YOU MAY NOT SPEAK FRENCH BUT SOON YOU MAY HAVE A LOT IN COMMON WITH THE FRENCH, UNFORTUNATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 The Impending Thermidor 

Reaction in Jacobin America

A counterrevolution is building, not just because

people are angry at what has become of their country,

but because they now are learning that if they do nothing,

they will have no country—and soon.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

May 8, 2023

The decade-long French Revolution that broke out in 1789 soon devolved into far more than removing the monarchy, as it became antithetical to the earlier American precedent. American notions of liberty and freedom were seen as far too narrow, given the state, if only all-powerful and all-wise, could mandate “equality” and force “fraternity” among its subjects.

Each cycle of French revolutionary fervor soon became more radicalized and cannibalistic—until it reached its logical ends of violent absurdity.

Originally, the idea of curbing the power of a Bourbon king through a parliamentary republic became lethally counter-revolutionary.

Soon even attacks on the Catholic Church and the abolition of the monarchy entirely were deemed insufficient. The king himself and his consorts had to be beheaded. Monasteries and churches were to be ransacked, and priests exiled or lynched.

The sometimes moderate Girondins, who favored constitutional government, were mostly executed by their former friends among the Montagnards. In turn, the latter were soon deemed too conservative for the emerging crazy Jacobins. So they, too, had to be decapitated. The ensuing year-long reign of terror guillotined thousands of innocents, deemed guilty of being guilty of something.

By 1793, the revolution had turned nihilist and suicidal. The foundational date of France was recalibrated (not as 1619 but) as 1789—or “year one.”

Jacobins sought to wipe out religion, both materially and spiritually. They replaced God, first, with the atheistic “Cult of Reason” and then a stranger still “Cult of the Supreme Being”—a dreamed-up, living, humanistic god that only the murderous Robespierre could fully envision, but eerily similar to our own Green New Deal deity.

The months of the year themselves were renamed and days of the week were renumbered and relabeled. Statues were toppled, first at night, later in shameless daylight. Place names were erased and renamed. The original revolutionary heroes were not to be mentioned; their uncouth successors were deified. Money was printed to “spread the wealth”—until it was worthless.

Murderous cancel culture ran unchecked. Yesterday’s French revolutionary became today’s counterrevolutionary—and tomorrow’s decapitated.

Almost everyone who originally had opposed the absolute monarchy, and, like the Americans, wished for a constitutional replacement, was eventually executed by revolutionaries who were then executed by more radical revolutionaries. The longer and more radical the revolution ran, the meaner, dumber, and more deadly the revolutionaries who emerged from the woodwork.

Finally, what could not go on, did not go on, as French society unraveled. Then the so-called Thermidors put an end to the madness of the Robespierre brothers and their sidekick, the 26-year-old Saint-Just, and did to them what they had done to thousands.

The final revolutionary correction saw a Directory, then a Consulate, and finally the dictator Napoleon—the self-described emperor who claimed he was the final absolutist manifestation of the “Revolution.”

A Revolution of the Disingenuous

We are swept up in similarly scary revolutionary times, after the perfect storm of the 2020 rioting, the COVID destructive lockdowns, and a radical socialist takeover of the old Democratic Party.

Decades of successful and legitimate efforts to ensure equality of opportunity, a safety net for the poor, and increased civil liberties have transmogrified into an “equity” agenda, or state-mandated equality of result—or else!

Diversity” is now an Orwellian word for racial essentialism to the one-drop degree. Jim Crow racism was not eliminated permanently. It now has resurfaced as woke or “good” segregation. Racially separate facilities and events are apparent “reparatory justice.” Black activists are calling for $800 billion in reparations from San Francisco, a city that is melting down as we speak.

The old pre-civilizational tribalism and monotony of thought are now deemed “diverse.” “Inclusion” means replacing one racial hierarchy of the 1950s with a newer one of the 2020s. Woke leftists prove “inclusive” by excluding as “haters” and “denialists” any who disagree and cannot be easily refuted.

Opportunists Abound

The Nike admen Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James ended up with millions of dollars in endorsements ultimately derived from Communist Chinese exploiters of servile labor—a fact that all their pseudo-revolutionary performance art cannot mask.

Like the rich and elite Montagnards and Jacobins, well-off, degreed suburban grifters suddenly became “woke” arbiters of the “correct.”Thousands of diversity, equity, and inclusion czars bloated administrations, broke university budgets, and terrified faculty and employees with their panopticon surveillance. And yet did any of them result in a single better student reader, or at least one more accomplished university math major? Have K-12 scores soared with DEI monitors on hand?

We have not yet descended to the guillotine, but we are getting there with online cancel culture, doxxing, de-platforming, boycotts, mandatory diversity statements, indoctrination training, ostracism for an incorrect word, and violence redefined as activism.

Black Lives Matter ended when its supposedly Marxist architects all vanished into comfortable bourgeoise estates and cushy retirements—along with the millions of dollars they shook down from guilt-ridden corporations.

#MeToo sputtered out once the mantra of “believe women” turned its attention to candidate Joe Biden and Tara Reade. It turned out that she most certainly must not be believed when she swore the Delaware Democrat had sexually assaulted her.

Supposed transgendered heroes vie for profitable TV endorsement commercials that are as lucrative to them as they are ruinous to their employers.

In our revolutionary times, mediocre biological male athletes “transition” into female sports and suddenly become rich and famous. Women who transition to males, for some reason, find no such profits from male competitions.

A black transient with 42 arrests and three assault convictions is accidentally killed by a would-be Samaritan bystander who takes action to stop his threats on the subway. The tragedy becomes a rallying cry for “activist” leaders, eager for continuous notoriety and profits, while 10,000 black people murdered per year, mostly by other black people, do not earn a snore from these same “civil rights” leaders.

The World Upside Down

Like Revolutionary France, our woke revolution was contrary to human nature and therefore had to be imposed by force or coercion.

Merit is the great enemy of wokeness. One day SAT tests were blind mechanisms to allow the less privileged to compete based on talent rather than parentage. The next day such tests were deemed counterrevolutionary, racist enemies of the people. Universities boast of rejecting 60-70 percent of those who scored perfect on SATs as if their excellence was proof of their “privilege.”

Jurisprudence was tarred as racist, as if laws against shoplifting, looting, smash-and-grab, car-jacking, and arson were created only by elite white men who never had the need to steal or loot and who therefore made silly, arbitrary laws against them.

Like the Jacobins, our woke elite deem prisons arbitrary detention centers. So thousands of those arrested for committing violent crimes have either never been charged, never convicted, never sentenced, or never incarcerated. These exemptions rest on the principle that the revolutionaries who destroyed the enforcement of law have the wherewithal to protect themselves from the dystopia they created.

Borders disappeared, apparently on grounds they were 19th-century racist relics. Yet sanctuary cities prove the least welcoming of the tens of thousands they all but invited into distant other towns and counties.

The homeless were no longer deemed vagrants, or selfish in their take-over of public spaces, but the victims of an oppressive society.

So public defecation, urination, fornication, and injection were rebranded as mere lifestyle choices of the unfortunate, not to be judged wrong or unlawful by the victimizers who supposedly made thousands homeless. Ancient laws of hygiene and municipal cleanliness were thrown out as bourgeois, as cities reverted to the protocols of their medieval forebears.

Leftists who created these Frankenstein-like monsters, like the fictive Dr. Frankenstein himself, became targets of their own experiments. It was no longer enough to support civil rights for the transgendered. Suddenly any questioning of the wisdom of biologically born males competing in women’s sports or of teenagers with penises undressing among teenage girls in locker rooms, or of state-sponsored drag-queen shows with children in attendance condemned one as transphobic and worse.

Advocating for a secure border and strictly legal immigration was proof of nativism. Equal opportunity for all races was racism. Advocacy for the use of natural gas as a needed transitional fuel indicted one as a climate “denialist.

As our woke version of the Jacobin revolution accelerated, society itself began to unwind—as expected given America relied on meritocracy, free expression of dissent, the rule of law, forbearance, and tolerance.

In less than three years, our major cities became filthy to the point of unhealthiness. Violent crime and thievery drove businesses and commuters away. Subways at night became the domain of the homeless and criminals. Vacancy rates in San Francisco or downtown Portland shot up to 25 percent or more. Millions began leaving Jacobin blue cities and states and headed for sanctuaries in more suburban and rural red states.

Once-trusted and familiar government agencies became weaponized—and inevitably incompetent. The FBI was not interested in the organizers of 120 days of violent looting, arson, murder, and rioting in summer 2020, or the threatening mobs who showed up at the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Instead, it fixated on parents at school board meetings, Latin Mass Catholics, former Trump Administration officials, and anyone daring to question the Russian collusion or Russian disinformation laptop hoaxes.

The Pentagon brass oversaw a flight from Afghanistan, in the greatest military humiliation in modern American history. Yet at the same time, it focused on rooting out white rage and white privilege despite presenting no data to substantiate its accusations. Former intelligence officers and “authorities” misled the country and warped an election, to ensure Americans did not take seriously the incriminating evidence in Hunter Biden’s laptop of the Biden family’s widespread corruption.

So, the world became topsy-turvy. Throwing a firebomb into a police-occupied patrol car earned a light sentence while protesting illegally at the Capitol won a decade in prison.

An American who did not get vaccinated was to be thrown out of the U.S. military; an illegal alien crossing the border unlawfully without a vaccination might earn a free phone and free lodging in a big-city hotel.

The more the government printed money it did not have, the more the country was slandered as cruel and mean to its underclass. The more standards were dropped for admission, hiring, promotion, and retention, the more employers were deemed unfair and bigoted.

As the American Jacobin phase accelerated, the more it, too, seemed to pursue its own destruction. Few now trust that the graduates of the Ivy League and marquee universities know what they once did. And why not, when students are admitted without test scores but are assured passing grades, watered-down classes, and graduation to be synonymous with admission?

The U.S. military fell short by thousands of recruits. And why not, when it advertised for manpower with invitations from drag queens, and hounded those as racists who had died at twice their numbers in the population in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A Counterrevolution Is Coming

At peak woke, our reign of terror is beginning to lose momentum because its continuation would erode all the work of 247 years of American progress and sacrifice.

Former and current liberals—Elon Musk, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Glen Greenwald, Naomi Wolf, or Richard Dreyfuss—are deemed counterrevolutionaries for questioning the excesses of wokeism, and so began questioning the premises of wokeism itself.

New polls showed scant public support for open borders,  multiple sexual identities, or biological men competing in women’s sports. Reparations from an insolvent government to black Americans—on the principle that those whose ancestors might have been enslaved eight generations ago were owed money from those whose ancestors might have owned slaves eight generations ago—is widely rejected by the general population.

When corporations like Anheuser-Busch or Disney tried to ingratiate themselves to the woke Jacobins, they lost billions in revenue—just as the woke Pentagon has lost thousands of recruits.

Woke networks like CNN have smaller audiences than some one-person podcasts.

A desperate and woke NBA now brags that its recent playoff televised audience reached over 4 million viewers. A quarter-century ago, when the U.S. population was nearly 60 million smaller, the pre-Jacobin NBA won over 70 million viewers who watched the 1998 finals.

Joe Biden, the thin veneer of the woke revolution, polls below 40 percent. Even that favorability is propped up by the consensus that he has no idea where he is or what he is saying—and thus at least is deserving of 40 percent support for not being responsible for what he has empowered.

A counterrevolution is building, not just because people are angry at what has become of their country, but because they now are learning that if they do nothing, they will have no country—and soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on YOU MAY NOT SPEAK FRENCH BUT SOON YOU MAY HAVE A LOT IN COMMON WITH THE FRENCH, UNFORTUNATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A counterrevolution is building in America as it had built up in France after the madness had reached the point where only a dictator can restore order, it will AGAIN be the dictatorship of power, where not just because people are angry at what has become of their country, but because they now are learning that if they do nothing, they will have no country—and soon. Will the current American revolution end up like the French Revolution, with a dictator like Napoleon Bonaparte. History has a way of repeating itself after all of the conservatives have been eliminated and the crazies have killed themselves off. The fundamental driving force of human nature is the thirst for power and the wonderful American experiment of democracy will yield to the power of our version of the long line of dictators who have gained and exercised absolute power until the next revolution. Is there no hope for man without God.

f

f

f

 The Impending Thermidor 

Reaction in Jacobin America

A counterrevolution is building, not just because

people are angry at what has become of their country,

but because they now are learning that if they do nothing,

they will have no country—and soon.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

May 8, 2023

The decade-long French Revolution that broke out in 1789 soon devolved into far more than removing the monarchy, as it became antithetical to the earlier American precedent. American notions of liberty and freedom were seen as far too narrow, given the state, if only all-powerful and all-wise, could mandate “equality” and force “fraternity” among its subjects.

Each cycle of French revolutionary fervor soon became more radicalized and cannibalistic—until it reached its logical ends of violent absurdity.

Originally, the idea of curbing the power of a Bourbon king through a parliamentary republic became lethally counter-revolutionary.

Soon even attacks on the Catholic Church and the abolition of the monarchy entirely were deemed insufficient. The king himself and his consorts had to be beheaded. Monasteries and churches were to be ransacked, and priests exiled or lynched.

The sometimes moderate Girondins, who favored constitutional government, were mostly executed by their former friends among the Montagnards. In turn, the latter were soon deemed too conservative for the emerging crazy Jacobins. So they, too, had to be decapitated. The ensuing year-long reign of terror guillotined thousands of innocents, deemed guilty of being guilty of something.

By 1793, the revolution had turned nihilist and suicidal. The foundational date of France was recalibrated (not as 1619 but) as 1789—or “year one.”

Jacobins sought to wipe out religion, both materially and spiritually. They replaced God, first, with the atheistic “Cult of Reason” and then a stranger still “Cult of the Supreme Being”—a dreamed-up, living, humanistic god that only the murderous Robespierre could fully envision, but eerily similar to our own Green New Deal deity.

The months of the year themselves were renamed and days of the week were renumbered and relabeled. Statues were toppled, first at night, later in shameless daylight. Place names were erased and renamed. The original revolutionary heroes were not to be mentioned; their uncouth successors were deified. Money was printed to “spread the wealth”—until it was worthless.

Murderous cancel culture ran unchecked. Yesterday’s French revolutionary became today’s counterrevolutionary—and tomorrow’s decapitated.

Almost everyone who originally had opposed the absolute monarchy, and, like the Americans, wished for a constitutional replacement, was eventually executed by revolutionaries who were then executed by more radical revolutionaries. The longer and more radical the revolution ran, the meaner, dumber, and more deadly the revolutionaries who emerged from the woodwork.

Finally, what could not go on, did not go on, as French society unraveled. Then the so-called Thermidors put an end to the madness of the Robespierre brothers and their sidekick, the 26-year-old Saint-Just, and did to them what they had done to thousands.

The final revolutionary correction saw a Directory, then a Consulate, and finally the dictator Napoleon—the self-described emperor who claimed he was the final absolutist manifestation of the “Revolution.”

A Revolution of the Disingenuous

We are swept up in similarly scary revolutionary times, after the perfect storm of the 2020 rioting, the COVID destructive lockdowns, and a radical socialist takeover of the old Democratic Party.

Decades of successful and legitimate efforts to ensure equality of opportunity, a safety net for the poor, and increased civil liberties have transmogrified into an “equity” agenda, or state-mandated equality of result—or else!

Diversity” is now an Orwellian word for racial essentialism to the one-drop degree. Jim Crow racism was not eliminated permanently. It now has resurfaced as woke or “good” segregation. Racially separate facilities and events are apparent “reparatory justice.” Black activists are calling for $800 billion in reparations from San Francisco, a city that is melting down as we speak.

The old pre-civilizational tribalism and monotony of thought are now deemed “diverse.” “Inclusion” means replacing one racial hierarchy of the 1950s with a newer one of the 2020s. Woke leftists prove “inclusive” by excluding as “haters” and “denialists” any who disagree and cannot be easily refuted.

Opportunists Abound

The Nike admen Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James ended up with millions of dollars in endorsements ultimately derived from Communist Chinese exploiters of servile labor—a fact that all their pseudo-revolutionary performance art cannot mask.

Like the rich and elite Montagnards and Jacobins, well-off, degreed suburban grifters suddenly became “woke” arbiters of the “correct.”Thousands of diversity, equity, and inclusion czars bloated administrations, broke university budgets, and terrified faculty and employees with their panopticon surveillance. And yet did any of them result in a single better student reader, or at least one more accomplished university math major? Have K-12 scores soared with DEI monitors on hand?

We have not yet descended to the guillotine, but we are getting there with online cancel culture, doxxing, de-platforming, boycotts, mandatory diversity statements, indoctrination training, ostracism for an incorrect word, and violence redefined as activism.

Black Lives Matter ended when its supposedly Marxist architects all vanished into comfortable bourgeoise estates and cushy retirements—along with the millions of dollars they shook down from guilt-ridden corporations.

#MeToo sputtered out once the mantra of “believe women” turned its attention to candidate Joe Biden and Tara Reade. It turned out that she most certainly must not be believed when she swore the Delaware Democrat had sexually assaulted her.

Supposed transgendered heroes vie for profitable TV endorsement commercials that are as lucrative to them as they are ruinous to their employers.

In our revolutionary times, mediocre biological male athletes “transition” into female sports and suddenly become rich and famous. Women who transition to males, for some reason, find no such profits from male competitions.

A black transient with 42 arrests and three assault convictions is accidentally killed by a would-be Samaritan bystander who takes action to stop his threats on the subway. The tragedy becomes a rallying cry for “activist” leaders, eager for continuous notoriety and profits, while 10,000 black people murdered per year, mostly by other black people, do not earn a snore from these same “civil rights” leaders.

The World Upside Down

Like Revolutionary France, our woke revolution was contrary to human nature and therefore had to be imposed by force or coercion.

Merit is the great enemy of wokeness. One day SAT tests were blind mechanisms to allow the less privileged to compete based on talent rather than parentage. The next day such tests were deemed counterrevolutionary, racist enemies of the people. Universities boast of rejecting 60-70 percent of those who scored perfect on SATs as if their excellence was proof of their “privilege.”

Jurisprudence was tarred as racist, as if laws against shoplifting, looting, smash-and-grab, car-jacking, and arson were created only by elite white men who never had the need to steal or loot and who therefore made silly, arbitrary laws against them.

Like the Jacobins, our woke elite deem prisons arbitrary detention centers. So thousands of those arrested for committing violent crimes have either never been charged, never convicted, never sentenced, or never incarcerated. These exemptions rest on the principle that the revolutionaries who destroyed the enforcement of law have the wherewithal to protect themselves from the dystopia they created.

Borders disappeared, apparently on grounds they were 19th-century racist relics. Yet sanctuary cities prove the least welcoming of the tens of thousands they all but invited into distant other towns and counties.

The homeless were no longer deemed vagrants, or selfish in their take-over of public spaces, but the victims of an oppressive society.

So public defecation, urination, fornication, and injection were rebranded as mere lifestyle choices of the unfortunate, not to be judged wrong or unlawful by the victimizers who supposedly made thousands homeless. Ancient laws of hygiene and municipal cleanliness were thrown out as bourgeois, as cities reverted to the protocols of their medieval forebears.

Leftists who created these Frankenstein-like monsters, like the fictive Dr. Frankenstein himself, became targets of their own experiments. It was no longer enough to support civil rights for the transgendered. Suddenly any questioning of the wisdom of biologically born males competing in women’s sports or of teenagers with penises undressing among teenage girls in locker rooms, or of state-sponsored drag-queen shows with children in attendance condemned one as transphobic and worse.

Advocating for a secure border and strictly legal immigration was proof of nativism. Equal opportunity for all races was racism. Advocacy for the use of natural gas as a needed transitional fuel indicted one as a climate “denialist.

As our woke version of the Jacobin revolution accelerated, society itself began to unwind—as expected given America relied on meritocracy, free expression of dissent, the rule of law, forbearance, and tolerance.

In less than three years, our major cities became filthy to the point of unhealthiness. Violent crime and thievery drove businesses and commuters away. Subways at night became the domain of the homeless and criminals. Vacancy rates in San Francisco or downtown Portland shot up to 25 percent or more. Millions began leaving Jacobin blue cities and states and headed for sanctuaries in more suburban and rural red states.

Once-trusted and familiar government agencies became weaponized—and inevitably incompetent. The FBI was not interested in the organizers of 120 days of violent looting, arson, murder, and rioting in summer 2020, or the threatening mobs who showed up at the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Instead, it fixated on parents at school board meetings, Latin Mass Catholics, former Trump Administration officials, and anyone daring to question the Russian collusion or Russian disinformation laptop hoaxes.

The Pentagon brass oversaw a flight from Afghanistan, in the greatest military humiliation in modern American history. Yet at the same time, it focused on rooting out white rage and white privilege despite presenting no data to substantiate its accusations. Former intelligence officers and “authorities” misled the country and warped an election, to ensure Americans did not take seriously the incriminating evidence in Hunter Biden’s laptop of the Biden family’s widespread corruption.

So, the world became topsy-turvy. Throwing a firebomb into a police-occupied patrol car earned a light sentence while protesting illegally at the Capitol won a decade in prison.

An American who did not get vaccinated was to be thrown out of the U.S. military; an illegal alien crossing the border unlawfully without a vaccination might earn a free phone and free lodging in a big-city hotel.

The more the government printed money it did not have, the more the country was slandered as cruel and mean to its underclass. The more standards were dropped for admission, hiring, promotion, and retention, the more employers were deemed unfair and bigoted.

As the American Jacobin phase accelerated, the more it, too, seemed to pursue its own destruction. Few now trust that the graduates of the Ivy League and marquee universities know what they once did. And why not, when students are admitted without test scores but are assured passing grades, watered-down classes, and graduation to be synonymous with admission?

The U.S. military fell short by thousands of recruits. And why not, when it advertised for manpower with invitations from drag queens, and hounded those as racists who had died at twice their numbers in the population in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A Counterrevolution Is Coming

At peak woke, our reign of terror is beginning to lose momentum because its continuation would erode all the work of 247 years of American progress and sacrifice.

Former and current liberals—Elon Musk, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Glen Greenwald, Naomi Wolf, or Richard Dreyfuss—are deemed counterrevolutionaries for questioning the excesses of wokeism, and so began questioning the premises of wokeism itself.

New polls showed scant public support for open borders,  multiple sexual identities, or biological men competing in women’s sports. Reparations from an insolvent government to black Americans—on the principle that those whose ancestors might have been enslaved eight generations ago were owed money from those whose ancestors might have owned slaves eight generations ago—is widely rejected by the general population.

When corporations like Anheuser-Busch or Disney tried to ingratiate themselves to the woke Jacobins, they lost billions in revenue—just as the woke Pentagon has lost thousands of recruits.

Woke networks like CNN have smaller audiences than some one-person podcasts.

A desperate and woke NBA now brags that its recent playoff televised audience reached over 4 million viewers. A quarter-century ago, when the U.S. population was nearly 60 million smaller, the pre-Jacobin NBA won over 70 million viewers who watched the 1998 finals.

Joe Biden, the thin veneer of the woke revolution, polls below 40 percent. Even that favorability is propped up by the consensus that he has no idea where he is or what he is saying—and thus at least is deserving of 40 percent support for not being responsible for what he has empowered.

A counterrevolution is building, not just because people are angry at what has become of their country, but because they now are learning that if they do nothing, they will have no country—and soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A counterrevolution is building in America as it had built up in France after the madness had reached the point where only a dictator can restore order, it will AGAIN be the dictatorship of power, where not just because people are angry at what has become of their country, but because they now are learning that if they do nothing, they will have no country—and soon. Will the current American revolution end up like the French Revolution, with a dictator like Napoleon Bonaparte. History has a way of repeating itself after all of the conservatives have been eliminated and the crazies have killed themselves off. The fundamental driving force of human nature is the thirst for power and the wonderful American experiment of democracy will yield to the power of our version of the long line of dictators who have gained and exercised absolute power until the next revolution. Is there no hope for man without God.

TOWARD A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF “PASTOR AETERNUS”

Objections and Replies on “Pastor Aeternus”

 Peter Kwasniewski, PhD May 10, 2023 

As readers will know, I have written much on the error of “hyperpapalism,” which is a way of referring to an extreme or exaggerated ultramontanism in the Church. Naturally, such writings as last July’s “The ‘Spirit of Vatican I’ as a Post-Revolutionary Political Problem” are bound to occasion objections from hyperpapalists themselves. Here, I share some of them, with my responses.

Objection 1:

First, we’ll start with Pastor Aeternus and go from there:

2…. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

I once believed that the qualifying “true” in the phrase “true obedience” excused my lack of obedience when I relied on tradition against papal orders, but I now believe I was reading that wrong. It is simply an emphatic adjective, to show that the obedience must be real and not dissimulated. This follows from paragraph 7, where we read:

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Reply to Objection 1:

The difficulty here is that paragraph 7 does not actually interpret itself. It does not say, for example, that a pope’s personal opinions, or even his non-infallible magisterial acts, will always and necessarily redound to the good of the Church or better preserve its unity. This is one of the dubia of Vatican I. I’m with John Henry Newman on this point: we should never say that a dogma requires more of us than the strictest interpretation of it requires. This is a principle of epistemic humility and realism, as well as a way of not tempting God and not forfeiting the gifts He has given us.

Paragraph 7 is, on the face of it, a rather generic description of the way the office of Peter will be discharged if and when it is being discharged in the manner in which Pastor Aeternus describes—that is, in obedience to apostolic tradition. Indeed, this is so obvious a condition that it is usually not even necessary to say it. It would be like saying “The pope is always to be obeyed (except when he commands something that must not be obeyed).” Examples come to mind: Francis on the death penalty or chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. In these cases, it is clear that Peter as this particular man, as this individual Christian, has departed from the Faith, and the protection of God consists here in preventing him from defining error or mandating sin. That’s what I mean by a minimalist interpretation of infallibility and primacy.

I do not claim to have “the whole picture” in which all tensions and difficulties are resolved—does any one of us have such a picture? if you do, please let me know!—but I do intend to keep in view the truths I know by faith and by reason, lest I sin against the light. Whatever understanding we have of the papacy, it cannot be one that compels us to reject what we know to be true by reason or by faith, or even to call it into question. We may question the adequacy of our own understanding, but we may not embrace contradiction or surrender the obvious meaning of the Church’s dogmatic and moral teachings.

Pastor Aeternus gave us the limits of papal infallibility. It will be Francis—and also, to some degree, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI—who will provide the material for assessing the limits of papal fallibility.

Objection 2:

Recognizing the problems with our modern hyper-ultramontane pontificate, I was not surprised to see your critical view of the maximalist reading of Pastor Aeternus. I was, however, surprised to see what looks like a certain enthusiasm for Gallicanism, since down that road went the fellow travelers of Ignaz von Döllinger into the schism of the Union of Utrecht and the disastrously hyper-modernist “Old Catholic” churches.

Given the tragedy of what happened to those who rejected the definition of the First Vatican Council, I see a likely outcome for any similar return to a more Gallican understanding of the papacy. Wouldn’t this simply result in a further dissipation of the unity of the Faith by today’s Modernist bishops waging a diocese-by-diocese war on Tradition? How could such a view of papal primacy do anything other than aid the heresies of something like the German Synodal Way, cloaking itself in the guise of “local needs”?

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

I would be grateful if you could share your views on how to balance pushing back on the maximalist reading of Pastor Aeternus without similarly dissolving the Latin church into division and schism, as occurred in 1870.

Reply to Objection 2:

We are all wading waist-deep through this continual stream of evil in the Church, and it’s not at all clear what the way out is going to be, or rather, the manner of deliverance that God will arrange in His providence. I am convinced that Our Lord is trying to teach us three significant lessons, too easily forgotten: that we must (1) hold fast to what is certainly true as opposed to what is in any way dubious, and do so using the faith and reason He gave us; (2) throw all our trust on Him as the ultimate Head of the Church, and (3) be able to live with difficulty, obscurity, and uncertainty – “to walk by faith, not by sight” as it were. We do not have to have a ready-made, implementable, neoscholastically approved solution in order to be able to see the problems themselves and to name them for what they are.

The enthusiasm for the Gallican mentality that you thought you saw in my article was solely and simply for its traditional understanding of the rootedness of the Church in episcopacy and tradition, as opposed to seeing Tradition and episcopacy as somehow radiating from Rome. That’s all I intended to say. The Old Catholics cannot be the solution, of course, because they refused to accept the dogmatic definition when it was made. That is why, it seems to me, the minimalist interpretation is important: it shows that Vatican I does not equal hyperpapalism, even if the popes themselves, in their ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium and obiter dicta, have strongly encouraged this way of thinking.

The papal primacy is necessary for the unity of the Church. Therefore, with Roberto de Mattei, I fully believe that God will grant us a good pope someday, who will flex the muscle of his primacy to put an end to the lavender mafia by deposing them from their offices and to the Modernists by anathematizing their errors into oblivion. In doing so, he would, in fact, be doing what a pope is traditionally supposed to do: feed the flock and repel the wolves. Although this kind of intervention may look autocratic or heavy-handed, it is manifestly designed to rid the local churches of impediments to their own flourishing in episcopal integrity and liturgical tradition. In fact, every bishop has the divinely-given authority to do this sort of thing right now in his own diocese.

Light from Germany

As a “coda” to the above replies, I would like to discuss two documents that are far too little known.

At the issuing of Pastor Aeternus, the German Chancellor Bismarck, a bitter opponent of the Church, published a forceful denunciation of it in December 1874. (Who can blame him? His understanding was that the pope was now being said to be a God on earth… you know… the way Catholics have commonly treated popes since the writing of Pastor Aeternus! So his obtuseness is helpful, and moreso as time passes.) In January and February of 1875, the Catholic Bishops of Germany composed a reply, which all of them signed: Responses to the Circular Letter of Chancellor Bismarck on the Interpretation of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus” of the First Vatican Council.

Why is this document not plastered all over the internet, given that its content was endorsed by Pius IX himself? As far as I can tell, only the tiniest snippets of it exist online. The full text is printed in Denzinger, 43rd ed., nos. 3112–16. Let’s have a look at what the German Bishops—back then, apparently a good lot—say in their Responses. First, they summarized the false doctrines that Bismarck (echoed by today’s hyperpapalists) derived from his false reading of Pastor Aeternus:

In virtue of these decisions [i.e., Vatican I], the pope has appropriated to himself the rights of the bishop in every diocese, and he has replaced the territorial power of the bishop with his own papal power. Episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction. The pope no longer exercises, as he did in the past, certain definite rights reserved to him alone, but now all the rights of the local bishops have passed into his hands. As a matter of principle, he has taken the place of each bishop, and it depends on him alone at any time with regard to practical matters to take the place of the bishop in negotiations with the civil government. Now the bishops are only his instruments, his functionaries without personal responsibility; regarding the civil government, they have become officials of a foreign sovereign; indeed, of a sovereign who, because of his infallibility, enjoys absolute authority, more than any absolute monarch in the world.

The bishops refute Bismarck’s misconceptions with admirable clarity:

All of these assertions are bereft of any foundation, and they contradict the wording and the meaning of the decisions of the Vatican Council, a meaning clearly and repeatedly expressed by the pope, by the bishops, and by the experts in Catholic studies.

To be sure, according to these decisions the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope is a potestas suprema, ordinaria, et immediata (supreme, ordinary, and immediate power) that was conferred on the pope by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in the person of St. Peter; this supreme authority is exercised over the whole Church and therefore over every diocese and every individual believer… [Yet] the decisions of the Vatican Council offer no basis for the assertion that the pope, because of them, has become an absolute master…

First of all, the area covered by the ecclesiastical authority of the pope is essentially different from that over which the earthly power of a sovereign monarch extends, and Catholics do not challenge in any way the sovereignty of kinds and princes over civil matters. But prescinding from that, the application of the term “absolute monarch” to the pope in reference to ecclesiastical affairs is not correct because he is subject to divine laws and is bound by the directives given by Christ for his Church. The pope cannot change the constitution given to the Church by her divine founder, as an earthly ruler can change the constitution of a State. In all essential points the constitution of the Church is based on divine directives, and therefore it is not subject to human arbitrariness.

Just as the papacy is of divine institution, so also is the episcopacy. The latter has its own rights and duties in virtue of having been instituted by God, and the pope has neither the right nor the power to change them. Therefore, a complete misunderstanding of the Vatican decisions is involved if one concludes from them that “episcopal jurisdiction has been absorbed by papal jurisdiction,” that the pope, “as a matter of principle, has taken the place of each bishop,” that the bishops are only “his instruments, his functionaries without personal responsibility”… With regard to the [last] assertion in particular, we must reject it categorically; it is certainly not the Catholic Church that has embraced the immoral and despotic principle that the command of a superior frees one unconditionally from all personal responsibility.

Finally, the opinion according to which the pope is “an absolute sovereign because of his infallibility” is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility. As the Vatican Council has expressed the idea in clear and precise words and as the nature of the matter requires, infallibility is a characteristic of the papacy that refers exclusively to the supreme [i.e., extraordinary] Magisterium of the pope; it is coextensive with the area of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in general, and it is restricted to the contents of Holy Scripture and tradition and also to the dogmas previously defined by the teaching authority of the Church. Consequently, the teaching on infallibility has not changed in any way the popes’ administrative actions.

Pope Pius IX—not just any pope, but, at the cost of belaboring the obvious, the very one who supported and promulgated Pastor Aeternus—addressed an Apostolic Letter Mirabilis illa constantia to the Bishops of Germany, dated March 4, 1875, in which he forthrightly endorsed their entire interpretation:

You have increased the glory of the Church, venerable Brothers, because you have taken upon yourselves the task of reestablishing the true sense of the definitions of the Vatican Council that had been distorted by a widely distributed and deceptive circular latter. [You wrote so that the aforesaid letter of Bismarck] might not deceive the faithful and, subverted by envy, provide a pretext for intrigue against the freedom of the election of a new pope. The clarity and solidity of your declaration is truly of such a nature that, since it leaves nothing more to desire, it can only give rise to Our deepest congratulations,unless the cunning voice of certain newspapers should require from Us an even stronger testimony. For, in order to put some power back into the letter that you rightly rejected, they tried to attack the credibility of your document by claiming that the doctrine of the conciliar definitions was toned down by you and therefore in no way corresponds to the intention of this Holy See. We therefore reject this cunning and calumnious insinuation and suggestion; for your declaration presents the truly Catholic understanding, which is that of the holy council and of this Holy See; you defended the teaching so skillfully and brilliantly with convincing and irrefutable arguments that it is obvious to any honest person that there is absolutely nothing in the attacked definitions that is new… (Denzinger 3117)

Many theological discussions when left to theologians (or would-be theologians on YouTube) tend in two opposite directions: either the esoterically complex, or the clumsily oversimplified. It is when a teaching “hits the streets,” so to speak, that Catholics are forced to explain themselves in common language that harmonizes well, in the sight of the common man, with the preceding teaching of the Church. In this case, when the dogma of papal infallibility “hit the streets” in Europe, Chancellor Bismarck was shocked and confused by what he was hearing (no doubt from triumphalistic ultramontanes). We see in the German Bishops’ Responses an explanation of the dogma in common language that any man can understand, and we see in Pius IX’s endorsement of it a conviction that this dogma represents nothing “new” (novus).

Obviously, not everyone who has studied papal history and ecclesiology would agree, without demur, that this definition of 1870 contained nothing new. That is a point on which you will have to consult someone like Erick Ybarra.

Germane to our present situation, however, is the limited understanding of papal monarchy reflected in the above documents and the reaffirmation of the rights and duties of the episcopacy—matters of the most urgent relevance under the tyrannical regime of Pope Francis, which has violated in countless ways the divinely-ordained constitution of the Church as regards relations between the pope and the bishops. A large number of bishops who replied to the CDF survey that they were content with Summorum Pontificum as it stood were stymied. Bishops have been removed without cause or process. Many bishops have been coerced into harming members of their presbyterate and their flocks who are customarily and virtuously attached to the traditional rites of the Church. Wicked men have been appointed as bishops or created cardinals, while virtuous men have been passed over. In every way, we are looking at another saeculum obscurum (the third such period in the history of the Church!) in which the papacy is blackened by its own misdeeds.

The solution is not to abandon the papacy or to embrace Gallicanism. The solution is to hold fast to the traditional Faith and to pray daily to the Lord for the hierarchy of the Church and for the deliverance of His people by His strong right arm.

Peter Kwasniewski, PhD

Peter Kwasniewski, PhD

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and The Catholic University of America. He taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria, the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, and Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped establish in 2006. Today he is a full-time writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism who has written many books and publishes on a wide variety of sites. His work has been translated into twenty languages. Visit his personal website at www.peterkwasniewski.com, his Substack “Tradition and Sanity,” his publishing house Os Justi Press, and his composer site CantaboDomino.

www.peterkwasniewski.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

LIFE IS STRANGE! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Cary Grant & Bishop Gracida: “A man in the back seat asked me if I would like to visit a [Hollywood] movie studio on my way to the train station. I turned to reply and much to my amazement the man was Cary Grant”

Cary Grant
Grant in a publicity still for Suspicion (1941)

Bishop Rene Henry Gracida’s 100th birthday is coming up on June 9 so I started reading his autobiography in preparation for the great day. Here’s a glimpse of an episode in the book when Cary Grant took him to a Hollywood movie studio:

My stay in California was very pleasant.  I had a maiden great-aunt living in Hollywood and so I got a pass to go visit her.  At the end of my visit with her I walked down to the street corner to catch a city bus to take me to the train station where I could catch my train back to Santa Ana.  While I was waiting at the bus stop in full uniform with my decorations prominently displayed a big black limousine pulled up and the driver asked me if I needed a ride, I replied that I was on my way to the train station to catch a train to Santa Ana.  The drive said, “get in, I will take you there”  so I go into the passenger’s seat next to the driver.  We had only gone a few blocks when a man in the back seat asked me if I would like to visit a movie studio on my way to the train station.  I turned to reply and much to my amazement the man was Cary Grant.  I replied that I did not have much time, but that yes I would like to see a movie studio. 

We drove to the movie set where Cary Grant was making the film Night and Dayabout Cole Porter.  I met Alexis Smith, Monty Wooley, Jane Wyman, Eve Arden and the Director, Michael Curtis.  All of them were exceedingly gracious to this airman and expressed their admiration for what the 8th Air Force had accomplished in the war in Europe.  After about a half hour the limo driver took me to the train station and I returned to Santa Ana Air Base. (An Ordinary’s Not So Ordinary Life, Page 25) 

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.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

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.SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LIFE IS STRANGE! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

MAYBE IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE THE WORD “ROMAN” WHEN SPEAKING OR WRITING ABOUT THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST WHO STILL ANIMATES IT TO THIS DAY AND FOR ALL ETERNITY

Open in app or online

Roman—or Catholic?

The Francis papacy at ten.

MICHAEL WARREN DAVISMAY 5
 
SHARE
 

Just a couple of months ago, we marked the tenth anniversary of Pope Francis’s election to the Holy See. And, like good Catholics, we marked it with a deluge of op-eds, blog posts, and millions upon millions of tweets. Everyone’s trying to predict the legacy that Francis will leave behind him. Which seems a bit cheeky, since the Holy Father is still, erm, alive. 

Anyway. I didn’t give my two cents, because I wasn’t sure I had anything worthwhile to add. Frankly, I’m not sure anyone had anything worthwhile to add. Whether they love him or whether they hate his, guts, all Church-watchers seem to agree on one point: Francis is fundamentally transforming the Catholic Church in ways we can’t yet fully understand.

The Holy Father is enabling “progressive” heretics in Germany while cracking down on “traditionalist” dissidents in the United States. He’s empowering episcopal synods while curtailing the authority of individual bishops. He’s threatening to overturn the (Western) consensus on hot-button issues like divorce, married priests, female deacons, and artificial contraception. 

Even if the radicals lose every single one of these battles, Catholics will never be able to look at the papacy the same way again. If nothing else, Francis is throwing the whole concept of papal authority into question.

And yet, for that very reason, I can’t help but wonder if he might not be an agent of Providence. Because, in the years since he took office, Catholics all over the world—be they liberal, conservative, or radtrad—have begun to realize that the Roman Catholic Church is a bit too… well, Roman.  


For instance, it’s popular to bag on the Novus Ordo. And with good reason. It feels like what it is: a hybrid liturgy composed largely by bureaucrats of the Roman Curia. Yes, it can be celebrated reverently. But, liturgically speaking, it’s still inferior. Even its most poetic lines (“… by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall…”) can’t compare to the austere beauty of the Tridentine Use (“… blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable…”). 

Still, those of us who prefer the Tridentine Use may easy to forget that, when Pius V ratified the Council of Trent, he needlessly restricted local variations of the Roman Rite, such as the Ambrosian and the Dominican, while completely suppressing others. The most devistating loss, I think, was the Use of Sarum.

The Sarum Use of Roman Rite originated from Salisbury, England. Since the Neolithic Era, Salisbury has been the spiritual heart of the British Isles. And, true to form, the old Sarum missal contains some of the most stunning prayers in the history of Christendom:

Hail for evermore, Thou most holy Flesh of Christ; sweet to me before and beyond all things beside. To me a sinner may the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ be the Way and the Life.

And the “Sarum Prayer” is now well-known among Catholics, thanks to the St. Gregory’s Prayer Book:

God be in my head, and in my understanding
God be in my eyes, and in my looking
God be in my mouth, and in my speaking
God be in my heart, and in my thinking
God be at my end, and at my departing.

Anyone familiar wth the Anglican tradition will recognize something deeply, mystically, and gorgeously English about the prayers of Sarum. No matter how much you love the Latin Mass, you’ve got to admit, the death of Sarum was a tragedy. 

Here’s my point: both the Tridentine Use and the Novus Ordo were imposed upon Europe by Roman authorities. Then, as now, most Western Christians were expected to conform as closely as possible to the Vatican’s liturgical preferences. And this coformism hasn’t served the Church very well at all. 

In fact, before the Counter-Reformation, Rome took pride in the variety of her rites. We honor Sts. Cyril and Methodius for adapting the Byzantine Rite to the particular needs and preferences of the Slavs. In the ninth century, Pope Adrian II encouraged them to translate the Divine Liturgy into a Slavic language—even if they had to write one themselves. 

The Church’s ability to “go native” while remaining faithful to the fundamentals of faith and worship—a process known as inculturation—was taken as proof of her catholicity, her universality. Alone of all the world’s religions, Christianity not only accepts but celebrates the vast, God-given diversity of human people.

Inculturation went out of fashion in the Western Church from the 16th century through the 20th. Today, it’s enjoying a mini-renaissance. While Rome condemns the use of “liturgical dance” in the West, it positively encourages its use in Africa through the Zaire Use. Why? Because in Western cultures, dance is a recreational and even a sexual act. But African cultures, dancing and worship are inseparable. You can’t worship without dancing; you can’t dance without worshiping. (For a more ancient example, take a look at the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.)

Personally, I think it’s good that Rome is trying to make the Mass more accessible to African peoples. It’s good that the Church is once again accomodating herself to the traditions and customs of her children. And yet, here in the West, conformism still trumps inculturation. 

Put it this way. For over a thousand years—more than half the Church’s history—Rome artificially propped up the use of Latin in the liturgy. Historians say that Latin became a “dead language” no later than 750 A.D. Still, the Vatican contined to insist that it be used in the Roman Rite until the 1960s. For better or worse, the Holy See defined the Latin language as a pillar of the Western Church.

(I say “for better or worse” because I want you, dear reader, to reserve judgment on that question. Whatever your own preferences, set them aside for a moment. Just consider that, for over twelve centuries, Catholics had it drilled into their heads that Latin = Catholic and Catholic = Latin.)

Then, around the time that the Second Vatican Council was convened, many churchmen began to feel that the Roman Church’s exclusive preference for Latin no longer served its purpose. They declared that, once again, Western Christians needed to hear the Mass in their own everyday speech. And I don’t disagree. Not necessarily. (Again, let’s suspend judgment.)

The trouble is that many, many Catholics still felt that Latin was integral to our Catholic heritage. For them, vernacular worship was the opposite of inculturation. Latin is our tradition. No, it it’s not an ethic or a national tradition. But it’s a religious tradition. It is our custom as Catholics

And yet, after Vatican II, the Roman Curia made virtually no accomodations for the pro-Latin faithful. 

Naturally, a good number of Catholics found this sudden about-face deeply disturbing. Most of them bit their tongue and followed orders. Others, like the Society of St. Pius X, simply refused to accept the Novus Ordo. As a reward for their fidelity, they were declared to be in “imperfect communion” with the Holy See. 

It soon became clear that Rome wasn’t actually interested in “meeting people where they are.” They didn’t care about making the Mass accessible to the greatest number of people. If they had, there would have been an indult parish in every large town and ten in every big city. 

No: the Vatican wanted vernacular worship because it fit the (then-)current regime’s vision for a less formal, more “interactive” liturgy. And if anyone felt it was wrong to drop that 1,200-year-old tradition like yesterday’s newspaper… well, too bad.  Roma locuta; causa finita est.

This neo-conformism finally met its match in Pope Benedict XVI, of blessed memory. In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the late Holy Father established that all priests of the Roman Rite were entitled to celebrate the Mass according to the Tridentine Use. In a letter accompanying Summorum, he declared that, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” Amen.

And Benedict wasn’t content merely to restore the Tridentine Use. He also established the Anglican Ordinariates, permanently accomodating an Anglican Use of the Roman Rite. He said that the Ordinariates existed to “maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”

Just as Benedict pushed back against the Second Vatican Council in Summorum Pontificum, he also pushed back against the Council of Trent in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Where Summorum clearly expresses regret for the suppression of the Tridentine Use and other Roman traditions, Anglicanorumimplicitly regrets the suppression of the Sarum Use and other English traditions.

I’ve referred to Benedict as a “liberal traditionalist” because he sought to accomodate as many valid traditions as possible, including Latin, English, and Eastern Orthodox. (More on the Orthodox later.) Like Adrian II, Benedict XVI was a champion of inculturation.

Pope Francis, of course, has been working hard to undo Summorum, and is now supposed to be taking aim at Anglicanorum. This would seem to put him at odds with the “traditionalist” wing of the Roman Church. Then again, that depends on how you define tradition.

It could be argued that Francis is, in fact, more of a traditionalist than Benedict, because he emphasizes the traditional authority of Rome to impose its own liturgical preferences on then whole Church, (allegedly) in the Church’s own interests. In that way, Francis is much closer to the spirit of Trent than Benedict.

Anyway, that’s how Francis sees it. Hence, when he decided to crack down on the Latin Mass, he gave his motu proprio the name Traditionis Custodes, or “Guardians of Tradition.”  At least since Trent, “tradition” in the Roman Church—especially in regards to liturgy—is determined by curial decree, not local custom. 

In Traditionis, Francis even said claimed to “take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum.” Like Pius, he insists that the Church have “‘a single and identical prayer,’ that expressed her unity.” Not only Pius but the huge majority of pontiffs in the last five centuries have agreed.

Personally, I’m not sold. But, then, this boils down to a much lager question: What does it mean for the Church to be catholic, to be universal? 

Is it her ability to preserve the fundamentals of Christian faith and worship while accomodating diverse expressions of those fundamentals, out of respect for the God-given diversity of the human race, and the integral authority of her local bishops? 

Or is it the universal authority of the Roman Pontiff to impose his own preferences and opinions on every Christian, everywere in the world?

This seems like a loaded question, but it’s not. Think of all the old-world maxims surrounding the papacy.  Roma locuta, causa finita est. “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” For the last thousand years or so, the Roman Church has equated catholicity with Romanitas, or Romanism. 

Yes, there are exceptions. But they’ll always prove the rule. 


It’s not just the liturgy, either.  The original text of the fourth-century Nicene Creed declared that the Holy Spirit proceeded “from the Father.” Yet, today, most Catholics would say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”—in Latin, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.

As far as we know, the the Filioque was first added to the Nicene Creed in 589 A.D. by the Third Council of Toledo (a local council of the Church in Spain) as a safeguard against the Arian heresy. During the council, King Reccared I—who had himself converted from Arianism to Catholicism just two years prior—declared that “the Holy Spirit also should be confessed by us and taught to proceed from the Father and the Son”.

In any event, use of the Filioque slowly spread from Spain to France, and from France to Germany. The rest of the Western Church continued to use the original form of the Creed, as did the whole of the Christian East. It wasn’t until the ninth century that supporters of the Filioque began lobbying Rome officially to adopt the clause. The court of Charlemagne in particular was a hub of pro-Filioque hardliners. 

In 808 A.D., Pope Leo III wrote to the Frankish king refusing to accept the Filioque. As it happens, Leo agreed wholeheartedly that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. Yet he balked at the idea of amending the Church’s official creeds. The council fathers—acting under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit—had said all they meant to say. It would be wrong to put words in their mouths, even if those words happened to be true. 

Actually, Leo quite staunchy believed that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. He said that it was “forbidden not to believe such a great mystery of the faith.” As well he might. Augustine, the greatest of the Latin Fathers, makes a gorgeous argument for the procession in his masterpiece De Trinitate

Yet Leo was equally disturbed by this strange desire to rewrite history. So, after sending his letter to Charlemagne, he commissioned a plaque to be hung in St. Peter’s Basilica. The whole text of the Nicene Creed was engraved on a silver plate… with the Filioque conspicuously omitted.

Fast-forward to the year 1054. More and more, the Western Church is rallying around the Filioque. For this reason (among others), relations between the West and the East are deteriorating. In a last-ditch effort to keep the peace, Pope Leo IX sends three envoys to Michael I Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. 

Their first meeting is a disaster. The envoys refuse to show Michael the deference customarily owed by bishops to a patriarch. Afterwards, Michael refused to meet with them again.

Now, before we judge envoys too harshy, they had a reason for being standoffish. Michael had begun to omit the Bishop of Rome from his diptychs. The diptychs are a litany of patriarchs recited during pontifical liturgues in the Eastern Churches. When one patriarch omits another patriarch from his diptych, it is understood as a de facto excommunication. (In 1996, the Patriarch of Moscow ceased to include the Patriarch of Constantinople in his diptych, sparking the latest schism between the Russian and Greek churches.) 

So, the Pope’s diplomats weren’t expecting a warm welcome. But their handling of the situation wasn’t exactly diplomatic, either. “Mistakes were made,” as the saying goes.

Then, on July 16, one of the envoys—Cardinal Humbert of Moyenmoutier—enters the Church of Hagia Sophia, seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople. During the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, he strides up to the altar and slaps down a papal bull of excommunication against Michael. Among other things, Michael is accused of “omitting” the Filioque from the Nicene Creed.

The bull declares Michael and another Byzantine bishop (who is also, confusingly, named Leo) to be “anathema maranatha. . . . with all heretics, and with the devil and his angels, unless they repent.”

Pope Leo had given his envoys the signed bull before they had left Rome, instructing them only to use it as a final resort. Incidentally, he had died on April 19 of that year. There’s a serious (and lingering) question as to the validity of his bull. Nevertheless, this date—July 16, 1054—is usually taken as the beginning of the Great Schism between the Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East. Full communion has yet to be restored.

Now, among Catholics, debate about the East/West riff tends to focus on the reign of Leo IX. But we should really take a closer look at the reign of Leo III.

In the elder Leo’s letter to Charlemagne, there are three questions in play: (1) Is the Filioque true? (2) Can any creed, which has been ratified by a Council of the Church, be amended post facto? (3) May the Bishop of Rome peform such an amendment unilaterally?

For Leo, the answer to the first question is yes; to the other three, no. Why? Because one is a question of theology; the other two, of ecclesiology. Leo supports the Filioque, and yet he feels that Ecumenical Councils possess their own integral authority. What’s more, he denies that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is equal to that of a Council; hence his refusal to declare the dogma of the Filioque unilaterally.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Leo felt as strongly about his answers to (2) and (3) as he did to his answer to (1). He’s a passionate supporter of the procession from the Son—and yet, by hanging those silver plaques, he obviously takes an almost trollish delight in slapping down the Frenchies who want to change the Creed. 

Today, the Roman Catholic Church would say that Leo was wrong on questions (2) and (3). Creeds can be amended, and popes can amend them unilaterally

To be fair, the modern Roman Church wouldn’t necessarily fault Leo for failing to appreciate his own ability to modify Church teaching single-handedly. This is an example of what Roman Catholics call the “development of dogma.” The Church (they would say) grew into a deeper appreciation for papal authority between 808 and 1054.

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that point. Let’s say that Leo IX, in his dispute with Michael I Cerularius, was well within his rights both to impose the Filioque and alter the Creed.

Assuming all of that, does this sound like a reasonable way to “develop” such dogmas? Is it possible that Michael had good reason to be skeptical of Leo IX’s authority, especially given how modest his predecessors (such as Leo III) had been? At the very least, does anyone really believe Michael was acting from sheer malice towards God, equal to that of Satan and his demons? Does anyone really believe that he deserves to burn in Hell forever?

What makes this all so much more tragic is that, today, there are twenty-three Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See. The great majority of their 18 million members neither use the Filioque when reciting the Creed nor believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son—at least, not as Rome understands it. And, in fact, both as Prefect of the CDF and as Pope of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI was happy to omit the Filioque.

So, from the Vatican’s perspective—at least for the past 500 years or so, when the Eastern churches began returning to communion with Rome—the Great Schism was totally unnecessary. There was no reason for Rome to break with Constantinople over these changes to the Creed. Michael I Cerularius did absolutely nothing wrong by “omitting” the Filioque from the Creed.

These days, Catholics and Orthodox argue constantly about papal infallibility. Yet the Pope didn’t issue his first infallble, ex-cathedra statement until 1854. That’s not to trilivialize the Orthodox objection to infallibilism. Not by any means! But V1-style infallibilism wasn’t the cause of the Great Schism. Rather, the Schism was precipitated by Romanism: the assumption that every opinion held by the current pope is binding to all Christians, everywhere in the world. 

And Romanism has done as much damage to the Western Church as it has to our brothers in the East. 

The most glaring example came in 2018, courtesy of the Pope’s friend and advisor Thomas Rosica, S.J. 

For those who don’t recall, Father Rosica (in)famously declared that, under Francis, the Church is “openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.” The Holy Father “breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants” because he is “free from disordered attachments.”

Statements like this ought to horrify all Christians who cling to the orthodox and catholic Faith. Yet what is Father Rosica but a latter-day Cardinal Hubert? 

As in liturgy, so too in theology. For the Humberts and Rosicas, the Catholic Church isn’t universal not because she is able to contain multitudes. She isn’t universal because she is capable of holding in communion Christians who have good-faith disagreements over theological niceties. No: the Church is universal because the Pope wields a dictatorial authority over all believers. Our unity is defined by our deference to his every utterance—even if those utterances contradict the utterances of his predecessors. 

That, of course, is madness. And yet it’s how Catholics have thought about our Faith for over a millennium.


I just read that Pope Francis was extremely ill during his recent visit to Hungary. Part of me feels like it’s wrong to publish so much criticism of the Holy Father when, more than anything, he needs our prayers. However, I will say this: sometimes, it seems that Francis himself is painfully aware of the Church’s hyper-Romanness.

For instance, the Holy Father has gone out of his way to appoint new cardinals from the developing world—especially South America, Africa, and Asia. He has also made some extraordinary gestures of friendship towards the Orthodox. In 2019, he gave certain relics of St. Peter to Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the 168th successor to Michael I Cerularius.

Yet what really stands out (at least in my mind) is that, when Francis was first elected in 2013, he insisted on being reffered to, not as the Vicar of Christ or Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, but only as the Bishop of Rome.

Maybe this was a bit of performative humility. Or maybe it wasn’t. Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, formally suppressed the papal title of “Patriarch of the West.” Clearly, this was a clear gesture of friendship to the Orthodox. But the title itself was also a nonsense. A patriarch is known by the city that contains his cathedral/seat, regardless of how vast or how small his jurisdiction may be. (The Patriarch of Moscow’s authority definitely isn’t limited to Russian capital.)

Too often, popes have afforded themselves such honors merely to assert their own position at the center of the Church. Benedict dedicated much of his papacy to undoing this unhealthy papal-centric attitude. I think that Francis, in his way, has tried to do the same. 

To be sure, I’m not totally at ease with his vision for more “synodal” Church. Yet, clearly, he’s motivated by a desire to reverse the centralization of Church authority. In some ways, his understanding of papal authority is more like Leo III’s. At least in theory, he prefers to achieve a concensus among bishops—all the bishops, everywhere in the world—than to issue diktats from St. Peter’s throne.

That’s what I mean when I say that Francis may be an agent of Providence. No single pontiff could be expected to overturn a thousand years of Romanism. And of course, when you find yourself being hailed the Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, the power will sometimes go to your head. 

On the main, though, I believe that Francis is trying to follow in Benedict’s footsteps. He, too, has a radical vision for the papacy—one that is more ancient, more modest, and more sane.

Put it this way. Benedict sought to decentralize the Church’s approach to liturgy and theology. Francis now seeks to decentralize the Church’s approach to ecclesiology. 

No doubt both projects are imperfect. I suspect that one is more imperfect than the other. And I’m sure that, for every two steps forward, we’ll take one step back. But the overall trend is heartening. Slowly but but, the Church is becoming less Roman, but more catholic. And thank God for that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on MAYBE IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE THE WORD “ROMAN” WHEN SPEAKING OR WRITING ABOUT THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST WHO STILL ANIMATES IT TO THIS DAY AND FOR ALL ETERNITY

AN INCIDENT DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

FRED MARTINEZ

“The Most Orthodox & Courageous” Bishop Gracida Harrowing Experience as a World War II Tail Gunner whose B-17 was Shelled Hard taking out the No. 1 Engine

B-17 Flying Fortress

Top reviews from the United States

Mark Twain

5.0 out of 5 stars He once wrote to me his insight on what it was like flying during the war

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 5, 2014

Verified Purchase

This autobiography is written by one of the most orthodox and courageous Catholic bishops the Church has ever known. It is the true-life story of Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, bishop emeritus of the Corpus Christi, Texas diocese. The book will be a blessing to anyone who reads it, especially young men discerning their life’s vocation. [https://www.amazon.com/Ordinarys-Not-Ordinary-Life-Autobiography/dp/1502787253%5D

Bishop Rene Henry Gracida’s 100th birthday is coming up on June 9 so I started reading his autobiography in preparation for the great day. Here’s a glimpse of an episode in the book when he as a World War II B-17 tail gunner narrowly escaped getting blown out of the sky:

“I was flying as tail gunner… One shell took out No.1 engine and another set the No. 3 engine on fire… knelt there, praying, waiting for the order to bail… After what seemed an eternity, Lt. Beasley announced he had managed to put out the fire on No. 3 engine… descend[ing] to the tree tops level to make our way across Belgium to the coast.” (An Ordinary’s Not So Ordinary Life, Page 17)    

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.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

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.SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

PACHAMAMA OR CHRIST

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Is Francis’s “Veneration of the Pachamama Statues”, like “Neo-Communis[t]” Morales’ Pachamama Worship, part of a “Communist Revolution”?

El impostor: Evo Morales, de la Pachamama al Narco- …

Since the arrival of Evo Morales to government power in Bolivia, the busy highland country has progressively become the continental heart of “XXI Century Socialism”, a construction of power that was accompanied by a profuse marketing that was supposedly pre-Columbian. What is behind such a sudden Amerindian invocation? A sudden rescue of the “sacred coca” or a propaganda artifice for drug trafficking? Is it intended to rescue an “ancestral tradition” or finance a communist revolution with illegal money? Is Evo Morales the Indian redeemer of a postponed cause or the mestizo impostor of a consummated scam? In short: who is he, what is he, what does he represent and what interests does this feathered leader respond to? Supported by the always misguided transnational progressivism, Morales knew how to stage in his country a colorful “original” comparsa, consisting of replacing the figure of the Guevara guerrilla with that of the misunderstood cocalero, replacing the Marxist rhetoric with the indigenous one, and exchanging the Moscow accent for the one from Caracas. How is this imaginative environmental mutation financed?; Well, substituting the KGB rubles for cocaine narcodollars. “The impostor, Evo Morales from Pachamama to the Narco-State” is the documented and exhaustive work of Nicolás Márquez who came to disarm this elaborate ideological, philological and aesthetic framework that the recycled emissaries of neo-communism use to try to reinstall the truncated and unfinished collectivist and criminal experiments of the last century. As Alberto Benegas Lynch (h) has written in a fragment of the prologue. – Amazon [https://www.amazon.com/El-impostor-Morales-Pachamama-Narco-Estado/dp/1484955137]

Lawyer and journalist Nicolas Marquez in his Spanish language book “The Impostor Evo Morales: From the Pachamama to the Narco-State (Google translation from the Spanish)” makes the case that Morales is a “scam” artist who uses his supposed full-blooded indigenousism for propaganda use and indigenous Pachamama worship to bring about a “communist revolution with illegal [drug] money.”

(“The Impostor,” Cover of book)

Marquez in the books says Morales’ indigenousism is Marxism:

“[I]ndigenousism (Indigenismo) is nothing more than ideological Neo-Marxism.”

The Catholic Monitor is getting the information for this post from a Google pdf on the Internet of the book cover and Index.

One interesting chapter according to the Index is:

“El Islam y la Pachamama”

Morales along with his collaborator Francis appears to be obsessed not just with Pachamama, but with Islam.

But, getting to the Francis-Morales Pachamama connection, journalist Edward Pentin reported that Francis’s “veneration of the Pachamama” in the Vatican was promoted by his apparent close collaborator Morales according to Gloria.tv.

Is Francis’s “veneration of the Pachamama”, like Morales’ Pachamama worship, part of a communist revolution?

“Dialogos Entre Juan Pablo Ii Y Fidel Castro: Bergoglio, Jorge Mario (Coord.): 9789875073722: Amazon” [https://www.amazon.com/Di%C3%A1logos-entre-Pablo-Fidel-Castro/dp/9875073725]

Jose Azel, a senior scholar at the University of Miami, in the respected international relations quarterly journal World Affairs wrote a review of a book by Francis, which he wrote in 1998 while he was still the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, which apparently the Vatican doesn’t want publicized or read.

Last time I looked, there were only a few expensive copies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s book “Dialogos Entre Juan Pablo y Fidel Castro [Dialogue between John Paul II and Fidel Castro]” available on Amazon which don’t seem to get any promotion.

The Spanish speaking Azel in his review of the book reported “[i]n my reading of the pope’s complex Spanish prose…”:

– “he favors socialism over capitalism provided it incorporates theism…”

– “He does not take issue with Fidel Castro’s claim that ‘Karl Marx’s doctrine is very close to the Sermon on the Mount’… “

– “… and views the Cuban polity [form of government] as in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine…”

– “… Francis leaves no doubt that he sympathizes with the Cuban dictatorship…”

– “… and that he is not a fan of liberal democracy or markets…”

– “… He clearly believes in a very large, authoritarian role for the state in social and economic affairs…”

– “… his language in the prologue is reminiscent of the ‘liberation theology’… very intertwined [with] Marxist ideology. Fathered by Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez, the movement provided the intellectual foundations that, with Cuban support, served to orchestrate’ wars of national liberation’ throughout the continent. It’s iconography portrayed Jesus as a guerrilla an AK-47 slung over his shoulder…”

– “… Francis speaks of a ‘shared solidarity’… that solidarity appears to be with the undemocratic, illegitimate authority in Cuba and not with the people…”

– “… Cubans will remember that this pope had a choice between freedom and authoritarianism.”
( World Affairs, “Whose Pope? Francis and Cuba,” Fall 2015)

The University of Miami senior scholar Azel in the article in his own translation of Francis’s book quotes the Francis saying:

“[N]eoliberal capitalism is a model that subordinates human beings and conditions development to pure market forces… thus humanity attends a cruel spectacle that crystallizes the enrichment of the few at the expense of the impoverishment of the many.”

Moreover, Francis’s book “Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro” presents evidence that he is pro-Fidel Castro, anti-Capitalism and by inference Anti-American because the United States is the driving force behind the global free market system.

He wrote on page 23 that there apparently could be a “convergence” of “premises” between Communism and Catholicism:

“Fidel Castro offered a… convergence or points of connection between Catholicism and the premises (los postulados) of the [Cuban Communist] Revolution.”

However, later in the his book he states there cannot be a convergence of premises between Capitalism and Catholicism:

You cannot hold the premises (los postulados) of “neoliberalismo” (Capitalism) and be considered a Christian. The failures of Marxism and Collectivism don’t authorize the Capitalist system (al sistema capitalista)… we find in “neoliberalismo” (Capitalism) the opposite of the Gospel… because it empties man of the economic progressivism or economic progress (los progresos economicos).”

(Dialogos entre Juan Pablo II Y Fidel Castro, By Jorge Bergoglio, Copyright – Ciudad Argentina, Pages 48-49, Translation by Fred Martinez with the help of a Spanish to English dictionary) 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.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

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.SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on PACHAMAMA OR CHRIST

RUMINATION

By Charlie Johnston

I am primarily an autodidact, someone who is self-taught. I have some formal training, primarily in history and economics, but in most everything else my work is entirely the result of my own constant study since nearly the time I began to read. The virtue of an autodidact is that he often comes up with marvelously original and innovative ways to solve problems that are completely outside of the box of formal establishment thinking. The vices of an autodidact are, first, that he tends to have gaps in his knowledge of a subject because of the haphazard way he acquires learning and second (and far worse), that he often tends to have contempt for those who have disciplined formal training.

The first vice can be ameliorated by either establishing some formal pattern to a subject he wants to focus on or consulting regularly with people who have substantial formal training in that subject. The second vice is utterly foolish, a product of both vanity and insecurity that prevents him from covering the gaps in his knowledge.

A big vice among both autodidacts and formally trained intellectuals is the conceit that their brilliant expertise in one field automatically confers expertise in all fields to them. You get no expertise without the work.

Second-rate minds start with a conclusion based on their emotions or some very limited experience and can build a convincing case by cherry-picking data that seems to support the conclusion they started with while ignoring, or not even noticing, data that contradicts that conclusion. While their work can be very detailed, it is more likely to be wrong than it is to be right. If they are dishonest as well as second-rate they will include quotes from notable figures to confirm their own premise when the notable figures’ actual conclusions contradict them.

Third-rate minds are just a throbbing grievance looking for any crackpot nostrum to relieve the desperate dysfunction surrounding them. Surprisingly, some can write pretty detailed screeds. Unfortunately for them anyone with even an ounce of sense can discern the fevered heat radiating from those screeds. If they use source documents at all they make specious interpretations that are overly broad or overly narrow to fit their obsession. If they can’t get any supportive material, they just make it up – including made-up citations.

Ordinary consumers of information and news need not be at the mercy of whoever they are reading, nor do they need to become professional researchers themselves, nor even do they need to rob their families and vocations of significant time to discern what is credible and what is not. It does take some work and mental discipline, though. Following are four techniques you can use to effectively discern the credibility of any source. They don’t require any special or technical expertise, just basic logic and common sense. While they won’t filter out all nonsense, they will clear your head of a good 90 percent of it. But they must be rigorously applied every time. If you skip over them because you are reading something you want to believe you are simply deceiving yourself. Here, then, these basic techniques:

  • Truth will stand the test of examination: One of America’s foremost founding principles was that the only proper or safe way to counter errant speech was to fight it with better and more persuasive speech – and then pay attention to the results. Anyone trying to control speech through coercion rather than persuasion is a liar. They may, like the blind hog, come up with an acorn of truth from time to time, but they are unreliable liars. The whole nonsense of “misinformation” and “disinformation” needing to be controlled is an effort, like modern tyrants and kings of old, to control what you may think. Certainly, the establishment media and the government have NO business complaining of misinformation, as they have been the primary purveyors of it. If someone tries to shut down what you can speak of, I dismiss them before I even examine their position – because they are fundamentally power-mad liars.
  • Track record: Nobody is right 100 percent of the time. Frankly, if you are on target more than 80 percent of the time you are hall of fame material. But everyone, both prince and pauper, develops a track record. Those who are usually right – and are quick and candid to let you know when they have erred – are the most reliable. Those who try to hide or memory-hole their errors are despicable, intellectual con men. Those who frequently get it wrong may have insights, but are unreliable and their work must be checked. By this metric, climate change activists are the worst “experts” ever, for not a single one of their dire pronouncements has ever come to pass. They should be laughing stocks taken seriously by no one – and any institutions that granted them credentials should be examined for how they can so easily give out such certifications to people who obviously lack any expertise. The establishment media should also be a laughing stock by now, considered reliable by no one, for they have fallen for – and often intentionally peddled – lie after lie, reporting them as certain fact and established science. But they jump from hoax to hoax like Indiana Jones as the ground crumbles beneath them, never taking the time to assess why they get it so wrong so often while accusing those who disagree with them of misinformation. If you rely on people or institutions who are demonstrably wrong most of the time, you discredit yourself.
  • Credentials: Contrary to what modern popinjays think, a credential does NOT mean you do not need to justify your assertions: it means you should be able to easily and competently justify those assertions in an area of your credentialed expertise. If someone says they have a Ph.D. in a subject and will brook no questions, ignore them for they are a liar and likely incompetent. On several occasions I have had someone, in discussion, tell me they are an authority on a subject. Every time, I tell them that is all the more reason they should know the material and be able to justify their point. If they do not, they are simply a fraud – and usually an arrogant, incompetent fraud, at that.
  • Never reveal all you know: Incompetent goofs love to pretend to more knowledge than they have. You can easily discern them by not being foolish enough to try to impress them with your own knowledge. Ask all who might have genuine expertise honest and serious questions, sprinkling your questions with some you already know the answers to. If their answers to the questions you know are on target, it lends credibility to their assertions that you do not know the answers to. If they just make it up as they go along to try to impress, dismiss them, even if they have some genuine expertise. Rely on them and sooner or later they will lead you off a cliff.

Follow these four rules to determine who you should not pay attention to. Those who well surmount these criteria may still not be right, but truth matters to them. Discussion with them and consideration of their insights will help you find your way.

History is replete with brilliant autodidacts. Among them are Abraham Lincoln, Elon Musk, Blaise Pascal, Frank Lloyd Wright, Gustave Eiffel, Noel Coward, Mark Twain, Leonardo DaVinci, Thomas Edison…the list goes on and on in every field. Those who made a lasting impact had a healthy respect for those who went through the disciplined process to gain credentialed expertise – after ascertaining that the credential represented solid knowledge. You might think that autodidacts and credentialed intellectuals make strange bedfellows. You would be, at least in part, right. However, even this is a useful filter. For those sincere in the search for truth, the credentialed enjoys the autodidact’s originality and the autodidact enjoys the credentialed’s structured foundation. The only ones who get bent out of shape are those in either camp who are insecure or filled with resentment that his counterpart didn’t get knowledge the same way he did.

Do not be fooled by an expert in one field pretending to expertise he does not have in another. Remember, authentic expertise will stand the test of examination, not demand that everyone bow before a credential. No matter how brilliant someone is, he cannot attain expertise without doing the hard, deep work to gain it. God save us from modern “Google intellectuals,” people who think by reading title pages they become experts. They have no context or depth. They are like a man who has a French-English dictionary and pretends to be a fluent speaker of French. He can only peddle the fraud to people who are not native speakers – and not even to most of them.

I certainly have the autodidact’s cockiness that I can develop real expertise in almost any subject. When I was doing radio, it always tickled me when academic guest experts (primarily in economics, history and literature) would ask me off the air where I taught – and their surprise when I told them I didn’t. One of my most delicious moments was when a prominent microbiologist who I asked to vet a paper for me asked me where I taught. She thought I must be lying when I told her I had no background in microbiology, whatsoever, that I just had to get up to snuff to write that vitally important paper competently. But I have a healthy respect for the depth of work involved in gaining real expertise in any subject, so while it is possible to gain the knowledge in any field, it is not expedient. If I have enough basic knowledge to judge the expertise of those who know things I do not (using the four criteria I noted above, among others), then I can gather experts we can trust while focusing on my own areas of interest. The division of labor is crucial to solid, efficient performance in an organization.

Do not be intimidated by people with more attitude than knowledge attacking you. It is borne by their own insecurities and neurotic obsession with being seen as superior. I recently had a silly man inform me that I did not know anything about geo-politics like he did. I knew the man, someone who has endless opinions and little knowledge. I did not bother to remind him that high-ranking officials sometimes ask me for my take on the subject. What you devote yourself to, you can know if you constantly challenge your own assumptions. Don’t let the dogs that bark at you on your way distract you.

If you are an intellectual, do NOT pretend to expertise in a field you don’t have. It does not make people think you are smarter; it dilutes or destroys their confidence in the areas where you actually do have expertise.

At CORAC we have the benefit of a multitude of people who have deep, actual expertise in a multitude of fields. When you get on the website, looking under the material that each of the teams provide, you get the benefit of that genuine expertise. Mutual respect and proper discernment, using the techniques I offered, will give you the confidence to know that you don’t need to be an agricultural expert to avoid buying a pig in a poke. And you don’t need to be a biologist to know what a woman is.

*********

The New York Times (NYT), which just a couple of years ago ridiculed Sweden for its relatively hands-off approach to Covid, has grudgingly conceded that maybe there was merit in that country’s approach. Oh, the NYT is not acknowledging that Sweden has been a spectacular success, preserving its economy and schools intact while getting one of the lowest death rates in the world. As I noted above, phonies never acknowledge when they are flat-out wrong. But truth is a rock – and ideological narratives are just mud sculpted and dried over the rock. Time and reality eventually wash away the illusion the mud provides, revealing the authentic shape of the rock of truth. Phonies are just too vain and stupid to acknowledge it. As the philosopher said, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

*********

How many people have you known who, to hide their incompetence, busy themselves with trivial matters so they can say they are working hard even as they ignore the serious and weighty matters that demand attention? That is what the federal government has become, the prissy, bossy little assistant manager at a local McDonald’s franchise; frantically bossing everyone around in the forlorn hope they don’t figure out he hasn’t a clue what he is doing.

Meantime, while transgenders try to eradicate women and mutilate children, the toxic United Nations has issued a formal recommendation that sex between adults and children be decriminalized and “affirmed.” Forty years ago, the UN was just useless. Now it is a clear and present danger to our children. Will even the trendy wine-women of the left coast buy into this? I suppose they might: many are eager to mutilate their own children to demonstrate how with-it they are. How long, O Lord, how long?

*********

The gun control crowd got a major setback last week when federal judge Steven McGlynn issued an injunction against Illinois’ law banning a multitude of weapons and accessories. (Disclosure: McGlynn is a longtime friend of mine). I have not read as many full rulings as most lawyers, but I have read a lot more than most laymen. Only 27 pages, this was the clearest, most comprehensive yet concise ruling I have ever read. With no fluff it builds, brick by brick, to its conclusion. It even touched on the serious question of what is causing the deep social dysfunction of mass shootings. Both Reason Magazineand noted legal expert and Constitutional scholar Johnathan Turley seem to share my admiration.

While the decision was issued last Friday, I waited a few days to call my friend, fearful that perhaps our relationship was skewing my opinion of just how good this ruling is. But in most rulings, columnists summarize what it means for their readers with few quotes from the ruling, itself. Columnists on this one quoted big chunks of the ruling itself, confirming my judgment that this was a masterpiece of both clarity and logic. Judicial rulings are usually turgid gobbledygook that you have to wade through to get a few nuggets of insight. Maybe it is because I have such high regard for him personally, but I think the clarity and accessible logic, encompassing the broader issues at stake, of this ruling puts McGlynn squarely among the pre-eminent legal minds of our time. You can link to the full ruling at the bottom of the Turley piece.

Meantime, Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation, did a brutal takedown of the gun control crowd’s predicates on Twitter.

I really cannot fathom why the left is determined to ignore crime, mental illness, and border security while demanding that we disarm victims. It seems a very dumb way to reduce crime. It is vital, though, that we not confine ourselves to combatting the assaults of the know-nothing left. This is a deep social problem and we need to get to the root causes and solve them, however much it irritates leftist power-grabbers. Real lives and social cohesion demand it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on RUMINATION

MIRABILE VISU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Pope Francis upholds Catholic ban on contraception 

Simon Caldwell

May 2, 2023 at 7:13 pm

Pope Francis has sent a message to a Natural Family Planning (NFP) conference in which he upheld the central teachings of Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical of 1968 that prohibited married Catholics from using contraception.

The Pontiff stated that the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse were “inseparable” and he called for a counter-sexual revolution.

He warned Catholics that the widespread use of contraception had impoverished many societies and that some countries were now in danger of demographic collapse.

“There is a need always to keep in mind the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act,” he said in a message to a Rome conference celebrating the Billings Ovulation Method of NFP.

The Pope said: “When these two meanings are consciously affirmed, the generosity of love is born and strengthened in the hearts of the spouses, disposing them to welcome new life.

“Lacking this, the experience of sexuality is impoverished, reduced to sensations that soon become self-referential, and its dimensions of humanity and responsibility are lost.”

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis said that “the use of methods based on the natural rhythms of fertility should be encouraged, emphasising the fact that they ‘respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favour the education of an authentic freedom’.”

“In the aftermath of the so-called sexual revolution and the breakdown of taboos, we need a new revolution in our way of thinking,” reported Catholic News Agency. 

“We need to discover the beauty of human sexuality by once again turning to the great book of nature, learning to respect the value of the body and the generation of life, with a view to authentic experiences of conjugal love.”

“In a world dominated by a relativistic and trivialised view of human sexuality, serious education in this area appears increasingly necessary,” Pope Francis said, “requiring an anthropological and ethical approach in which doctrinal issues are explored without undue simplifications or inflexible conclusions.”

The Pope also pointed out the benefits of the Billings method and others for using modern scientific findings to help couples struggling to conceive.

A greater understanding of the procreative processes, he said, “could help many couples make informed and ethically sound decisions that are more respectful of the person and his or her dignity”.

“Today the ideological and practical separation of the sexual relationship from its generative potential has resulted in the quest for alternative forms of having a child, no longer through marital relations but through the use of artificial processes,” he said.

“However, while it is appropriate to assist and support a legitimate desire to conceive with the most advanced scientific knowledge and technologies that can enhance fertility, it is wrong to create test tube embryos and then suppress them, to trade in gametes and to resort to the practice of surrogate parenthood. 

“At the root of the current demographic crisis is, along with various social and cultural factors, an imbalance in the view of sexuality.”

Pope Francis also spoke about the importance of an authentic sexual education and “the connection between sexuality and the fundamental vocation of each person, the gift of self, which finds particular fulfilment in conjugal and family love.”

He said: “This truth, while present in the heart of each human being, requires education in order to achieve full expression,” he said.

The remarks of Pope Francis will inevitably disappoint people who were hoping that he might attempt to reverse or modify the teachings of Pope St Paul VI, whose encyclical shocked many Catholics when it clarified the teaching of the Church against contraception.

The Holy Father explained in his address that the plea by Pope St Paul for scientists to discover new and effective ways of fertility regulation which respected Catholic moral teaching were already fully realised.

Francis said: “In the second half of the last century, as pharmacological research for fertility control expanded and the contraceptive culture was on the rise, John and Evelyn Billings conducted careful scientific research and developed a simple method, accessible to women and couples, for natural knowledge of fertility, offering them a valuable tool for the responsible management of procreative choices.

“In those years, their approach might have appeared outdated and less reliable in comparison with the purported immediacy and security of pharmacological interventions. Yet in fact, their method has continued to prove timely and challenging.”

He said the proven efficacy of NFP has spurred “a serious reflection” on “the need for education in the value of the human body, an integrated and integral vision of human sexuality, an ability to cherish the fruitfulness of love even when not fertile, the building up of a culture that welcomes life and ways to confront the problem of demographic collapse”.

The Pope’s message was sent to participants in an international conference called “The ‘Billings Revolution’ 70 Years Later: From Fertility Knowledge to Personalized Medicine”. 

Besides Billings, a variety of NFP methods have been developed in recent years. None is contraceptive in its action but instead rely on accurately identifying the fertile days of a female reproductive cycle and abstaining from intercourse then to avoid pregnancy. They included the Creighton method and NaProTechnology. 

Advocates say such methods are not only highly effective but are free, or comparatively cheap, environmentally friendly, and free from side effects.

The remarks of Pope Francis came about a month after a new report from the University of Oxford showed that every type of hormonal contraception dramatically increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

Scientists have previously linked the combined contraceptive Pill – which is made up of oestrogen and progestogen – to a 20 per cent increase in developing the disease, while similarly high rates have been identified in the coil and contraceptive implants.

According to British researchers even the new generation of hormonal contraceptives can be just as dangerous.

A team analysed data from more than 9,000 women aged between 20 and 49 who developed invasive breast cancer and compared their lifestyles to 18,000 closely-matched women who did not develop the disease.

They found that women who had used the progestogen-only Pill, the newest generation of oral contraceptives, also increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 20 to 30 per cent.

Once women stopped taking the Pill, the risk of developing the disease progressively declined, according to findings published in the journal Plos Medicine.

Gillian Reeves, Professor of statistical epidemiology and director of the Cancer Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford, said: “Yes, there is an increase here, and yes, nobody wants to hear that something that they’re taking is going to increase their risk for breast cancer by 25 per cent.

“The main purpose of doing this research was really to fill a gap in our knowledge,’ she told the Daily Mail.

“We’ve known for many years that combined oral contraceptives, which women have been using for decades, also have an effect on breast cancer risk, a small increase in risk which is transient.

“We weren’t absolutely sure what the corresponding effect of these progestogen-only contraceptives would be.

“What we’ve shown is that they’re just the same in terms of breast cancer risk, they seem to have a very similar effect to the other contraceptives, and the effect that we’ve known about for many years.”

In 2020 about 3.2 million women in England were using the combined Pill and a similar number were using the progestogen-only Pill.

Besides the Pill, studies around the world have also shown abortion to be a causal link in the development of breast cancer.

Scientists have said the cancer was caused by high levels of oestradiol, a hormone that stimulates breast growth during pregnancy. The effects of the hormone are minimised in women who take their pregnancy to full term but it remains at dangerous levels in those who abort.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, at the same time as the number of abortions rose from an annual 18,000 to well over 200,000 a year.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on MIRABILE VISU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU THINK EVERYTHING HAS GONE CRAZY IN THE PAST MONTH, YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING – WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WILL BRING US !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Crazy Contours of the 

Crazier 2024 Election

By: Victor Davis Hanson

May 1, 2023

We start with the likely American landscape over the next two years.

Joe Biden has no choice but to focus on a purely negative message. So we already know his talking points for the next 18 months: “ultra MAGA” demons, “semi-fascist” insurrectionists, Trump!, Trump!, Trump!, and more Trump!, murdering fellow Americans by putting limits on partial-birth and early abortions, “censorship” as banning critical race theory indoctrination and grooming books, inciting racial tribalism, along with the corollary old boilerplate triad of isms—“fascism, sexism, and racism!”

There will be no Democratic primary debates, even if support for Robert Kennedy, Jr. surges to 25-30 percent of the Democratic electorate. The latter is banking on his name, his gut instinct there are still some JFK-like Democrats and Independents in hiding, the decline of Joe Biden, and the pushback against all things woke.

Biden is failing at a geometric rate of enfeeblement and would likely not be able to rest up, medicate, and prep full-time to salvage the debates as he did as a candidate in the attenuated debate series of 2020. His handlers do not wish to tempt fate a third time and hope that if it comes to a Trump-Biden race that they can goad Trump into offering an excuse to curtail or cancel the debates entirely.

Why Stick with Biden?

So why does the Left stick with Biden, given his high negative ratings, the red-flag example of an enfeebled Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a disabled Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.,), and his daily lapses of cognition, his inability to read off a teleprompter, his slurring of words to the point of incomprehensibility,  his peculiar short-step, hands-out gait, and the indiscreet flashing of his paint-by-numbers, bold-letter prompt cards?

Does the Left not grasp that Biden is one additional bad fall on the steps of Air Force One from full disability, one sparkle-in-his-eye fixation on a young preteen girl in the audience that earns his eerie quips, blowing into the hair, and 20-seconds-too-long hug away from scandal? One complete freeze, in which he loses cognition and the ability to identify those in his immediate vicinity, away from total befuddlement?

Do they not appreciate that Biden is one crooked tax-document dump, one Hunter new-old email release, one burned and flipped former crony whistleblower away from special counsel/impeachment territory?

Do they not understand that the subtext of the current toxic inclusion of Hunter Biden on Air Force One, the shakedown pay for his nose-brush paintings, his new move into the White House, and his cue-card presence at the side of his bewildered dad are all a sort of implied familial blackmail by a prodigal son who believes he got dirty and decadent enriching the Biden clan–his father especially—and yet was never appreciated for his skullduggery?

We are watching a cornered Hunter reclaiming his due as first son. He seeks exemption from the walls-are-closing in law and wishes to remind the Bidens at any moment he can take them all down with him. Keep your friends close, and your family closer.

Nevertheless, the Left Unites

Still, despite the downsides, various reasons explain why the Left unites behind the unpopular and flawed Biden, who is perhaps the least physically able, oldest, and most corrupt president in modern history.

One, the hard Left has learned that despite the obvious liability of a non-compos-mentis president, the advantages of outsourcing the main decision-making of his presidency to the hard Left—the new Democratic Party of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the squad, the recalibrated Obamas, the black caucus, and the wink and nod to Antifa and BLM—mark a rare moment in U.S.history.

A Jacobin crowd, whose agenda does not poll 50 percent on any issue, is now running the country. Joe Biden is its ancient, happy-face emoji. It has managed in two years to wreck the border, destroy energy autonomy, fuel racial tensions, create an entirely new cause of the aggrieved “transgender community,” tank the economy, spike crime, and put America into rapid decline abroad beneath the Biden façade—and call it all “progress.”

The wherewithal in lieu of plain popular support came from huge amounts of tech and corporate cash, and the fealty of most of our cultural institutions, from Silicon Valley and the media to the corporate boardroom, academia, K-12, professional sports, entertainment, and the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy including the FBI, Justice Department, Pentagon, CIA, and IRS.

In other words, for the Left having no president at all certainly has its advantages. No one in the Oval Office is warning the socialists, “You guys are crazy and will cost me the election if you keep it up!”Instead, with no one in charge, everyone is in charge.

Two, what choice is there?

The more Kamala Harris knows she must not cackle, must expand her vocabulary to 500 words, and must stop the endless Soak-Wash-Rinse-Spin repetitive cycle of Kahlil Gibran platitudes, the more she simply sticks to her one-trick shtick. No one knows whether on her prompt some aide composed such mush for her teleprompter, or she is freelancing, or if it even matters. Harris is the first vice president in memory whose liabilities prevent an accustomed presence at foreign dignitary funerals.

Three, the Left knows that the strategy of using the Biden veneer for an unpopular socialist agenda is dangerous. It risks Biden’s minute-by-minute octogenarian fragility and, in his vacuum, too much visibility to the absurd people who now surface to lecture the nation on a future of battery-operated tanks, “secure” borders of 6.5 million illegal entries, racist clover-leaves and overpasses, and Dylan Mulvaney’s heroics.

Given all that, the 2024 Democrat campaign in default style has pivoted also to lawfare.

If Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and E. Jean Carroll can stagger their indictments and lawsuits, egg Trump to keep posting on social media, prepare all sorts of gag orders, stays, delays, hearings, and consultations that require Trump to appear in court in chronic fashion, then they believe they can win him just enough empathy to take the Republican nomination, but by November create enough nationwide exhaustion that Independents, Rhinos, and some shaky Trump supporters stay home with a sigh that they “can’t take it anymore.”

So the Left’s strategy seems to be that a few provocative early cuts will create enough blood to excite sympathy and enlist first aid, but subsequent hundreds of cumulative wounds leave such a bloody scene that supporters will recoil, certain either that the victim is terminal or the effort to resuscitate him too messy.

The Republican Strategy

As far as the Republicans, no one knows anything at this early stage, and those who say they do know even less.

We forget that in May and June of 2015, we were variously lectured: 

ü that Jeb! was the Bush who should have been president, 

ü that Chris Christie was the sort of blue-state governor that could win nationally, that it was time for Marco Rubio to meet his destiny, 

ü that a can-do Rick Perry of 2012 in 2016 would bring Texas know-how to the White House, 

ü that Ben Carson was the real outsider we’ve been waiting for, 

ü that Ted Cruise alone could unite the anti-Trump vote to rescue the nomination, 

ü that Mike Huckabee’s 2012 bid was just a run-up for his 2016 surge, 

ü that the perfect governor Scott Walker had all but locked up on the nomination, and 

ü that Trump was a supposed buffoon with zero chance of being nominated and less than zero of being elected.

When Trump currently cuts commercials focusing on the Biden catastrophic record, when he gives televised interviews in which he outlines his solutions to the current self-created messes, and when he omits reference to the “stop-the-steal” past and focuses on 2024, he wins.

And when he detours from comparing his record and agenda to Biden’s and instead replays all the terrible injustices done him (and there were plenty) and goes full bore into ad hominem personal attacks against DeSantis and his sterling record in Florida, he loses the very constituencies he and other Republicans need to win—suburbanites, independents, Democrats terrified of cancel culture, and a few stray rhinos embarrassed by their past nihilistic votes for Biden.

The strange thing is that Trump knows this paradox better than anyone and seems happy and content when he keeps to his record and future solutions, and morose and moody when he replays the past with himself as the central character rather than the suffering country.

The Democrats fear Ron DeSantis more, evident by the Left’s strange occasional praise of Trump and the latter’s even stranger attacks from the Left on the Florida governor on abortion, Social Security, the Florida response to COVID, and the repeal of the ossified, crony-capitalist special exemptions for a now woke Disney. The Left’s operative strategy apparently is that it believes Trump customarily gets mad, but DeSantis even more dangerously gets even.

Still, the Left viscerally hates Trump more than it despises DeSantis. It knows the present pro-Trump strategy is risky, since, in 2016, that gambit gave a billion dollars in free media to Trump, only to see him win the Electoral College over a flawed candidate but perhaps even less flawed than Biden. It rationally knows that risk, but emotionally knows it cannot stop taking it.

Lots of candidates may jump into the race, either as vice presidential hopefuls or hoping that DeSantis proves a Scott Walker, the great Governor hope, who nearly turned a purple state red, took on the right enemies, got reelected, had data and policy at his fingertips, but strangely fizzled out in the first debates.

In contrast, the apparent DeSantis strategy is to declare in mid-May to late June, as the Biden record becomes more depressing, as the Trump legal morass grows and empathy fades, and the more Trump attacks him, the more an above-the-fray DeSantis talks about his record and agenda and creeps back in the polls.

All of the parameters above may be what is known so far. Far greater are the known unknowns of the next year and a half.

If we hit full stagflation with more bank collapses, higher interest, soaring energy prices, and a scary expansion of the slugfest in Ukraine, then all the Democratic strategies in the world will not prevent Biden’s Cartesque fate.

Will Biden manage to simulate a presidency or continue to scare even his supporters? Which, if any, of the four or five legal attacks on Trump will stick, and if so, when, why, and how? And how will DeSantis do with crowds, rallies, and messy spars?

Again, the only thing that is now known is what is possible. What everyone now thinks is certain is likely unlikely. The 2024 race is not predetermined but more fluid than ever.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment