Narcissists need people. Period. The worst punishment for them, far greater than being belittled and embarrassed in front of a whole lot of people or publicly or on TV (and they hate that like no one else) is for a narcissist to be locked in solitary confinement and given enough food for a year with 0% human contact and no cameras monitoring them. If you think they are miserable, you should see them in that condition. Without human beings to feed off of— through abuse or/and admiration— a narcissist will physically die or kill themselves. Without people to serve them or to use and abuse or to get recognition and some kind of admiration from, a narcissist is scientifically unable to survive. Like a parasite without food, their food won’t be that year’s worth you leave them with but rather the abuse and admiration of human beings. Just like their brain pattern is different from a normal person’s, so their psyche works different, making their needs for life not isolated to air, food, and water but to other things as well.
That said, if your plan is to bring a narcissist to their knees, then you don’t understand the issue at all. The fact is that everyone is narcissistic to a degree and that narcissists win because the narcissism in others aid and abet them. (Hello.) Narcissists aren’t great at fooling people; they’re great at appealing to the narcissistic traits in others. In short, fighting a narcissist is the same as fighting the whole planet. 9 out of 10 times, you will lose. It’s better to find out how narcissists function, how everyone else functions, and (this can’t be overstated) how you function. If you make compromises and ignore red flags and then get into some kind of relationship with a narcissist, the narcissist isn’t the only one at fault when things go south. Facts and fiction are not the same. What you want things and people to be and what they are not the same. You must choose to go with your objective side rather than your subjective side so you can make wise decisions and avoid narcissists rather than falling into their traps because of your own compromises, narcissism, or denial.
Commentary on Bishop Schneider’s Statement: “On the Question of a Heretical Pope” By David Martin
While Bishop Athanasius Schneider remains one of the finest prelates left in the Catholic Church today, his March 20 statement “On the Question of a Heretical Pope” warrants some constructive criticism, for while it encourages militant action to offset the errors of the present pontificate, it nonetheless dissuades legitimate action that could be used to effectively deal with a heretical pope.
Bishop Schneider rightfully admits that a pope in his person is not infallible but can “promote doctrinal errors and heresies,” against which faithful Catholics must always guard themselves. Should such a pope emerge, the bishop offers the following as a remedy.
“In dealing with the tragic case of a heretical pope, all the members of the Church, beginning with the bishops, down to the simple faithful, have to use all legitimate means, such as private and public corrections of the erring pope, constant and ardent prayers and public professions of the truth in order that the Apostolic See may again profess with clarity the Divine truths, that the Lord entrusted to Peter and to all his successors.” While the bishop on one hand exhorts the faithful to staunch action in defending the Church against a heretical pontiff, he then appears to soft-pedal the issue, saying:
“A pope cannot be deposed in whatsoever form and for whatever reason, not even for the reason of heresy.” In his statement, Schneider denies the possibility of a pope losing his papacy because of heresy, yet he admits that this thesis has been voiced by great canonists and theologians, like Cardinal Cajetan and St. Robert Bellarmine, in favor of it.
Schneider states that “the loss of his office ipso facto because of heresy – is only a theological opinion, that does not fulfill the necessary theological categories of antiquity, universality, and consensus,” yet Cardinal Burke made it clear in an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016 that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
Cardinal Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.” Bishop Schneider says that “even if a pope is spreading theological errors and heresies, the Faith of the Church as a whole will remain intact because of the promise of Christ concerning the special assistance and permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the truth, in His Church (cf. John 14: 17; 1 John 2: 27)”.
Unfortunately, this is not true. The faith today has been all but devastated by heresy and has not remained “intact” as a whole. If a pope “is spreading theological errors,” it destroys the Church, just as a major part of the Church has now been destroyed because of the many errors issuing forth from Rome.
Christ Never Promised No Destruction
Christ’s promise to His Church didn’t mean that the Church in part couldn’t be destroyed but simply meant that the Church in the end wouldn’t be completely destroyed. The Bible points to the fact that the Church would be reduced to a mere remnant in the end through apostasy. (Isaias 24;13, 2 Tim. 4:3)
Bishop Schneider seems to have a false security that Christ is always with us and everything is secure. He notes that many generations of Catholics did not find it scandalous that Pope Honorius I was found guilty of heresy or of supporting heresy and says that the words of Honorius were harmless against the fact of the inerrancy in Faith of the Apostolic See.
Unfortunately, Honorius’ words were scandalous. And whereas his errors could not interfere with the continuity of the orthodox Faith in the hearts of the true Catholics, the Holy See was used to subvert the Faith in the hearts of many. Even so, Schneider says that in a similar way Honorius I was tolerated and not condemned until after his death, we likewise should tolerate Pope Francis.
The problem is that if we do this while believing the Church is not being destroyed, we could be contributing to its destruction, and as such, could be accountable. For if God has given us a legitimate means to effectively correct a situation and then we don’t use it, it could show lack of care for the Church.
But the bishop insists that deposition is not an option. “The attempt to depose a heretical pope at any cost is a sign of all too human behavior, which ultimately reflects an unwillingness to bear the temporal cross of a heretical pope.”
Could it be that it is Bishop Schneider who reflects this “unwillingness to bear the temporal cross of a heretical pope?”
Taking responsible action to depose a renegade pope would reflect a selfless and heroic resolution to stand up to a heretic without respect to persons. We must be willing to bear the persecution that such an action incites, just as Archbishop Vigano did in calling for Francis’ resignation.
Vigano Was Wrong?
Schneider’s position suggests that Archbishop Vigano has been wrong in his position on Francis. For while Vigano hasn’t called for Francis’ deposition, he is calling for his resignation, so the intention is essentially the same—he wants him out. This reflects, not an unwillingness to bear the cross of an errant pope—quite obviously, since Vigano is probably carrying a heavier cross than most of the bishops—but a true and selfless Apostolic zeal for souls. He’s simply not willing to stand by and watch souls being placed daily onto the path to hell because of bishops who are too lazy and fear-ridden to take action against a heretical pope. He is thinking of souls, not himself.
Papal Infallibility
Bishop Schneider is certainly correct in reminding us that Christ’s promise to His Church guarantees that the See of Peter could never make erroneous ex-cathedra pronouncements, however, this does not discount the possibility that a renegade pope could feign an ex-cathedra pronouncement for deceptive purposes, which if he did, would render the pronouncement null and void. Such a pronouncement would fulfill Christ’s promise that the papacy would never be used to make erroneous pronouncements in the name of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium.
With the situation growing more and more treacherous with each passing day, it’s important that we remember this because if we blindly lock into the idea that a pope cannot err when speaking “ex-cathedra,” we could be forfeiting our mission to defend the truth. What if a pope suddenly stood up as “Supreme Pastor of All Christians” and decreed that “God wills diversity of religions” or that “There is no eternal condemnation in the next life”? Would we take it bait, line, and sinker?
In plotting against the Church, the Freemasons long ago had determined that they would attempt to do away with all the Church’s dogmas, with the exception of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, for their plan was to eventually hijack the papacy and then use this dogma to bind the faithful to error. This they would execute through heretical bishops.
Heretics Can Participate at Conclaves?
Bishop Schneider seems to dignify the “right” of such heretics to operate within the Church, saying that “even a heretical person, who is automatically excommunicated because of formal heresy, can nevertheless validly administer the sacraments” and that “an excommunicated cardinal could participate in the Papal election and he himself could be elected pope.”
Unfortunately, this is only a theological opinion, and one that contradicts the Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was issued ex-cathedra by Pope Paul IV on February 15, 1559. The document states that the office of any bishop, cardinal, or even a pope is null if he had fallen to [formal] heresy prior to his elevation.
“[By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) “the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless.” (6:1) The pope states in his decree that “each and every member” of the Bishops, Archbishops, or Cardinals who “have been detected” or “have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy” or who “in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy” (3:1) … “shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication.” (5:1) Thereupon, the pope says: (iii) “They shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent.” (5:3)
This radically contradicts Bishop Schneider’s statement that “an excommunicated cardinal could participate in the Papal election and he himself could be elected pope.” Schneider quotes Pope Paul VI from his Romano Pontifice Eligendo as saying that “No cardinal elector may be excluded from active and passive participation in the election of the Supreme Pontiff because of or on pretext of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment.” (35)
The problem is that the document he cites is not credible since it was primarily the work of Cardinal Jean Villot, who had a history of forging the pope’s documents. It is no secret that Pope Paul’s papacy was overthrown in 1972 through the intercession of Cardinals Villot, Casaroli, and Benelli, whereupon it was subjugated to the Office of the Secretariat, during which time they completely overtook the papal office, something that was well established before summer 1975. The document that Schneider quotes from was issued in October 1975, and as such, is not a true papal document but a Masonic construct that was designed to empower Christ’s enemies inside the Church.
Let us pray for Bishop Schneider and all the good bishops, remembering that they too are human and must carry the cross of infirmity. If we take the liberty to correct Francis year in and year out, then we can certainly correct a bishop by pointing out that he may be softening up under pressure. Having a missionary spirit he probably can’t bear the thought of having more travel restrictions placed upon him by Rome, so this is something we need to look at too.
Pope Francis’ Election
Tradition-minded Catholics on the blogosphere should encourage the idea of an episcopal committee looking into the matter of Francis’ deposition, especially since the 2013 conclave contained multi-violations against John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Unversi Dominici Gregis, which governs papal conclaves. The mere fact that Cardinal Danneels confessed on video in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of the notorious “St. Gallen’s Mafia” that had conspired for the ouster of Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio through vote canvassing is every reason to question the validity of the 2013 election.
Austen Ivereigh’s book, The Great Reformer, brings to light how Cardinal Murphy O’Connor along with several key cardinals had spearheaded an intense lobbying campaign, through which they garnered pledges from up to 30 cardinals to get Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio elected as pope. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/ This directly contravened John Paul II’s Constitution where it states: “The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.” (81) Section 76 of the Constitution furthermore states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” (76)
This cut-and-dry juridical approach doesn’t always rest well with Catholic bloggers, because unfortunately, they tend to get caught up in the buzz where they like keeping the saga going because it generates donations, but they should be more open to the idea of episcopal action in at least looking into the matter Pope Francis’ resignation if they can’t elicit from him a firm statement of amendment.
Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation.— John of St. Thomas
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Christ’s promise to His Church didn’t mean that the Church in part couldn’t be destroyed but simply meant that the Church in the end wouldn’t be completely destroyed. The Bible points to the fact that the Church would be reduced to a mere remnant in the end through apostasy. (Isaias 24;13, 2 Tim. 4:3)
Summary of eRumor: This is a feisty response from an Colorado woman named Ann Barnhardt to a person who sent a message through her web site that included a death threat against her. Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant who, among other things, has been critical of the Obama administration and of Islam.
The Truth: Ann Barnhardt told TruthOrFiction.com that the death threat was real and so was her public response, which she posted on her web site. The death threat came from an alleged Muslim who posted a comment in July 2011 to a video that Barnhardt released on YouTube. Click for Barnhardt’s website. updated 10/09/11Share307ShareRedditWhatsAppEmailTweet307 SHARES
A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
Ann Barnhardt is described as “a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant, American patriot, traditional Catholic, and unwitting counter-revolutionary blogger. She can be reached through her business at http://www.barnhardt.biz.” She has taken on Islam and they have noticed.
DEATH THREAT: To:annbarnhardt
I’m going to kill you when I find you. Don’t think I won’t, I know where you and your parents live and I’ll need is one phone-call to kill ya’ll.
ANN’S RESPONSE:
Re: Watch your back. Hello mufcadnan123!
You don’t need to “find” me. My address is 9175 Kornbrust Circle, Lone Tree, CO 80124.
Luckily for you, there are daily DIRECT FLIGHTS from Heathrow to Denver . Here’s what you will need to do. After arriving at Denver and passing through customs, you will need to catch the shuttle to the rental car facility. Once in your rental car, take Pena Boulevard to I-225 south. Proceed on I-225 south to I-25 south. Proceed south on I-25 to Lincoln Avenue which is exit 193. Turn right (west) onto Lincoln . Proceed west to the fourth light, and turn left (south) onto Ridgegate Boulevard . Proceed south, through the roundabout to Kornbrust Drive . Turn left onto Kornbrust Drive and then take an immediate right onto Kornbrust Circle . I’m at 9175.
Just do me one favor. PLEASE wear body armor. I have some new ammunition that I want to try out, and frankly, close-quarter body shots without armor would feel almost unsporting from my perspective. That and the fact that I’m probably carrying a good 50 I.Q. points on you makes it morally incumbent upon me to spot you a tactical advantage.
However, being that you are a miserable, trembling coward, I realize that you probably are incapable of actually following up on any of your threats without losing control of your bowels and crapping your pants while simultaneously sobbing yourself into hyperventilation. So, how about this: why don’t you contact the main mosque here in Denver and see if some of the local musloids here in town would be willing to carry out your attack for you?
After all, this is what your “perfect man” mohamed did (pig excrement be upon him). You see, mohamed, being a miserable coward and a con artist, would send other men into battle to fight on his behalf. Mohamed would stay at the BACK of the pack and let the stupid, ignorant suckers like you that he had conned into his political cult do the actual fighting and dying. Mohamed would then fornicate with the dead men’s wives and children. You should follow mohamed’s example! Here is the contact info for the main mosque here in Denver :
Masjid Abu Bakr Imam Karim Abu Zaid 2071 South Parker Road Denver, CO 80231 Phone: 303-696-9800
Email: denvermosque@yahoo.com
I’m sure they would be delighted to hear from you. Frankly, I’m terribly disappointed that not a SINGLE musloid here in the United States has made ANY attempt to rape and behead me. But maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough, so let me do that right now.
I will NEVER, EVER, EVER submit to islam. I will fight islam with every fiber of my being for as long as I live because islam is pure satanic evil. If you are really serious about islam dominating the United States and the world, you are going to have to come through me. You are going to have to kill me. Good luck with that. And understand that if you or some of your musloid boyfriends do actually manage to kill me, The Final Crusade will officially commence five minutes later, and then, despite your genetic mental retardation, you will be made to understand with crystal clarity what the word “defeat” means. Either way, I win, so come and get it. Deo adjuvante non timendum (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of).
The Church is living a “mystery of treason,” a “mystery of Judas”, Curia Cardinal Robert Sarah writes in his new book“Le soir approche et déjà le jour baisse” (Fayard),
“The Church is dying because the shepherds are afraid of speaking with truth and clarity,” he adds, “We are afraid of the media.” As a consequence, Catholics are “confused”.
For Sarah the Church has become a “den of darkness” and a “cave of thieves”. Certain men of God have turned into “agents of the Evil one.” And, “…have betrayed like Judas.” Sarah calls relativism “the mask of Judas, dressed as an intellectual.”
“We tolerate everything” and “Catholic doctrine is put in question,” Cardinal Sarah says,
“In the name of stances which they call ‘intellectual’, theologians delight in deconstructing the dogmas and emptying Catholic morals of their profound significance.” Gloria tvreports.
It is difficult to argue against the Cardinal’s hypothesis which suggests that, at the root of the collapse of the West, there is a crisis of identity and culture. The West no longer knows who it is, because it does not know and does not want to know who shaped it, who constituted it, who bestowed it with such dignity and civility. Many countries today do not know their history. This auto-asphyxia leads inevitably to a decadence that opens the way to new barbaric civilisations. Everything is tolerated in our society but nothing is forgiven. We seem locked in a race to produce new levels of barbarism in the name of entertainment. With each new season we see more graphic sexuality, new boundaries broken in terms of coarse language and behaviour on public display. The relativism Cardinal Sarah refers to is so evident today in societies which deny objective truth and therefore any real ideal or over-arching moral consensus. Our politicians speak about freedom of religion and freedom of belief they seem to just be trying to appeal to as many people as possible. The political vision of a pluralistic, tolerant society contains irreconcilable paradigms. Society is built on consensus and consensus is sought by leaders with vision. Increasingly we see leaders emerging with the opposite traits: they seek to please the mob, and often, they seek to appeal to conflicting demographics (a prime example would be Islam and the LGBT movement). Our society seeks to appease all members but what does it do when two groups have conflicting opinions? As already stated, the precedent seems to dictate it capitulates to the most outrageous or progressive moral position with no regard for “outdated” “old fashioned” (some might say tried and tested) morality. What can go wrong??? The problem is, without agreed moral norms in society, we can only expect fracture. What do parents do if it becomes clear that their children will be taught norms which contradict their own moral position at schools? They remove them of course and stop participating in the society. The Church has long provided the bulwark to all this darkness pushing in on society. It’s defence relies on intelligent, courageous and articulate leaders with sound, logical, reasoned arguments speaking out boldly. But it seems no more. In the name of tolerance, all but a few of our priests embrace the darkness in the name of a false tolerance like it was a new Gospel. All of society will suffer as a result of this abdication of duty spearheaded by prelates like Archbishop Scicluna, Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Nichols, but Catholics will be the first to suffer and will suffer most egregiously because Catholic families stand in the front line. As Cardinal Sarah so accurately puts it:
“The Church is dying because the shepherds are afraid of speaking with truth and clarity,” “We are afraid of the media.” As a consequence, Catholics are “confused”.
by Sitsio
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FEAR IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BISHOPS IN OUR TIME. SMALL WONDER WHEN ONE CONSIDERS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO CARDINAL George Pell AND THE FEAR THAT HAS DRIVEN ARCHBISHOP VIGANO INTO HIDING. THE LONG ARM OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS A THREAT TO ALL BISHOPS WHO OPPOSE HIM.
And behold, a man came up to [Christ], saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to Him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.—Mt 19:16-22
In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II uses the above account from Matthew 19 to attack the modern moral theology errors of “consequentialism” and “proportionalism.” The Pope accurately explains that consequentialism “claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice.” He continues that proportionalism “weighs the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a particular situation.”—Veritatis Splendor #75.
Both of these errors, consequentialism and proportionalism, are a far cry from how Christ answers so clearly: “Keep the commandments” to his questioner saying,”What good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
To understand proportionalism, imagine this account that has probably happened in most every diocese of the USA in the past 30 years: A bishop begins weighing all the hate-mail that repeatedly lands on his desk against a young, conservative priest. That bishop begins to judge that the peace of a diocese weighs greater than a particular priest’s priesthood. To avoid further troublesome effects in his chancery, the bishop decides to end the conservative priest’s active ministry by either lying about him or sending him to the psyche ward at St. Luke’s. The bishop does not want to end that young priest’s priesthood. He has just proportionately weighed that a few small lies about one soul is probably worth a thousands other souls not being disturbed enough to write letters to the chancery.
Now, if you’re convinced that the above imaginary bishop made an unfortunate but prudent decision, then you just sided with the proportionalism that led the high priest Caiaphas’ to kill Jesus Christ: “It is better for you that one man should die for the people, than for the whole nation to perish.”—Jn 11:49-50. Astonishingly, Caiaphas almost seems to admit that killing Jesus is a bad idea! Indeed, Caiaphas figures that killing Christ will have proportionately less detrimental consequences than a schism within Israel which might eventually attract the attention of the Roman Empire. Orthodox but cowardly prelates today should remember that the one thing that Caiaphas feared—the Roman Empire destroying the temple 40 years later—was exactly what he effected by setting into motion the execution of Jesus Christ by using proportionalism! St. John notes a few verses later that Caiaphas’ ability to become a self-fulfilling agent in Christ’s death (albeit accidentally and sacrilegiously) was an effect of being high priest that year: “He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.”—v. 51.
To understand consequentialism, imagine this story that has also proved to be unfortunately quite common in most dioceses of the USA beginning in the 1970s: A certain bishop receives numerous, credible reports that a certain priest molested children. The bishop then decides to lie to the public about that priest, but this time the bishop makes the priest out to be better than he is. He says he is still “fit for public ministry.” The bishop did want not want to lie to his diocese about a predatory priest. It’s just that he believed that doing the right thing in the present, namely, sending the child-molesting priest to prison, would lead to bad consequences in the future like many Catholics leaving his diocese. (Like Caiaphas, this is exactly what would happen 40 years later due to his actions!)
This error of using consequentialism to make decisions in a diocese shows that evil never pays. Remember that Pope John Paul II described the moral theology heresy of consequentialism as “claim[ing] to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice.”—Veritatis Splendor#75.
(Unfortunately, Pope John Paul II seems to have turned a blind-eye to the complaints that started to pour into the Vatican in 1998 regarding Fr. Marcial Maciel being a child-molestor. Was the Pope incredulous as to the accusations? Or was the Pope using consequentialism in his decisions to protect that wicked demiurge and juggernaut founder of the Legionaries of Christ?)
For a decision to be moral, it must have a good intention, a good object (act) and good circumstances. Catholic moral theology has always infallibly taught that if even one of these three is missing, it is bad decision. Thus, if you refrain from speaking the truth while maintaining a good intention (eg keeping the diocese together or preventing the schism in the Church) then you have committed a mortal sin. In short, the end does not justify the means. This is very basic stuff. But proportionalism and consequentialism are just Satan’s advanced loopholes around this. Perhaps the problem is pride—that we preists and priests and bishops and Cardinals and Popes think that our proportions and consequences of the future of the Church somehow outweigh us doing the right thing in the present. It might be just this basic error that we don’t think that moral theology applies to us, especially when we have a whole Church’s image to repair amidst distressing scandal.
Bishop Gracida of Texas is a great hero of mine for publicly questioning the valid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. I know for a fact that at least one other Cardinal in the world is questioning this, too.
But even if you do not buy our “resignationalist” approach to the current crisis, then at least ask this: Where are all the bishops denouncing the weekly heresy that we are now hearing from the top down? I don’t mean that liturgical digits are being denied by people in the Vatican. I mean basic tenets of the Creed are being overturned on a weekly basis. Most good bishops of the world now know that parts of the Creed are being publicly denied in material heresy. But if you were to quietly ask any decent bishop or Cardinal why he does not oppose the current errors coming at him from the hierarchy above him, and even in the Vatican, he would probably sigh and say, “And just get in trouble and lose my diocese? Then you’d just have some liberal bishop replace me!” This seems like a conservative and strategic answer. Unfortunately, his answer is mortally sinful since it is based on the moral theology heresy of consequentialism.
Here is why: The end does not justify the means, whether those means be sins of commission or omission. Have you ever thought of the fact that sins of omission do not justify a good end?
That means that if I refrain from correcting heresy in the those above me for the sake of keeping my faculties just to hear another 10,000 confessions, I commit a mortal sin based on the moral theology heresy of proportionalism. If a certain bishop were to tell us that doing the couragous thing would be all “too human” and that we should wait around for divine intervention, this would be approaching the spiritual heresy of quietism. If a certain Cardinal were to refrain from correcting the heresies of those above him so as to save the Church from schism (read: Caiaphas) or if that Cardinal were to stay silent so as to save his own hide to one day to become Pope, this too would be the moral theology error of consequentialism.
Consequentialism and Proportionism are the two moral heresies freezing every prelate of the world from doing the right thing in the worst crisis in Church history. The end does not justify the means, even if those means are sins of omission with the good intention of your ministry’s self-preservation, or even preservation of the Church against schism.
Correcting another’s heresy (even those above us) is not only a heroic act, but a necessary act according to St. Paul and St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas: “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”—St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae II.II.33 art 4 reply to objection 2.
Many prelates would respond to the above with a sigh of resignation: “Ahh, but no one would listen to me, anyway! I’m just a bishop of a small diocese in the Philippines.” Well, look at what God tells the prophet Jeremiah: ““When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer. Therefore say to them, ‘This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction.’”—Jeremiah 7:27. Look at that first sentence again. Have you ever heard of a mission that God has sent a man on where he has already told him that he will fail? It’s astonishing that God tells Jeremiah ahead of time that the nation of Israel “will not listen to you.” Jeremiah obeys anyway. Why? Because it is GOD! It is GOD telling him too. Does that not mean anything to anyone anymore in the Catholic Church hierarchy? Jeremiah does not have time for the heresy of consequentialism by arguing that “no one will listen to me.” Yeah, God already told Jeremiah that. We obey God, anyway.
Look, this is not me just being a weekend warrior with a keyboard or a mere priest who is virtue-signaling against a hierarchy because he has to be a hermit. I’m using big words like “consequentialism”and “proportionism”because that is what moral theologians have called this error. But you don’t need to be a moral theologian to do the right thing as a father, spiritual or biological. Imagine this: Imagine a biological father is walking in the mountains of Colorado with his seven children. Imagine a mountain lion attacked one of his children. Would that father go and fight off that mountain lion? Yes! What if it cost that man his life? He would still do it. Can you imagine what kind of bad father would do an internal proportionalistic debate when a lion attacks his daughter? It might go like this: “Well, if I go and fight that lion off my oldest daughter, then it might kill me, and then my other six children would have no father. It is probably better that I leave the lion to eat my daughter because I would not want my other six children to be raised fatherless.”
Such is the reasoning of why so many bishops will lie. They love their own digs more than the salvation of souls. But the opposite of proportionalism is what comes naturally to any virtuous father, biological or spiritual: Do the right thing. Always. Regardless of consequences, regardless of a weighed outcome.
And some bishops have done the right thing in history, regardless of consequences, even knowing of a coming failure that would cost them their seats in the diocese.
For example, in the 4th century, St. John Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Constantinople, the second most important city of Christendom behind only to Rome. Hundreds of thousands of people in modern-day Turkey looked to this great preacher to guide them to holiness. But one day, St. John Chrysostom knew he had to rebuke the Empress Eudoxia. St. John knew her temporal power. He knew very well that if he rebuked her, he might lose his seat as Patriarch over Constantinople. He knew that his people would be like sheep without a shepherd. He knew that hundreds of priests would go without his guidance in their ministries and perhaps thousands of the laity might fall away from the sacraments.
So, what did St. John Chrysostom do? He not only rebuked the Empress. He did it at Divine Liturgy. He called her a “Jezebel” publicly! Of course, she sent him into exile. Twice. Both times, Chrysostom had to leave his beloved Constantinople and her people. But he was simply reported to say at that time: “Violent storms encompass me on all sides, yet I am without fear because I stand upon a rock. Though the sea roar and the waves rise high, they cannot overwhelm the ship of Jesus Christ.”
Chrysostom returned months or years later, one night. The people got wind of his return, and thousands went out on boats on the Bosborus, lighting up candles in the night to welcome their beloved spiritual father back! So, we must ask: What were the consequences of him not following the moral heresy of consequentialism? Of him not weighing souls of tomorrow against doing the right thing today? The answer to this is that St. John Chrysostom got canonized. St. John Chrysostom got declared a doctor of the Church. St. John Chrysostom was to then be read by millions of Christians, East and West, and people will be reading St. John Chrysostom until Christ returns in glory. Most importantly, St. John obeyed God and subsequently became a hero to all the biological fathers of Constantinople in that 4th century who desperately wanted to see a soldier of Christ do the right thing without compromise or fear.
Finally, pardon the borderline-blasphemy, but imagine if Jesus Christ had followed the moral theology errors of proportionalism and consequentialism. If Jesus Christ had followed these two moral theology of the end justifying the means, it would have sounded something like this: “I have a good thing going with these life-changing miracles and powerful teaching. If I keep telling the Pharisees that they are hypocrites, they might end my healings and terminate my raising people from the dead. If I oppose the Pharisees anymore, they will certainly end the most important thing: My preaching of My Father’s Kingdom! Thus, I better make peace with the Pharisees, because if they crucify me, then my awesome ministry ends!”
Of course, this type of thinking was exactly how St. Peter saw things when Jesus had to rebuke him and call him a “Satan.” Jesus knew that it was a temptation to put worldly success—even in ministry—above doing the right thing that would lead to the cross. Christ had to shock-therapy Peter into seeing at that moment that the world would not be saved without the cross, and that Christ could not climb the cross by weighing measly human consequences on the future when He was called in his Sacred Humanity by His Own Sacred Divinity to do just one thing: The right thing, today, without compromise, even if it meant raising the ire of the religious leaders of His day.
Yes, such an act amidst a corrupt hierarchy will usually lead to the end of one’s ministry…and the redemption of the world.
The boss wondered why one of his most valued employees wasabsent but had not phoned in sick. So he dialed the employee’s home phone number and was greeted with a child’s whisper. “Hello?” “Is your daddy home?” “Yes, he’s out in the garden,” whispered the small voice. “May I talk with him?” The child whispered, “No,” so the boss asked, “Well, is your Mommy there?” “Yes, she’s out in the garden too” The boss asked, “May I talk with her?” Again the small voice whispered, “No.” Hoping there was somebody with whom he could leave a message, the boss asked, “s anybody else there?” “Yes,”whispered the child, “a policeman..” Wondering what a cop would be doing at his employee’s home, the boss asked, “May I speak with the policeman?” “No, he’s busy,” whispered the child. “Busy doing what?” “Talking to Daddy and Mommy and the police dog men.” Growing more worried as he heard a loud noise in the background,the boss asked, “What is that noise?” “It’s a helicopter” answered the whispering voice. “What is going on there?” demanded the boss, now truly apprehensive. “The search team just landed a helicopter” “A search team?” said the boss. “What are they searching for?” Still whispering, the young voice replied with a muffled giggle…”ME.”
We were told that once the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed marriage between two people of the same sex that it wouldn’t create new problems for religious institutions. It was a lie. In its wake has come a rash of lawsuits aimed at Catholic organizations. To be specific, agenda-ridden homosexuals have joined with the sexually confused to wreak havoc.
Shelly Fitzgerald, a guidance counselor at an Indiana Catholic high school, was dismissed after it was learned that she was “married” to another woman. She then did the media lap, parading her victimhood on Ellen Degeneres’ TV show. She took her complaint to the authorities.
Now Fitzgerald has been joined by another “victim” at the same school: Guidance counselor Lynn Starkey has been told her contract will not be renewed because she is “married” to her girlfriend. She plans to sue the Archdiocese of Indiana.
Oliver Knight is a sexually confused woman who thinks she is a man. She was denied a hysterectomy at a California Catholic hospital after her status was identified. She is now suing five Catholic hospitals because one of them denied her the operation.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a lesbian activist, has decided to deny state funds to Catholic adoption agencies because they will not place children with same-sex couples. She made this move by reaching a settlement with the ACLU by refusing to enforce a religious liberty law that insulated religious institutions from state encroachment in these matters.
None of these decisions were made by happenstance.
The guidance counselors knew what the house rules were of the Catholic school they worked for yet decided to violate them and then claim victim status. The sexually confused woman knew that Catholic hospitals will not sanction her new status by performing the operation. And Nessel’s hostility to religious rights could not be more clear.
Religious rights have indeed been imperiled by the high court recognition of homosexual marriages. The decision has emboldened a new wave of lawsuits by sue-happy gays seeking to deny long-standing religious exemptions to Catholic institutions.
The collision between the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty and homosexual rights must be addressed by the Supreme Court again. People of faith should not be subject to unnecessary state coercion; their autonomy is paramount.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT COSTS THE CHURCH A LOT OF MONEY TO DEFEND THE FAITH AGAINST THE DELIBERATE/PLANNED ATTACKS ON THE CHURCH’S REFUSAL TO GO ALONG WITH THE LIBERAL AGENDA ON SEX
In a recent essay in this magazine, I gave a basic, and somewhat oversimplified, taxonomy of priests and prelates in the Church. In this article, that has been slightly revised and expanded:
Type A are the Zeitgeist Puppets. In America, Cupich and Martin come to mind; across the Atlantic on the continent, no one fit the bill like the recently deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium, who put Cupich and Martin to shame and never met a tenet of Modernism he didn’t like.
He encouraged King Bauddouin of Belgium to sign a bill legalizing abortion in 1990 and refused to remove sexually explicit materials related to sex education in Belgium Catholic schools. He also said that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in his native country was a “positive development.”
After his retirement, he was entangled in a major scandal in which he covered up for a protégé bishop, who admitted sexually abusing a minor (his own nephew). This was all caught on an audio recording where Danneels told the victim to keep quiet and not create trouble for his uncle, Bishop Roger Vanheluwe, who was soon to retire. Taking a page from the “blaming the victim” manual, Danneels told the victim to “ask forgiveness.”
Type B are the hit-and-miss prelates and priests. Cardinal Timothy Dolan is a good example.
When I came into the Church fifteen years ago, a priest friend let me borrow Dolan’s fine book that came out in 2000: Priests For The Third Millennium. I was impressed by both his insights and orthodoxy.
However, Dolan’s batting average has plummeted in recent years. He served in as Grand Marshal for Manhattan’s St. Patrick Day’s Parade that allowed an openly homosexual activist group to march in it.
He also appeared at and supported the blasphemous, “Catholic”-themed fashion show sponsored by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. More egregiously, he got canon law completely wrong in the wake of the unspeakably evil New York abortion bill.
Type C are the good, orthodox prelates and priests who remain silent. The faithful laity long to hear their voices in protest against, for example, the almost untethered ministry of the homosexualist Fr. James Martin, the weaponized ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia, and, in recent days, all the priests and prelates dancing around the Golden Calf of Modernism at the 2019 Los Angeles Religious Education Conference (REC).
Type D are the rarest of all priests and prelates: those who are both orthodox andcourageous. A good man really isn’t hard to find, but one who is both submitted to the Magisterium and willing to speak out against heterodoxy and ecclesial malfeasance is.
The recent sex abuse summit in Rome was a dog and pony show where the root causes of the scandal were denied. The prelates not only wouldn’t talk about the elephant in the room; no, they averted their eyes from an entire herd.
Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, one of the truly great prelates of our troubled era, in an interview with Life Site News, identified those root causes with great precision. Don’t expect him to move up the ecclesial ladder under this pontificate.
Bishop Barron: The Hit-And-Miss Prelate Years ago, I was first introduced to the ministry of Bishop Barron through two DVD series of his that were offered through the Adult Education department of my parish: Catholicism (2011) and Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Lively Virtues. The DVDs were excellent in every way and I found Barron to be an affable and articulate communicator who wisely eschewed canned and ham-fisted approaches in reaching the Catholic, non-Catholic, and those outside the Church.
It’s therefore no surprise to me that Bishop Barron is one of the most popular Catholics in the world on social media with over 1.5 million Facebook fans, 168,000+ YouTube subscribers, and 100,000+ Twitter followers. And, if you peruse his archives on YouTube through Word on Fire and what he has written through print media, most of it holds up under the scrutiny of Scripture and Tradition.
However, there are significant departures and missteps that render Barron a hit-and-miss prelate and sometimes make him an apologist for the status quo created by the present pontiff and carried out by many in the American episcopate. He is adept at packaging his message but sometimes his content departs from the sacred deposit of the faith or fails to call out the heterodox.
His response to the slaughter of 12 people in Paris in 2015 by Islamo-fascists, in an interview with EWTN, was telling. He described it as “poignant,” not monstrous, and though he did make a passing reference to Just War Theory, his primary emphasis was responding to violence with love.
He exhorted Catholics to take a “non-violent stance.” There wasn’t much here about bringing perpetrators to justice and using lethal force if required.
It left you wondering if he would’ve advised Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in the early 1940s to be non-violent all the way to the gas chambers. Someone needs to tell Bishop Barron that, in a situation like this, we’re not in Selma 1965 anymore.
When the McCarrick scandal initially came to light, I was heartened by Bishop Barron’s response. He was noticeably angry and had the zeal of a reformer in talking about the necessity of a thorough, mostly lay-led, forensic investigation into the scandal.
This zeal dissipated quite a bit when the same issue came up in an interview with Ben Shapiro a few months later. He still was genuinely concerned about the issue, but, at the same time, trotted out the 4 percent statistic in saying that the rates of abuse are no worse in the Church than other institutions.
I doubt the victims of abuse found much comfort in such a debatable assertion. “Everybody else is doing it too” is not much of a plan for reform and renewal.
On Father Martin and Pope Francis James Martin regards Barron as a “friend” though he admits they have some disagreements. They both were featured speakers in the recent (appropriately named) Los Angeles REC.
Because he has such a large public platform and is not afraid to speak out on controversial issues (e.g., Amoris Laetitia, universal salvation), I’m a bit surprised that the prelate hasn’t had much to say about the controversial priest, who has been given almost carte blanche by his overseers in spreading his lavender gospel. Though he tries to adhere to Church teaching in his recent book, it’s instructive to recall some of Father Martin’s public statements:
This is not an exhaustive list, but just a beginning: (1) the affirmation to LGBTQ people that “God made them [wonderfully] that way”; (2) that “The Church needs to rethink its teachings about homosexuality—Its dogmatic teaching. Instead of saying it’s objectively disordered, it should say it’s just differently ordered”; (3) that same-sex couples should be able to kiss during Mass: “What’s the terrible thing?”; (4) that the Church should reverence homosexual unions; and (5) that being against same-sex “marriage” is like being racist.
In contrast, Type D prelates, such as Bishop Joseph Strickland and Cardinal Robert Sarah, have not been afraid to speak out against Martin. Though Barron holds the traditional Catholic view on homosexual behavior and same-sex “marriage,” his silence can easily be interpreted as tacit approval of Martin’s outreach.
Also, in his recent interview with Ben Shapiro, Barron was asked his thoughts on Pope Francis. His past public statements in video and print have always given the Holy Father glowing reviews regarding his emphasis on mercy, the Church being a “field hospital,” and the central message of Amoris Laetitia.
This laudatory tone was somewhat diminished in the Shapiro interview but there was nary a word of criticism. The good bishop commented that every pope has a different emphasis and Francis has a more of a mantle of a prophet than a philosopher, theologian, or biblical scholar like the previous two.
He was from Latin America and therefore suspicious of capitalism. His prophetic edge meant that, like Jeremiah, he would often not govern in a constructive manner but more in uprooting (“make a mess”) which is redemptive in its own way.
Bishop Barron would be well-served to ask himself, among others things, one question: Who gets promoted under Francis? Answering this question honestly provides a clear window into the Francis papacy.
Indeed, when you look at the careers of such prelates and priests as McCarrick, Monsignor Battista Ricca, Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, and the defrocked Mauro Inzoli, homosexual activity and predation seem to be a resume-enhancer for the pontiff leading to promotion.
William Kilpatrick writes: “A recent article by journalist Marco Tosatti provides a list of prelates who have been favored, protected, promoted or rehabilitated by Pope Francis despite their record of covering up for abusers. The list includes: Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Cardinal Errazuriz Ossa, Bishop Juan Barros, Bishop Juan Jose Pineda, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and Archbishop Kevin Farrell.”
The bottom-line is this: if you’re a priest or prelate in America and have not yet been red-pilled on Father Martin and Pope Francis, you’ve either been living in a hermetically-sealed cave for the last six years or something is wrong with your heart. They are both like ecclesial Rorschach Tests: there’s enough information out there about them that is common knowledge, a matter of public record, that to live in denial and conduct business-as-usual, is very damaging to the Church, and, like a sword, pierces Christ and his Mother again.
Amoris Laetitia and Universal Salvation Bishop Barron was positively giddy with the publication of Amoris Laetitia, saying that Pope Francis maintained a beautiful balance between the high, objective moral demands of the Church while extending great mercy to those who find themselves in “irregular situations.” He praised the Holy Father’s insights about how moral culpability can be mitigated in someone’s life, who is committing sin, when they lack knowledge, freedom, or are dealing with certain extenuating circumstances.
Thus, over two millennia of Church tradition is swept away as Francis gives people permission to do something that our Lord didn’t. Some things in the New Testament are culturally-relative (i.e., they evolve) and some things are not.
Five times in the New Testament we are told to greet each other with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). This command is obviously not relevant for today but Christ’s directive about marriage, divorce, and adultery are absolutely binding because our Lord has anchored his teaching in our primordial beginning: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8; emphasis mine).
It’s also interesting to note that, while Jesus clashed with the Pharisees about their view of divorce, the people today, who hold to Christ’s view, are accused of being heartless Pharisees. “Mercy” is defined as dismantling one of the seven sacraments.
Bishop Barron’s view of universal salvation is well-known and is influenced by Balthasar who was, in turn, influenced by Karl Barth. Though he is not sure that all will be saved, he thinks that we can have a reasonable hope of an empty hell. Once again, over two millennia of Church tradition gets deep-sixed.
Bishop Barron needs to listen to the words of Jesus and his Mother. If everyone is going to heaven, then why would Christ say that it would have been better if Judas was never born?
It doesn’t sound like Judas is going to the “good place,” but is, instead, going to the “bad place.” Ditto for the goats in Matthew 25:31-46 who are placed on the Son of Man’s left side and are sent away to everlasting punishment.
Everlasting means … well … everlasting. These are the same people who take the wide, easy way to destruction and their number is great (Matt. 7: 13-14) while few find the path to eternal life.
We do well to recall the vision of hell Our Lady gave to the children at Fatima. Here is how Sr. Lúcia described the vision in her Fourth Memoir:
When the Lady spoke these words she opened her hands as she had in the two months before. The radiance seemed to penetrate the ground and we saw something like a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were the demons and the souls, as if they were red-hot coals, transparent and black or bronze-colored, with human forms, which floated about in the conflagration, borne by the flames which issued from it with clouds of smoke falling on all sides as sparks fall in great conflagrations without weight or equilibrium, among shrieks and groans of sorrow and despair that horrify and cause people to shudder with fear….
The devils were distinguished by horrible and loathsome forms of animals, frightful and unknown, but transparent like black coals that have turned red-hot. Frightened and as if we were appealing for help, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said with tenderness and sadness:
“You saw hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If they do what I will tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace… (Memórias e Cartas de Irmã Lúcia [Porto: 1973], 340-341).
Jonathan B. Coe is a graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Before being received into the Catholic Church in 2004, he served in pastoral ministry in rural Alaska, and in campus ministry at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He has written for Catholic Exchange and The Imaginative Conservative. He is the author of Letters from Fawn Creek, a volume of spiritual direction, and lives in the Pacific Northwest.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BISHOP BARRON IS NO FULTON SHEEN, HIS PREACHING STYLE MAY REMIND LISTENERS OF SHEEN, BUT THE CONTENT OF HIS MESSAGE IS PAP COMPARED TO THE HARD TRUTHS THAT SHEEN PREACHED
They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.
Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.
Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.
If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.
Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.
For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies
They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.
Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.
Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.
If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.
Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.
For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.
Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.
Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.
If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.
Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.
For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies
They don’t. They will give you the “the silent treatment.” It might appear to be the same thing, but the motivation is very different.
Going “no contact” is something a neurotypical does to protect against narcissistic abuse. Because of being mentally ill, those with narcissistic personality disorder often do horrible things to those who care for them, with no remorse, or even the least clue they’re doing anything wrong. Often they’ll never change, and unfortunately the best option is to cut off all contact with the abuser.
Narcissists will give you the silent treatment for the same reason they do everything they do, which is to prop up their idealized false self. They have a high sense of entitlement, and certain ideas, delusions, as to who they are and what they deserve. They use different psychological tactics to provoke responses from their victims to give them feedback that they are who they think they are.
If they’re giving you the silent treatment, it’s because they’re trying to exert control over you and provoke some response (anger, frustration, anxiety) which will make them feel special.
Very well said, Tom; however, I have to humbly disagree that the narcissist/narcopath doesn’t have a clue that they are doing anything wrong. They absolutely do know that they are doing something wrong…it’s just that they DON’T CARE and feel ENTITLED to break the law, rules, or just being that me…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
One of the aspects of narcissism is an inability to feel guilt (i.e. “doing something wrong”). Instead they have the concept of being caught.
For a neurotypical, if you’re afraid of getting caught, that means you know you’ve done something wrong, but that’s not the way narcissists perceive it. For…(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· Report
You are correct about the knowing. I was frequently told matter of factly they knew “exactly what they’re doing”. Actually TOLD me, while they displayed the behaviour TOWARD me. By the time I had figured out how in trouble I was with this person, I had been worn down to a nub. Somehow, I held it …(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportView More Replies
Lots of good answers here about what embarrasses narcissists.
My experience has been that narcissists hate to be ignored. No emotion or energy can be expended toward them. You have to starve them out.
Ignoring a narcissist is difficult and they will work like heck to get attention any way they can. Starving them of attention can take several tries, so don’t be sad when you give in to them. Just try again.
My experience with this happened over three years with the worst narcissists I’ve encountered. He would come and go, make promises, start fights and then leave. After a few days or a week, I would miss him and reach out to him and then he would start the cycle all over again.
I don’t know how many times I fell into this trap—-probably a dozen or more times—before I finally just stopped engaging with him. When he left once again in late September—-after a pleasant weekend together—I just decided to stop calling, stop texting, stop engaging.
It was very difficult!! About a month after I stopped calling him, he called—acting all nice and charming—and asked why I stopped calling him. He wanted to know if I missed him. I feigned lack of interest and I think he finally got the message that I didn’t want him around anymore.
That was over two years ago and he has been gone completely. That doesn’t mean I still don’t have urges to send him a nasty message or even miss him, but I’ve stayed firm. I figured out that he thrived on the chaos, but when I starved him out completely, he realized he couldn’t take from me anymore and moved on to someone else.
By the way, don’t think you are going to change a narcissist! It will never happen and it will just make your life unbelievably crazy. Establish and reestablish boundaries with him and be happy when he finally leaves. Go on with your life—even if it is difficult at first. Don’t think of revenge either, because they are masters at that. Just starve them out!
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.