“The safety of female prisoners is being put at risk, and their dignity and privacy undermined, by being incarcerated with biological males, some of whom are known sex offenders,” the report read.

“The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that this is causing high levels of fear and anxiety to women who are often already traumatised by their experiences of sexual assault and domestic abuse, yet the wish of trans-identifying males to be placed in the women’s estate is given priority,” it continued.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, pro-transgenderism militants have been attacking the country’s state-owned broadcaster, after a radio show broadcast by the company enabled open discussion of transgender ideology.

‘Triggering’ – Pride Org Drops Partner for Daring to Discuss Trans IdeologyPeter CaddleThe LGBT organisation has dumped its state media partner after the broadcaster dared to enable an open discussio…

Critics of the open discussion — which included a father phoning into the show to describe how his lesbian daughter was labelled “transphobic” for not dating a male who identified as a woman — was slammed as “triggering” by state-sponsored parade organiser Dublin Pride.

“Dublin Pride is both angered and disappointed by the recent unacceptable, triggering and extremely harmful anti-trans ‘discussions’ that have been given a platform on Joe Duffy’s Liveline on RTÉ Radio 1,” a statement from the organisation previously read.

The public debate was also criticised by the country’s Minister for Children, who made the statement that transgender ideology shouldn’t be “debated quite so vigorously”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IF YOU HAVE NOT READ HILAIRE BELLOC YET, I URGE YOU TO READ HIM NOW

JUNE 18, 2022

The Four Men in a Nutshell

JOSEPH PEARCE

Hilaire Belloc wrote on literally anything and everything, “literally” being meant quite literally. His book On Anything, published in 1910, had been preceded the previous year by his book On Everything. He also published On Nothing in 1908 and On Something in 1910. Then, in 1923, he took the omnivorous whimsy to its utmost conclusion, publishing On

Such volumes display Belloc’s versatility as an essayist, illustrating not only the many facets of his Catholicism but also his catholicity of taste for anything, everything, and, most beguilingly, for nothing in particular. Thus, for instance, he writes “On the Pleasure of Taking Up One’s Pen,” “On Ignorance,” “On Tea,” “On Them,” “On Death,” “On Experience,” “On Sacramental Things,” “On Song,” “On the Rights of Property,” “On Old Towns,” and, appropriately enough at the conclusion of one of the volumes, “On Coming to an End.” 

In the pages of these meandering miscellanies, one discovers more about Belloc the man than is discernible in any of his other works except for those hauntingly personal pilgrimages of the soul, The Path to Rome (1902), The Four Men (1912), and The Cruise of the Nona (1925), in which the author waxes wistful and whimsical on the first things, the permanent things, and in general on the things (and the Thing) that give meaning to, and make sense of, anything and everything else.       

These three “pilgrimages,” taken together, might be dubbed “travel-farragoes,” a distinct literary genre in which Belloc excelled. As discussed in the previous “nutshell” on The Path to Rome, they are, at one and the same time, both travelogues and farragoes; linear narratives connected to a journey interspersed with seemingly random anecdotal musings on anything and everything. As such, they are not for those who are in a hurry but for those who wish to saunter with the author in the leisurely pursuit of those things that are worth pursuing at leisure; and those things worth pursuing at leisure are, of course, the very things that are worth spending our whole lives getting to know better. 

Although The Path to Rome was, according to Belloc’s own appraisal, the best book he ever wrote, there is little doubt that The Four Men warrants a place of distinction as one of the finest works of this finest of writers. Although it was not published until 1912, Belloc seems to have embarked on it as early as 1907, originally planning to call it “The County of Sussex.” In 1909, he told Maurice Baring that it would describe “myself and three other characters walking through the county; the other characters are really supernatural beings, a poet, a sailor and Grizzlebeard…they only turn out to be supernatural beings when we get to the town of Liss, which is just over the Hampshire border.” 

Although the “four men” are figments of Belloc’s imagination, they are also facets of his own character. Belloc was himself a poet and a sailor, whereas the elderly character Grizzlebeard could be seen as those aspects of Belloc’s character which were rooted in the past: Belloc the historian, the Catholic, and the traditionalist. As for the fourth man, Myself, he is the narrative voice that holds the whole thing together. 

As they walk the length of the county of Sussex, these four characters discourse on this, that, and just about everything else: on local eccentrics and local saints; on “awful towns” ruined by modernity which need to be avoided like the plague; on the worst and best things in the world; on fairies; on the holy sacrifice of the Mass; on the money-devil; on the singing of kettles and the singing of drinking songs; on the birth of rivers, the hammering of heretics, and the curing of pigs; on inns; on the soul; on worried ghosts and the dead who haunt the dreams of men; on the very best beer; on ancient kings and legendary wars; on hunting men and horses; on first loves and noble sacrifices; on strange philosophers and singing dukes; on politicians who sell their souls; on eggs and bacon and cheese; on the breaking of bread and the breaking of fellowship.    

The Path to Rome and The Four Men are pilgrimages conveying a soul’s love for the soil of its native land, which in the former case is the macrocosmic “Europe of the Faith” in which Belloc was raised and in the latter case is the microcosmic Shire in which he was also raised. Home, like Rome, is a “holy place,” and The Four Men is full of spiritual premonitions of “the character of enduring things” amid the decay of time: 

It has been proved in the life of every man that though his loves are human, and therefore changeable, yet in proportion as he attaches them to things unchangeable, so they mature and broaden.

On this account…does a man love an old house, which was his father’s, and on this account does a man come to love with all his heart, that part of earth which nourished his boyhood.  

One is struck upon reading these wistfully eloquent words from the preface to The Four Men with their similarity to the preface to The Path to Rome, in which Belloc had written that “one’s native place is the shell of one’s soul, and one’s church is the kernel of that nut.” In both books, he lays the foundations of what might be termed the “theology of place.” 

This concept, which can be said to be truly at the heart of Belloc’s work, is quintessentially incarnational. A sense of “place” is linked to the love of home, and the love of home is itself salted by the home’s temporary absence or unattainability. Paradoxically, it is the sense of exile that gives the love of home its intensity and its power. The theology of place is therefore rooted in the earth and yet reaches to Heaven. It is expressed most sublimely in the Salve Regina, in which the “poor banished children of Eve,” lost in “this vale of tears,” hope that, “after this our exile,” we might behold the Blessed Fruit of our Mother’s womb, Jesus, who is the soul’s true home. 

This understanding of the spiritual significance of “home,” this theology of place, is such a recurrent theme in Belloc’s work that it could be said to be almost omnipresent. Few writers have felt so intensely the sense of exile, and hence the love of home, to the degree to which it is invoked by Belloc. From the love of Sussex at the heart of The Four Men and in poems such as “Ha’nacker Mill” or “The South Country,” to the love of Europe in general, and France in particular, evoked in The Path to Rome and in poems such as “Tarantella,” his work resonates with the love of earth as a foreshadowing of the love of Heaven. 

It is in this soil-soul nexus that the nub of Belloc’s profundity is to be discovered. It manifests itself in the tension between permanence and mutability and finds infectious expression in the perfect balance between wistfulness and whimsy. Although these qualities are to be found in all of Belloc’s work, as expressions of the very spirit of the man himself, they are to be found to an exceptional degree in The Path to Rome and The Four Men

In my introduction to the Ignatius Press edition of The Path to Rome, I wrote that “The Four Men rivals it, and perhaps surpasses it, as a vehicle for Belloc’s wit and wisdom, or as an outpouring of his irrepressible personality.” Since Belloc considered The Path to Rome his best work, it seems that I am in disagreement with the great man himself in such effusive praise of The Four Men. No matter. Even if we are to defer to Belloc’s own judgment, it is no small thing to be Belloc’s second best, or even his third best book. In any event, like all of Belloc’s books, it deserves to be read and reread by all who hunger for the “enduring things” in an age of deplorable change.       

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Might All Francis Apologists like Mark Shea be Complicit in Francis’s Sex Abuse Cover-ups? 

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Flashback: Might All Francis Apologists like Mark Shea be Complicit in Francis’s Sex Abuse Cover-ups? 

Vatican Cover-up Unravels as Prosecutors Home-In on Bishop Protected by Pope Francis - Complicit ...

Vatican Cover-up Unravels as Prosecutors Home-In on Bishop Protected by Pope Francis – Complicit …complicitclergy.com 

Pope Francis Mandates Sex Abuse Be Reported To Church, Not State | Michael Stone

Francis apologist Mark Shea in his October 10 post “Msgr. Eric Barr on the Rad Trad Heresy” endorsed Francis’s heretical teaching on “mercy.”
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/10/msgr-eric-barr-on-the-rad-trad-heresy.html]

Msgr. Barr in his piece “Francis: The Pope We Need” actually said something true:

“Papal Emphasis on Mercy is The Root of Criticism of Pope.”
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/ericbarr/2019/11/francis-pope-we-need/]

Indeed, Francis’s teaching on “mercy” is one of his central heresies which has apparently led to the Francis sex abuse cover-ups. But, before we get to that teaching we need to understand why Shea and Barr might think:

“Francis: The Pope We Need.”

The following comes from a website which discloses little known information about Barr and the Campobello sex abuse scandal:

-“The teacher said the diocese’s team already knew many of the details about the relationship between Girl One and Campobello. The teacher asked if they knew about the second victim at Aurora Central, to which they replied, “that’s been dealt with”, she said.” – the Daily Herald, June 23, 2004 (regarding a meeting at the St. Peter rectory in October 2002 with Rockford Misconduct Officer Msgr. David Kagan, Vicar for Clergy and Religious Msgr. Eric Barr, Diocesan attorney Ellen Lynch and a St. Peter school teacher with whom one of the victims confided. When Campobello was arrested in December 2002, he was working as a parochial minister in Belvidere, Illinois)…

… “Some may conclude that we are hiding things. But we are not. We are protecting the right of the Church to have independence from the state as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” – Rockford Diocese Vicar for Clergy Msgr. Eric Barr, 2003 

“I don’t think that the 1st Amendment was written to shelter alleged child molesters.” -John Kass, Chicago Tribune column, January 15, 2004. 

“Merely because Canon 489 is controlling the internal operation of the affairs of the church does not mean that it permits evidence pertaining to sexual molestation of children by priests to be secreted and shielded from discovery that is otherwise proper.” – 2nd District Appellate Court of Illinois in a ruling on the Campobello case, May 2004. 
(Interesting Website Regarding the Diocese, the Campobello Scandal and his parish–St. Peter’s in Geneva The following is taken from: http://www.companionsinhope.com/Geneva/good,bad,ugly.htm)
[http://boonecountycatholics.blogspot.com/2012/02/interesting-website-regarding-diocese.html?m=1]

As Barr appears, according to the Chicago Tribune, to agree with Francis on covering up sex abuse, it appears that Shea agrees with Francis on homosexual civil unions. Shea said:

“Of course it won’t. We’re not the Anglican Church. I do think the Church, having fought a long rear guard retreat against civil unions, will probably throw in the towel on that.”
[http://m.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-with-jitters-about-pope-francis-writes]

On September 1, 2017, Crux reported that Francis supported Shea’s call for a “retreat” on “legalization of evil” homosexual civil unions saying:

“Let’s call unions between the same sex ‘civil unions.'”
(Crux, “‘I consulted a psychoanalyst,’ Pope Francis reveals in new book,” September 1, 2017)

The gay/lesbian dissenting New Ways Ministry said:

“Pope Francis has never, as pontiff, stated his endorsement of civil unions so flatly. (He did support civil unions as a compromise to his opposition towards marriage equality… As pontiff, he did make a ambiguous statement about civil unions…).” 
(New Way Ministry Bondings 2.0 Blog, “Pope Francis Allows for Civil Unions for Lesbian and Gay Couples,” September 2, 2017)

The gay movement New Way Ministry endorsed Francis’s apparent endorsement of the civil unions of cohabiting homosexual couples.

On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Faith, said such an endorsement was against Catholic teaching:

“Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil… The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons,” June 3, 2003)

Homosexualist Shea apparently disagrees with the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger teaching that gay civil unions are “legalization of evil” it appears because of his belief in Francis “mercy.”

Do Shea and Barr because of their conviction in Francis “mercy” “think that the 1st Amendment was written to shelter alleged child molesters” according to John Kass in his Chicago Tribune column’s perspective on the Barr 1st Amendment statement?

Both appears to think that their support of such “thinking” is rooted in the Francis teachings on “mercy.” Remember Barr said:

“Papal Emphasis on Mercy is The Root of Criticism of Pope.”

Is the Shea/Barr support of Francis “mercy” really connected to the sex abuse scandal and “legalization of evil”?

In 2017, the Associated Press revealed that Francis reversed the decision of Pope Benedict XVI to kick pedophiles out of the priesthood.

Francis is now reinstating sex abusers back into priesthood. The AP wrote that Francis “recently” said:

“[H]e believed sex abusers suffer from a ‘disease’ – a medical term used by defense la wyers to seek mitigating factors in canonical sentences.”[https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/25/pope-quietly-trims-sanctions-sex-abusers-seeking-mercy/]

Abuse victim Marie Collins, a founding member of Francis’ sex-abuse advisory commission, apparently responding to the Pope’s claim that sex abusing priests are “diseased” psychologically and not responsible for their crimes or sins, said:

“All who abuse have made a conscious decision to do so. Even those who are paedophiles, experts will tell you, are still responsible for their actions. They can resist their inclinations…

“While mercy is important, justice for all parties is equally important. If there is seen to be any weakness about proper penalties, then it might well send the wrong message to those who would abuse.”[http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/26/pope-francis-reversed-decisions-to-kick-paedophiles-out-of-the-priesthood-6473481/#ixzz4ZpmwUPVe]

Vatican spokesman Greg Burke told AP that “Francis’s emphasis on mercy applied to ‘even those who are guilty of heinous crimes.”

Is the “merciful” Francis denying sin when he says child molesters who he reinstated into priesthood are “diseased” psychologically?

Francis appears to be denying mortal sin by redefining it out of existence using terms like “disease” and “irregular relationships.”  

This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the sex abuser, the person in adultery and fornication or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at “peace” with it, if the sinful behavior is “humanly impossible” to change, “if they can’t change their sinful behavior” or don’t know it is wrong. 

Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior can do the following:

-Adulterers may under Francis legally receive Holy Communion. 

-Sex abusers may be reinstated into the priesthood.

-Sex abusers and adulterer it appears may continue in sin without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/01/is-pope-francis-trying-to-empty-cross.html?m=1]

Finally, we get the Shea/Barr beloved Francis teaching on “mercy” which is one of his central heresies which has apparently led to the Vatican sex abuse cover-ups. Francis’s redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal means all who believe it such as Shea and Barr may cease to be Catholics and in fact are heretics.

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:

“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The  individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a “supreme tribunal of moral judgement… in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear”:

Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8… As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: ‘In this passage, the German bishops get all they want’:”

“But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are ‘in God’s grace’, and that their pastor can know it too… The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes ‘the help of the sacraments… ‘”

“Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is ‘objectively’ sinful, so they can return to the sacraments.”
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Every pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 

The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can’t be redefined, even by the pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called “Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power.”

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn’t have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

This may be a valid question to ask Francis and his apologists who promote this redefinition of “mercy”:

Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation as every pope and saint in history has believed since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?

John Paul II condemned anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal as being a “explicit atheist.”

Lastly, why are Shea and Barr complicit in Francis’s sex abuse cover-ups?

In 2002, Shea wrote about the problem:

“[R]ankest clericalism… not protecting innocent children from sexual predators… Bishops [that includes the Bishop of Rome presently Francis] who repeatedly and knowingly lied to victims and exposed still more victims to the depredation of these men [sex abusing priests] should face the consequences of their actions.”
(“Shaken by Scandals: Catholics speak out about priests’ sexual abuse,” Page  102-103)

If Shea and Barr aren’t hypocrites and complicit then they needs to call for Francis to “face the consequences” of “expos[ing] more victims to” McCarrick, Murphy-O’Connor, Zanchetta, Inzoli, Grassi, Pardo and the “sexual abuse” predator priest list goes on.

The latest being on Jun 10, when Crux reported a “personal friend” of Francis was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse”: 

“Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta… was charged with ‘aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization’…”

“[He was charged] by the prosecutor’s office in the Argentine northern province of Salta. The bishop was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization. Zanchetta, the former bishop of Oran, was accused of “strange behavior” in 2015 when a diocesan secretary found pornographic pictures on the prelate’s phone. The images included gay porn featuring young men, but not minors, as well as images of Zanchetta touching himself. They were allegedly sent to unknown third parties.”
[https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/06/10/argentine-bishop-at-heart-of-phone-porn-scandal-charged-with-abusing-seminarians/]

LifeSiteNews reported that “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father”:

“[T]he words of the priest who signed the second document [testimony], “Zanchetta was a personal friend of the Holy Father.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Pope Francis knew of Bishop’s abuse years before Vatican posting, new document indicate,” February 27, 2019)

Or when on September 24, 2018, LifeSiteNews reported that another “friend” of Francis was protected by him from a credible allegation when he blocked an investigation of a abused woman who credibly accused a group of priests including Francis’s friend Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.

The woman, also, accused, among the group of priests, the pedophile priest Fr. Michael “Hill [of] abus[ing] her in the late 1960s, there were several other priests present and involved. She claims that Murphy-O’Connor was among them”:

“Pope Francis told Cardinal Gerhard Müller in 2013 to stop investigating abuse allegations against British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, according to a highly-placed Vatican source who spoke to Marco Tossati. Murphy-O’Connor, as a member of the “Sankt [St.] Gallen mafia,” played a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected Pope in 2013.”

“…The lady who accused Murphy-O’Connor himself of abuse, claims that when Hill abused her in the late 1960s, there were several other priests present and involved. She claims that Murphy-O’Connor was among them. She, who then lived in what is now the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, had entered in the early 2000s into an agreement with the Diocese and received £40,000 payment for the abuse of Father Hill.”
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/blogs/source-pope-blocked-investigation-of-abuse-allegations-against-cardinal-who#ampshare=https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/source-pope-blocked-investigation-of-abuse-allegations-against-cardinal-who]

And yet more, the Deus Ex Machina blog in a post titled “This Might Sound Crazy, But this Question Needs to be Asked” said that Francis’s inner circle is a “WHO’S WHO of the homo-mafia”:

“It appears as if it’s a WHO’S WHO of the homo-mafia in the upper echelons of the post-conciliar church.”

I mean, it’s like Francis has a LIST of names of the worst HOMOHERETICS in the post-conciliar church and is promoting them, with their entire entourages to the highest levels of the government of the Vatican.”

Moreover, the blog had a video to illustrate the point:

“[T]his here caught the ever gazeful eye of this humble blogger, not to mention his news feed filters:”

[https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/]

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted “Unmasking Bergoglio” where it said “Bergoglio [Francis] always had the ‘gay agenda'” and bestowed “constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests”:

“Bergoglio always had the “gay agenda” among his plans… It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests.”

“… Cardinal Bergoglio as Primate… of the Argentine Episcopal Conference… “[had a] “star”… of the Argentine Episcopate. The great theologian… of the poor [Archbishop Juan Carlos Maccarone].”

“Until… in March 2005 a video appeared in which the archbishop appeared having sexual games with a young man… Pope Benedict XVI… immediately removed [him from his]… position [as bishop].”

“The reaction of Bergoglio”

“By a letter that Maccarone himself directed in [to] his bother bishops, it can be easily deduced that the entire Argentine episcopal gang knew of his weakness… And, in spite of that, they promoted him to the episcopal office.”

“… Bergoglio… issued a statement in which he expressed his ‘gratitude’ to the former bishop [Maccarone].”

“… The spokesman of the arzobipado porteno went out to say… the [sex] video corresponded to “the private life of Bishop Maccarone.”

Jimmy Burns in his book “Francis, Pope of Good Promise” after referencing that “Maccarone resigned” because of the “videotape showing the bishop having ‘intimate relations'” wrote:

“Bergoglio’s own spokesman, rather than focus on Maccarone’s political links with Kirchner, jumped to the bishop’s defense claiming he had been set up.”

“… Fortunato Millimaci, a Buenos Aires sociologist [said]… ‘This means that the idea of the Catholic Church as a moral reference of a Catholic nation is very strongly in doubt… It shows that a double standard exists within the Church [of Bergoglio] itself.'” (Pages 231-232)

Francis’s inner circle since leaving Argentina is largely composed of the gay lobby and those who covered-up for them:

Business Standard, September 19, 2017:

Francis’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith perfect Archbishop Ferrer will go to trail for “complicity in alleged cover-up” of paedophile priest.

The Telegraph, July 19, 2013:

“Pope’s [Francis’s] ‘eyes and ears’ in Vatican bank [allegedly] ‘had string of homosexual affairs’… [Battista] Ricca is a trusted confidante of the Pope”

LifeSiteNews, March 7,2018:

Francis’s closest advisor in the C9 papal inner circle Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga left in charge of his Honduras archdiocese his close confidant Bishop Juan Pineda “accused of ‘abusing seminarians, having a string of male lovers.'”

National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2014:

Francis’s close advisor in C9 papal inner circle Cardinal “Errazuriz [and his]… successor… [Cardinal] Ezzati” “Chilean cardinals close to pope stained by abuse cover-ups” of priest sex abuser of Juan Carlos Cruz.
Remember

The Remnant, September 12, 2017:

Francis’s confidant Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s Secretary has homosexual orgy in Vatican:

“Secretary to the powerful Cardinal Francesco ‘Positive Realities of Homosexuals’… [Coccopalmerio’s Secretary] Capozzi was arrested for hosting a raucous drug fueled homosexual orgy.”

BBC, August 29, 2010 & LifeSiteNews, September 16, 2017:

Francis collaborator invited by Pope to be number two representative in family synod “Belgian Cardinal Danneels condoned sex-abuse silence.”

The Week, January 3, 2017:

“Pope Francis and his cardinal allies… known to interfere…  on abuse cases… Consider case of [serial sex-abuser] Fr. Mauro Inzoli… Francis returned him to the priestly state.”

Vebuumdei.blogspot, June 23, 2014 & Catholic Monitor, April 18, 2017:

Francis strolled hand in hand down the street with gay activist Fr. Luigi Ciotti at a anti-gangster event.

Chiesa, December 16, 2016:

Vatican expert Sandro Magister said Francis has a “number of homosexual priests in the inner circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.”

There are still more Francis sex abuse cover-ups not listed in this post which you can find if you do a “Francis sex abuse cover-ups” search of this website.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Note: I write this from past experience. I rarely delete, but any sick demonic comments of the disciples of Mark Shea will be deleted as soon as I am aware of them. So, don’t waste your time posting. I sincerely feel sorry for you and am praying for you. Sadly, you apparently are a reflection of Shea. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/11/are-mark-shea-msgr-barr-hertetics-as.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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Is Groomer McCarrick Victim James Grein Right that Vatican II Bears Responsibility for the current Francis Sex Abuse Scandals? 

Few abuse scandals involve Francis as directly as that of Argentine bishop | Angelus News

Few abuse scandals involve Francis as directly as that of Argentine bishop | Angelus Newsangelusnews.com

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

188: McCarrick's Victim Speaks Out on McCarrick and St Gallen Mafia w James Grein [Podcast ...
Ex-cardinal letters show signs of grooming victims for abuse
Ex-cardinal letters show signs of grooming victims for abuse

Dr. Taylor Marshall in his 2018 YouTube interview with the ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick victim “James” Grein, made famous in a New York Times article, revealed some of the underlying causes of the Catholic sex abuse crisis. 

 
The McCarrick victim revealed that Pope John Paul II, Vatican II and the modernist “spirit of Vatican II” Saint Gallen Mafia who apparently helped bring Pope Francis into power bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal. 

Grein, in the interview, disclosed that his well connected as well as wealthy grandfather and devout Catholic family befriended the fatherless McCarrick and financed his education as well as introduced him to influential high ranking Church clerics.

James’ family helped McCarrick reach the heights of Church influence and power over the last decades of the twentieth century.

The ex-cardinal, and close collaborator of Francis, repaid the family’s kindness and generosity by repeatedly sexually abusing James.

In the interview Marshall asked the McCarrick victim: “Did John Paul II know about this [that the ex-cardinal was a sexual predator]?”

Grein said: “Yes!.. He [John Paul II] was part of the agenda. He changed a lot of things in the Church, but not fast enough for the people behind… The people behind are the people of Saint Gallen.”
[https://taylormarshall.com/2018/12/188-mccarrick-st-gallen-mafia-james-grein-reveals-truth-vatican-podcast.html]

The article below shows evidence to back up Grein’s testimony that John Paul II and Vatican II bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal.

The ultimate “new springtime” of Vatican II Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, in the Catholic Herald said:

 “[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish… we must sweep it away.”

Schmitz shows that most bishops, liberal and conservative, want to continue the “new springtime” of Vatican II and it’s post-Vatican II settlement “that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:

“[Conservative] Bishop Barron also cautioned against what he called an “ideological” response… those who raise concerns about Humanae Vitae, priestly celibacy, or “rampant homosexuality in the Church” may be… causing a ‘distraction’.”

“No one cares for the endless Catholic culture wars, but we should be wary of attempts to shut down frank discussion of how we got here. Bishop Barron’s list of taboo topics suggests that he – like most bishops – is keen to preserve the settlement of 1968.”

“In that year, Pope Paul VI famously reaffirmed Catholic teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae, but then declined to discipline the many bishops and priests who rejected that teaching. The result was an uneasy truce: the teaching was formally upheld, but obedience to it was not demanded.”

“The same dynamic played out in 2005, when the Vatican decided that men with ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ should be barred from the priesthood.”

“… But for people in the pews, things don’t look so great. In 1955, nearly 75 per cent of American Catholics went weekly to Mass. Today, only 39 percent do. Outside of a few Latin Mass and “reform of the reform” enclaves, Mass-going Catholics suffer wrecked sanctuaries, botched liturgies and moral confusion. The springtime is hard to find.”[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/aug-17th-2018/a-truce-that-cannot-hold/]

The taboo topic that all will not mention, but that the numbers above as well as the McCarrick and Pennsylvania scandals prove is that Vatican II is the cause of the “culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish.”

The Amoris Laetitia-like ambiguous Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality.”

Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.

Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.

Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)

The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:

“That depends.  In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate.  Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics.  Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc.  Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith.  It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order.  The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society.  And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state couldin principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good).” 

“This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”  Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled — these have all been matters of controversy.  They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided.  The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled.  Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas StorckFr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink.” 


One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:

“The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church’s worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:

“There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of “religious liberty”—–i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a “right” attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any “right” as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce [,homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.

Apparently, Chaput teaches that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth.” The Archbishop wrote:

“Error has no rights, but persons do have rights – even when they choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience, is – along with the right to life – the most important right any human being has.” (First Things, “Of Human Dignity,” March 18, 2015)

So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if “persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]… choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience”?

In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his “‘longtime friend’ Cardinal McCarrick” who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: “McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.” (“The Neo-Catholics,” pages 154, 159)

What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?

Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?

Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]… choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience”?

On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in “Numerous ‘gay’ affirming parishes unopposed by bishops” reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he “expressed concern about the use of ‘intrinsically disordered'” which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, “Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, “September 20, 2017)

It appears that the “conservative” Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth.”

Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth”:

“In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, ‘See you later.’”

“With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015.”

“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. ‘Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.’”

“Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest.” [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]

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 CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Is Groomer McCarrick Victim James Grein Right that Vatican II Bears Responsibility for the current Francis Sex Abuse Scandals? 

Few abuse scandals involve Francis as directly as that of Argentine bishop | Angelus News

Few abuse scandals involve Francis as directly as that of Argentine bishop | Angelus Newsangelusnews.com

Watch the Youtube video by clicking here.

188: McCarrick's Victim Speaks Out on McCarrick and St Gallen Mafia w James Grein [Podcast ...
Ex-cardinal letters show signs of grooming victims for abuse
Ex-cardinal letters show signs of grooming victims for abuse

Dr. Taylor Marshall in his 2018 YouTube interview with the ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick victim “James” Grein, made famous in a New York Times article, revealed some of the underlying causes of the Catholic sex abuse crisis. 

 
The McCarrick victim revealed that Pope John Paul II, Vatican II and the modernist “spirit of Vatican II” Saint Gallen Mafia who apparently helped bring Pope Francis into power bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal. 

Grein, in the interview, disclosed that his well connected as well as wealthy grandfather and devout Catholic family befriended the fatherless McCarrick and financed his education as well as introduced him to influential high ranking Church clerics.

James’ family helped McCarrick reach the heights of Church influence and power over the last decades of the twentieth century.

The ex-cardinal, and close collaborator of Francis, repaid the family’s kindness and generosity by repeatedly sexually abusing James.

In the interview Marshall asked the McCarrick victim: “Did John Paul II know about this [that the ex-cardinal was a sexual predator]?”

Grein said: “Yes!.. He [John Paul II] was part of the agenda. He changed a lot of things in the Church, but not fast enough for the people behind… The people behind are the people of Saint Gallen.”
[https://taylormarshall.com/2018/12/188-mccarrick-st-gallen-mafia-james-grein-reveals-truth-vatican-podcast.html]

The article below shows evidence to back up Grein’s testimony that John Paul II and Vatican II bear responsibility for the gay sex abuse scandal.

The ultimate “new springtime” of Vatican II Catholic Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things, on August 16, in the Catholic Herald said:

 “[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]… Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish… we must sweep it away.”

Schmitz shows that most bishops, liberal and conservative, want to continue the “new springtime” of Vatican II and it’s post-Vatican II settlement “that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:

“[Conservative] Bishop Barron also cautioned against what he called an “ideological” response… those who raise concerns about Humanae Vitae, priestly celibacy, or “rampant homosexuality in the Church” may be… causing a ‘distraction’.”

“No one cares for the endless Catholic culture wars, but we should be wary of attempts to shut down frank discussion of how we got here. Bishop Barron’s list of taboo topics suggests that he – like most bishops – is keen to preserve the settlement of 1968.”

“In that year, Pope Paul VI famously reaffirmed Catholic teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae, but then declined to discipline the many bishops and priests who rejected that teaching. The result was an uneasy truce: the teaching was formally upheld, but obedience to it was not demanded.”

“The same dynamic played out in 2005, when the Vatican decided that men with ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ should be barred from the priesthood.”

“… But for people in the pews, things don’t look so great. In 1955, nearly 75 per cent of American Catholics went weekly to Mass. Today, only 39 percent do. Outside of a few Latin Mass and “reform of the reform” enclaves, Mass-going Catholics suffer wrecked sanctuaries, botched liturgies and moral confusion. The springtime is hard to find.”[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/aug-17th-2018/a-truce-that-cannot-hold/]

The taboo topic that all will not mention, but that the numbers above as well as the McCarrick and Pennsylvania scandals prove is that Vatican II is the cause of the “culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish.”

The Amoris Laetitia-like ambiguous Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on the Catholic state is what brought about the “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality.”

Traditionalists said it was a façade which was ambiguous and not defined teaching that would eventually have to be corrected.

Francis’s Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for the Francis agreed with the Traditionalists that it was not defined teaching.

Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae “is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but… pastoral practice.” (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)

The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:

“That depends.  In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate.  Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics.  Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc.  Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith.  It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order.  The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society.  And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state couldin principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good).” 

“This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”  Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they cannot be reconciled — these have all been matters of controversy.  They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics, have avoided.  The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae unsettled.  Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas StorckFr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink.” 


One knows a Vatican II document is a disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:

“The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church’s worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Christopher Ferrara stated why Dignitatis Humanae brought about “[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption… has required a culture of lies… that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish”:

“There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of “religious liberty”—–i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a “right” attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any “right” as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce [,homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them.” [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]

Unfortunately, almost all conservatives such as Archbishop Charles Chaput thought Dignitatis Humanae was defined teaching and not a disaster.

Apparently, Chaput teaches that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth.” The Archbishop wrote:

“Error has no rights, but persons do have rights – even when they choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience, is – along with the right to life – the most important right any human being has.” (First Things, “Of Human Dignity,” March 18, 2015)

So did conservatives such as Chaput think that they on paper could teach that homosexuality was error, but in reality error had rights if “persons [such as the liberal McCarrick]… choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience”?

In fact, in 2001 when then President Bush met with Catholic leaders and his “‘longtime friend’ Cardinal McCarrick” who was there with him according to liberal Catholic Betty Clermont: “McCarrick; Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.” (“The Neo-Catholics,” pages 154, 159)

What did Chaput know about McCarrick when he sat with him in that meeting?

Did he think McCarrick as a person had a right to freedom of conscience to falsehood over truth?

Does Chaput think that on paper that he can teach that homosexuality is a error but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as the liberal Fr. James Martin]… choose falsehood over truth… freedom of conscience”?

On March 31, 2017, LifeSiteNews in “Numerous ‘gay’ affirming parishes unopposed by bishops” reported that Chaput agrees with Martin when he “expressed concern about the use of ‘intrinsically disordered'” which is a defined Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

Chaput, also, defends gay activist Fr. Martin who taught on YouTube that chastity is not required of homosexuals. (Church Militant, “Father Martin: Homosexuals not Bound to Chastity, “September 20, 2017)

It appears that the “conservative” Chaput is using Dignitatis Humanae to build a bridge to hell for homosexuals by claiming on paper that the error of homosexuality has no rights, but in reality error has rights if “persons [such as Martin and McCarrick] choose falsehood over truth.”

Unfortunately, one of the main writers of Dignitatis Humanae was Pope John Paul II before he became pope. It appears that John Paul II when it came to the documented evidence of the sex abuse of a bishop taught that “error has no rights” in paper, but in reality error has rights if “persons… choose falsehood over truth”:

“In 1996, Kunz became a canon law adviser to the Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), an Illinois-based group investigating the sexual abuse of boys by Catholic priests and bishops. Kunz was recommended to RCF by the Rev. John A. Hardon, SJ, a widely respected theologian and author who worked for several popes and had deep connections at the Vatican. The group was gathering information on Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill. Ryan was accused of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled man, soliciting sex from a 15-year-old boy, trolling area parks for teenage male prostitutes, and having sex with priests in his diocese. In sworn testimony to RCF investigators, one of the teen prostitutes said Ryan once heard his confession and blessed him, then told him, “go and sin no more.” Then the bishop winked at the teen and said, ‘See you later.’”

“With help from Kunz and Father Fiore, RCF developed a dossier on the situation in the Springfield diocese. Father Hardon carried the report to Rome and presented it to Pope St. John Paul II, vouching for RCF and the accuracy of the document. Nothing was done with the explosive information. Hardon told RCF officials that at least a dozen American bishops supported Ryan in his quest to hold onto his bishopric in Springfield, according to RCF president and founder Stephen G. Brady. One of them was the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Chicago, Brady said. When the group approached Bernardin for help in removing Ryan, he refused, Brady said. Ryan abruptly retired in October 1999, shortly before a lawsuit was filed accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of a child by another Illinois priest. Sheriff Mahoney said Dane County investigators interviewed Ryan, but have no indication he is linked to the Kunz homicide. Ryan died in December 2015.”

“Father Hardon told me to go to Kunz if I needed any contacts anywhere or needed direction in my investigations,” Brady told Catholic World Report. ‘Father Kunz never discussed any other investigations with me except my own. He was tight lipped and you could trust him 100 percent. He had my files and answered any questions I had. He did work behind the scenes for me but kept it private.’”

“Brady said during the 14 years that RCF conducted its investigations, he received three death threats. One was serious enough to involve the FBI. An email circulated claiming a contract was out for Brady’s assassination. After Kunz was murdered, Brady bought a bulletproof vest.” [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/08/the-unsolved-murder-of-fr-alfred-kunz/]

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the one hand, it was encouraging that young people saw a “return to old-school forms of worship as a way of escaping from the crisis of modernity and the liberal-capitalist faith in individualism.” On the other hand, all these -isms have basically nothing to do with the Gospel. 


Against ‘Weird Christianity’

The rise and fall of the FadCath.

Michael Warren DavisJun 17

Rememember the “Weird Christianity” thing that took off in 2020? If not, I direct you to Tara Isabella Burton’s article “Christianity Gets Weird” in The New York Times. If so, I’m sure that—like me—you felt a kind of cautious optimism towards the Weird Christians. 

On the one hand, it was encouraging that young people saw a “return to old-school forms of worship as a way of escaping from the crisis of modernity and the liberal-capitalist faith in individualism.” On the other hand, all these -isms have basically nothing to do with the Gospel. 

Of course, many sincere converts have first been drawn to Christianity by something other than Jesus. It might be the Latin Mass or the Book of Common Prayer. It might be the wisdom of Catholic social teaching. It might be a steeple peeping out of a skyline or a statue of St. Francis in a garden. God has used much stranger tools to plant the seeds of faith. For C. S. Lewis, it was a fairytale. For St. Augustine, it was the memory of a stolen pear.

So it’s possible that disillusionment with the world can lead to authentic faith. Still, we might have been a little anxious to hear that these Weird Christians are driven by a “sense of rebellion—of consciously being at variance with modernity.” What if they happened to be born in a more Christian age? Maybe they would have joined the Communist Party or the Freemasons. Maybe they’re just rebels in search of a cause—any cause, so long as it’s “weird.”


Now along comes a new article in Vox called “How Catholicism Became a Meme”. (Warning: some of the photos in the article are pretty risqué.) It’s about what happens when a religion becomes faddish among the Very Online. I’m going to call them FadCaths. 

FadCaths are less highbrow than Weird Christians, but their ideas are basically the same. The article quotes an actress and podcaster named Dasha Nekrasova as saying,

Catholicism is nice because it involves a whole body of work outside of the Bible — it’s a very aesthetic, literary religion. . . . What’s so great about faith is that it doesn’t have to be grounded in rational thought. We are seeing a lot of people return to religion because everything feels so senseless and pointless, so why not be a Catholic?

I’m sure Ms. Nekrasova is being provocative, but she’s on to something. 

Catholicism is an extremely rich, complex, diverse religion. Of course, the smells and bells—the aesthetics, the literature, etc.—are supposed to point us to Jesus. Yet it’s entirely possible for one to be attracted to Catholicism on purely aesthetic/literary grounds, and never leave the shallows. 

One might even be attracted to Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclicals without ever glancing at the Bible. Catholic social teaching, with its emphasis both on traditional values and economic justice, does bear a squinting resemblance to the new populist Right. I converted to distributism long before I converted to Catholicism.

No: there’s nothing wrong with going through a Catholic phase—so long as one comes out a Catholic on the other end. But I expect a considerable majority of these folks will abandon Christianity within the next five years.


That’s not to say Weird Christians and FadCaths don’t actually believe. I’m sure they do. But the point of Christianity isn’t to read its texts, determine whether or not its claims are credible, and (if so) adopt its views. The point is to surrender one’s whole self to Jesus Christ. 

To become a Christian it’s not to adopt a new identity, but to become a “new creature.” (2 Cor. 5:17) It isn’t to take on a new set of opinions, but to renounce one’s right to an opinion and put on the “mind of Christ.” (1 Cor. 2:16)

If you’re not putting out into the deep, you will eventually run aground. If your faith isn’t rooted firmly in the Gospel, it will eventually fall over. And if these FadCaths spend all of their time on the Web slinging memes with other newcomers, there’s no one to really challenge them. There’s no one to help push their faith beyond the smells and bells. 

In fact, the opposite is more likely to happen. There will be a strong temptation not to deepen their faith. It’s like the smart kid who pretends to be bad at math so his classmates don’t call him a nerd. Catholicism will never be anything more than online arguments about how much they love/hate the Latin Mass, and how great/awful Pope Francis is, and wonderful/terrible it would be to live under an integralist regime. If that’s your whole experience of the faith, except for Sunday Mass, Catholicism will probably get boring at some point. 

Eventually you’ll have more rosaries than you can fit in your drawer. You’ll have more prayerbooks than you can squeeze on your shelf. You’ll have more icons than wall space and more stickers than laptop. You’ll get tired of burning the same incense in your kitchen and of listening to the same Gregorian chant playlists over and over. 

What happens then? Well, you move on to the next fad.


Anyway, the desire to be “weird” is really a desire to be normal. As Ms. Burton wrote back in 2020, “Weird Christianity is equal parts traditionalism and, well, punk: Christianity as transgressive alternative to contemporary secular capitalist culture.” Of course, that’s always how the new establishment always bills itself: as an alternative. In a society that values freakishness, some Christians hope to be the biggest freaks of all. 

As we said, that’s a pretty far cry from the Gospel. Jesus didn’t say that Christians would be avant-garde. He said the world would hate us, the way it hated Him. (John 15:18) We wouldn’t be invited to parties at the Met. We wouldn’t be welcomed on the pages of the New York Times. We would be despised, vilified, scorned, crucified.

Besides, Christianity really isn’t very punk. Much as we love Anglican cathedrals and Gregorian chant, those are not the ordinary experience of the believer. At any given moment, the average Christian isn’t sniffing incense and whispering Latin prayers.

Most of the time he’s resisting the temptation to gossip, to covet, to drink too much, to drive too fast. He’s forcing himself to say evening prayer, to call his grandmother, to cut a check for those traditionalist Franciscans in Kentucky. He’s succumbing to the Lewisian spiral: “Now that I’m a Christian, I am humble. Wait—that’s a rather prideful thing to say. But at least now I know I’m not humble! I deserve credit for that. Wait—no, I don’t. That’s a kind of pride, too. But, ah! How humble I am, recognizing my own false humility! Wait—hold on…”

Remember what Our Lord said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)  If ye love me, keep my commandments. That’s what being a Christian is all about. It’s a moment-my-moment struggle against temptation to sin. And if you meet with any success, it also becomes a moment-by-moment struggle against the temptation to pride.


The ordinary life of a Christian is playing Whack-a-Mole, only you’re the moles. All of them. 

The payoff is that you spend the rest of your life basking in the inexhaustible love of Jesus Christ, and then all eternity thereafter. You are devoured by love. You are drowned in love. Love burns you alive. You never have to think of anything but love ever again. 

It’s a pretty good deal, but it’s not punk. If punk is your priority, then you probably won’t find Christianity to your liking. You, too, will probably end up splashing around in the shallows until you get bored and wander back to the shore.

Really, from a punk’s perspective, it’s the worst of both worlds. To be a Christian is to be as powerless as a rebel, but with all the demands of respectability. We invite the world’s hatred, yet we’re expected to love those who hate us, and to serve them. It’s our normalcy that they despise—our poor efforts to conform to natural virtue, to live by natural law.

Of course, the hope is that Weird Christians and FadCaths will eventually be tempted into the deep water. Like everyone else, they’ll experience that marvelous revelation that Christianity is nothing like what they expected. 

They might come looking for a transgressive alternative to contemporary secular capitalist culture and find something infinitely better: a quiet home, a little peace. They think they’re joining up with a band of rebels only to find themselves serving in a royal army. We fight for the rightful King against His usurper. We fight against the anarchy of this world. We fight for the rule of law, and the law is love.


Friends, in case it’s of interest, here are the articles I published this week:

1 .) “The Satanic Temple comes to Boston” at The Spectator

2.) “Unburnable Books” at The American Conservative

That’s all I got. Have a great weekend, everyone. Peace and the Good!

If you liked this post from The Common Man, why not share it?

Share

© 2022 Michael Warren Davis
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CONGRESS WILL NEVER REALLY THE JANUARY 6 TRAVESTY


What the January 6 Committee

 Might Have Been

A real committee would also investigate 

the other, far larger and more lethal riots 

on iconic federal property months earlier.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

June 15, 2022

(Emphasis added)

Congress should investigate fully the January 6 riot at the Capitol—and similar recent riots at iconic federal sites.

But unfortunately, it never will. Why not?

The current committee is not bipartisan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) forbade Republican nominees traditionally selected by the House minority leader to serve on the committee. 

No speaker had ever before rejected the minority party’s nominees to a select House committee. 

Pelosi’s cynical criteria for Republican participation were twofold: Any willing minority Republican members had to have voted to impeach Donald Trump while having no realistic chance of being reelected in 2022. 

Of some 210 Republican House members, that left just Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) who were willing and able to fit Pelosi’s profile. 

A real investigation would have ignited argumentation, cross-examination, and disagreements— the sort of give-and-take for which congressional committees are famous. 

In contrast, the January 6 show trial features no dissenting views. Its subtext was right out of the Soviet minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria’s credo: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. 

If Donald Trump was not considering a third run for the presidency, would the committee even have existed?

Its slick Hollywood-produced optics demonstrate that the committee has no interest in inconvenient facts. Why did a Capitol officer lethally shoot a petite unarmed woman entering a Capitol window? And why was the officer’s identity and, indeed all information about his record, withheld from the public? 

Why did the committee not investigate whether large numbers of FBI agents and informants were ubiquitous among the crowd? After all, progressive New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg who was there on January 6, claimed, “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

About his journalistic colleagues advancing a psychodramatic “insurrection” narrative, Rosenberg scoffed, “They were making too big a deal. They were making [Jan. 6] some organized thing that it wasn’t.”

A real committee would also investigate why there were lots of warnings that a large crowd would assemble, but little government follow-up to ensure security, should rogue elements turn violent. 

A real committee would learn why the government and media insisted that officer Brian Sicknick was killed by Trump supporters—even when it was known he died of natural causes. 

None of the questions will be answered because none will be asked. After all, the committee’s role is not inquiry but confirmation of a useful narrative.

A real committee would also investigate the other, far larger and more lethal riots on iconic federal property months earlier.

On May 31, 2020, for example, violent demonstrators tried to rush the White House grounds. Rioters sought to burn down the nearby historic St. John’s Episcopal Church. 

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser mysteriously did not send police to reinforce overwhelmed Secret Service agents who at moments seemed unable to keep the mob from the White House itself. 

The giddy New York Times later crowed, “Trump shrinks back.” Was the Times preening that the president was a coward for retreating from a righteous mob? 

As a precaution, the Secret Service removed the president and first family to a safe underground bunker.

Such riots near or at the White House continued for much of the fall, before mysteriously tapering off in the last weeks before the election. 

Less than three weeks after the violent Washington riot, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris seemed to incite the continuing violent protests, “They’re not going to stop . . . This is a movement . . . they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.” 

Note that Harris’ cheerleading was joined by a host of prominent left-wing luminaries who contextualized the violence. The “1619 Project” architect Nikole Hannah-Jones boasted, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” 

Former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pontificated, “And please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.”

Note that the 2020 summer rioting, arson, and looting continued for nearly four months. Its toll resulted in over 35 dead, some 1,500 police officers injured, around 14,000 arrests, and between $1-2 billion in property damage. 

The violence was often aimed at iconic government buildings, from courthouses to police precincts. There were never any federal investigations to determine why state, local, and federal officials allowed the destruction to continue. 

Why were the vast majority of those arrested simply released by authorities? 

And how had antifa and BLM radicals orchestrated the violence using social media? What was the role of prominent elected officials in either condoning or encouraging the violence or communicating with the ring leaders? A truly bipartisan House select committee dedicated to ending all violence directed at the White House, the Capitol, or federal courthouses might have been useful in probing this dark period in American history. 

And that is precisely why there was no such committee.

___________________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment