IT IS NOT JUST CONSERVATIVES WHO FIND FAULT WITH FRANCIS, INCREASINGLY SECULAR AND PROGRESSIVE INTELLECTUALS FAULT HIM

AFP2930801_Articolo

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

13 lug 17

Even in the Secular and Progressive Camp There Are Those Who Criticize Francis

Rusconi

 

 

 

Pope Francis is all too abrupt with the cardinals of the Church. It should be enough to see how he dismissed the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

While with the “cardinals” of secular thought he is ostentatiously friendly and acquiescent. Evidence of this are the “tears of emotion” shed by “Repubblica” founder Eugenio Scalfari at the end of their umpteenth conversation at Santa Marta, set up by Francis in part to continue their previous discussion on a daring hypothesis presented by the pope himself and summarized by Scalfari like this: “In a millennium or so our human species will be extinguished and souls will merge with God.”

One effect of these two modes of behavior is the high level of approval that Francis enjoys in secular public opinion worldwide, which sees whatever it wants in him.

But this general consensus is not without its dissonant voices. Rare, but significant. One of this is that of Professor Gian Enrico Rusconi (in the photo).

Rusconi has expressed his criticisms in a book released in Italy this year, entitled “The narrative theology of Pope Francis,” published by Laterza.

Rusconi is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Turin. After a Catholic education in his youth he left the Church, but maintained and fostered a solid theological proficiency. He is a specialist in the history and culture of Germany in the twentieth century and is close to the positions of the philosophical school of Frankfurt, particularly those of Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, and to their view of religion. He is a prominent editorialist for the newspaper “La Stampa.”

There are at least three criticisms that Rusconi makes against Francis. And they are substantially shared by another secular Italian thinker, Pierfrancesco Stagi, professor of moral philosophy at the University of Turin and he too a specialist in German philosophy.

Stagi reviewed Rusconi’s book for the magazines “Teologia e filosofia,” published by Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, and “Nuovo Giornale di Filosofia della Religione,” which he edits on behalf of the Associazione Italiana di Filosofia della Religione.

Presented below are three passages from his review.

One element not to be overlooked is that both Rusconi and Stagi are in the progressive camp. Which makes their criticisms of Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio even more significant.

*

1. A NARRATIVE THAT SOWS “DUBIA”

“Francis no longer teaches the way Professor Ratzinger did, but he recounts, he narrates episodes and comments on them. A ‘narrative theology,’ according to Rusconi’s pregnant definition: ‘Bergoglio intends to revitalize, through a narrative theology, the biblical and evangelical events, setting them forth as if they were everyday happenings of the present.’ Such a hermeneutic, however, which is based on poetic and allusive discourses, on continual semantic throwaways, according to which it is rare for one and the same term to define a precise and stable frame of reference, creates not a few ‘dubia,’ which not only cardinals as stubborn as they are zealous but also secular philosophers of religion like Rusconi (and the undersigned) cannot fail to emphasize, because they threaten to undermine Bergoglio’s project of reform at its foundation. There is the risk that he may leave the field open for improvisers of the word, who open and sow more ‘dubia’ than they clarify. On this path, Bergoglio will certainly have to leave aside his prudent Jesuitical garb within the next few years to assume a tone ‘less elusively cautious’ and more direct in defining the main categories of a reform of Catholic dogmatics and more generally of the Church.”

2. THE MYTH OF THE PEOPLE, AGAINST THE OLIGARCHIES

“Francis lives in a natural sympathy for the people, the people made up of the common folk, of the indigent masses, who are contrasted with the violent despotism of the oligarchies. Francis is bothered by the negative meaning of populism, which is wholly European, because he has always experienced the other dimension, wholly positive, of South American populism, as closeness to the natural and therefore always good outlook of the people, which ‘naturaliter’ follows the Christian message in the face of selfish and exploitative oligarchies. More than opportune is Rusconi’s discussion of the populist South American theologians Rafael Tello and Juan Carlos Scannone. From them Bergoglio gets the conviction that in order to overcome the spiritual crisis of our time it is necessary first to overcome the paradoxes of the contrast between the people and the oligarchies, according to a model that in any case brings him closer to European and North American populism, even if on the other side of the barricade with respect to classical liberalism, meaning on the side of the ‘pueblo’ against the economic, social, and even hierarchical-religious oligarchies.”

3. A MERCY FORGETFUL OF SIN

“Another contradiction that Rusconi reads in the papacy of Francis is the exclusive stress on mercy, leaving in the shadows the ontological problem of sin. In the account of the expulsion from paradise and of the original sin of Adam and Eve, Francis aims his attention almost exclusively at the gratuitous gift and friendship that God offers to the two progenitors, without clarifying the circumstances and motivations of his original prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and even without clarifying why this original failing of man should unleash a tragic succession of suffering, illness, and death that culminates in the sacrifice of expiation par excellence: the death of the Son of God on the cross. Rusconi correctly demonstrates how the necessity of this infinite expiation, of this continual succession even today, after the redemptive sacrifice, of unheard-of sorrows and sufferings is not explained in the merciful theology of pope Bergoglio and ultimately not in Ratzinger either, both of whom tend to criticize the thesis of infinite expiation of Anselm of Canterbury, and is not able to escape the paradox of why there still seems to be no end to pain and suffering, in an endless chain of dramas that the tragedy of Christ does not at all seem to have resolved or reduced, but rather increased and incentivized. It is the enigma of “theodicy,” which at least from Leibniz on has marked modern philosophy and theology and shows no signs of stopping but on the contrary, as Rusconi recalls, seems ever more relevant, and precisely in those secular circles that thought they had left behind them the complex and at times captious arguments on the justice of God.”

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on IT IS NOT JUST CONSERVATIVES WHO FIND FAULT WITH FRANCIS, INCREASINGLY SECULAR AND PROGRESSIVE INTELLECTUALS FAULT HIM

WHILE ROME BURNS, TIMOTHY DOLAN DANCES WITH THE ROCKEFELLER CENTER ROCKETTES, THIS IS HOW A CARDINAL OF THE CHURCH UPSTAGES NERO

920x920

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

YOU CAN SHRUG OFF THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES AS BEING UNIMPORTANT, BUT IF YOU DO, YOU DO YOURSELF AND OTHERS A GREAT DISSERVICE

 

New post on The Next Right Step

Signs of the Times

by charliej373

Pilgrims

By Charlie Johnston

(This is an adaptation of a note I sent out to a group of friends and leaders last weekend. Several said they found it heartening enough that they thought I should submit it as a regular post. So I have. – CJ)

I find a lot of people, including the most knowledgeable, talking to me lately about how perilous the times are and what to expect. Understandable. North Korea is a tinder box, China is trying to provoke mischief, Eastern Europe is a tinderbox – and Western Europe, amazingly, even more so. Russia is making mischief, even as it tries to figure out a coherent strategy in a world gone mad. The Middle East is volatile, as is Northern Africa and Southeast Asia. Venezuela is a burning fuse in South America – and the USA is only a few steps away from open, violent conflict.
The Church, traditionally the refuge in times of great crisis, is itself in great crisis, as too many Bishops think their job is to correct what they believe to be the many errors of Christ, with seeming encouragement from the top. Catholics gaze in wonder as abortion advocates, jihadists, radical population control advocates, homosexual activists and just about anyone who scorns Catholic Doctrine are welcomed at the Vatican and even appointed to Pontifical Commissions while Orthodox prelates are routinely and summarily dismissed and scolded.
As Our Lord said, “You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky; but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?” (Luke 12:56). When every institution and nation is become as unstable as a crateful of nitro-glycerin loaded on a monster truck at an Oklahoma rally, something is going to blow. Yet Our Lord said that He is with us to the end of the age – and that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Our Lady told us of all these trials – and more – at Fatima, but promised that in the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph. I know that both of their promises are true. Now the hour of darkness comes upon the world. But be not afraid: the darkness will not prevail.
I have had much instruction since the Inauguration. Yet there is no use in speaking of specifics. In fact, it would just confuse the issue – kind of like the mirror of Galadriel near the end of the Fellowship of the Rings. (I am reading the trilogy again – and it could be useful for you, as well. There is MUCH wisdom in there, which I have come to appreciate intensely). Things are bigger than I had imagined – and simultaneously easier and more terrible. A key reason is that God is moving in a way that is completely different than He has before. That should not have surprised me: when little minds argue that something can’t be from God because He has “never done it that way before,” I always chuckle ruefully. God is always startling, fresh and new. If something happens in a way that God HAS done it before, that is usually (not always) a sign of inauthenticity – that it is not from God but merely one of the satan’s pale imitations. The good news is that God will intervene on an Old Testament scale. The bad news is that this will enrage many people, causing them to double down on their revolt rather than come back to Him. The truly tragic news is that some of those who will be enraged against God are among those who count themselves as defenders of the faith.
The very best news is that we will each get the opportunity to choose. I have emphasized that before, but it is more important than even I knew. We can choose to serve God and help rebuild the culture or choose to serve ourselves and perish. Your choice will be proven by what you do, not by what you say. We cannot change that the darkness comes, nor are we necessary for God to secure the victory. All of this is, in large measure, so that we are forced to choose. So most of this note is a meditation on how we are to behave so as to firmly choose God and please Him.
After my blunder on the Inauguration, a good friend who knew how much I loved the Jeff Bridges version of the movie, “True Grit,” called me and recited my favorite line from the movie: “Well, that didn’t pan out.” It was after Bridges mounted an attack that went south and utterly failed. I love it because Bridge’s character, Rooster Cogburn, did not even think of trying to shift blame, nor did he even think of giving up. He laconically acknowledged the blunder, then moved on to the next step to complete his job. My friend waited about a week, lest I be sensitive about it, but when she called and greeted me with that line, it was my first big belly laugh about the whole situation. This encapsulates, in miniature, what our disposition is called to be in these times. The very best of you, even given the best information, are going to come up with plans that just don’t pan out. It is the human condition – and we are called to remember we are servants, not masters…that God knows what He is about – and even uses our blunders to further His Divine plan to perfection.
It is worth reading the Books of Moses again. No one, except perhaps Abraham (and later, the Apostles) had as direct a pipeline to God as Moses. Yet they wandered the desert for 40 years. Look at a map of the journey involved. A generous estimate is that from beginning to end, it was maybe 1,500 miles, which should have taken around a year (again generous). But they wandered in circles…for 40 years. Yes, the Jews had seen a multitude of miracles. Even so, given that they knew that Moses had a direct pipeline to God, their frustration had a sort of point: “if God is showing you the way, why are we wandering so aimlessly for so terribly long?” God’s ways are not like our ways. While we want to take the most direct and quickest route, in God’s plan, the journey is every bit as important as the destination – for it is the journey which proves and purifies us – and makes us fit for the destination. Yet because we insist on overlaying our way of thinking onto God, we constantly insist His way makes no sense. God’s purpose is to get us to heaven, not to any earthly advantage or destination. If we could see the fullness of what that means, we would be much more docile to seeming setbacks. It is not God’s plan that is deficient, but our expectations.
You are all leaders, called to serve God by being a sign of hope to His people during times of extremis. You are called to live your duty faithfully, with docility, fortitude and initiative. It pleases God that, in this time of our scourging (which we richly deserve), seldom will we be given simple choices between right and wrong. More often our options will be bad, worse, and truly atrocious. How we choose under those circumstances will purify and enlighten us – if it does not destroy us. I told you sometime back that I was instructed long ago by the Lord, Himself, that I would be held accountable for every soul I could have given effective witness to but did not out of anger…and that I would be held accountable for every assault on the faithful that I could have stopped but did not out of fear or false charity. This is humanly impossible – and I am NOT allowed to not act. It can only be done with fear and trembling and complete trust in God, for I have made many mistakes and will make many more before all is done. Welcome to the club, all of you.
Your most important tools in this time are love of your neighbor, expressed through duty and honor in filial love for God. It is, in part, good not to see too much with clarity because that can become a seduction to you. You see something alarming and you want to go fix it – but you know not what God’s plans are. This a tough lesson, but one God is insistent on. I thank God that I was given many lessons in it from the earliest days in order to blunt this instinct. There were a couple of occasions over the last few decades when people I loved were in places where I knew a catastrophe loomed. Every nerve in my body screamed to warn them, but I was not given leave. Having had the experience on more than a few occasions when I was younger of intervening despite God’s strictures – and thus making matters worse…or even bringing on the ill I sought to avoid…I learned a stronger docility. I prayed intensely and constantly while going about my little duty faithfully. You will learn to do the same, though I hope by less harsh means than I did. The best thing you can do for anyone is to do the little duty right in front of you with love and fidelity. Do not worry whether it humanly seems great or small. That is God’s business, not yours. Besides, our perception is so deficient that often what seems great to us is a trifle to God and what seems a trifle to us is great to God.
Vanity is, by far, your deadliest enemy – and the means by which the noblest souls are taken captive by the devil. Whenever you get caught in a sterile argument seeking simply to prove you are right, step back. If your conversational partner merely wants to prove he is right – ignoring or evading those key points that must be considered, step back. In the first case, you are not arguing honestly. In the second, you are not arguing with an honest opponent. In neither case can good come – and in both cases it leaves opening for the devil. Yes, you must vigorously seek to find the truth, but when you have decided, you must cast your bread upon the water with both humility and fortitude. Not all discussion leads to truth – and discussion that can only lead to a brawl is best left behind as soon as it is indisputable that this is where it is headed. If you are charged with making the decision for a group, seek counsel. When you are satisfied you have heard all you can without going into vain repetition, make the decision firmly and without malice. To fail to make a decision leaves those associated with you rudderless and paralyzed. To make a decision without seeking counsel makes you an autocrat. Act with justice and prudence always – and when a decision must be made quickly, do so without looking back. Having made a habit of both taking counsel and acting decisively when you do have time, you will find those decisions you have to make when you don’t have the luxury of time are much better because of your habitual discipline. Now one could argue that I am often hot-tempered and combative. True enough, but those who know me best know that while I am often bold, I am rarely brash. Plus, there is another factor that most do not know. When it comes to my own interpretations or preferences, I am always willing to consider – and even eager – to get fresh insight. When it comes to something I am directed to from above, I do not cede anything. Often, when it appears that I am defending my own opinion, I am actually vigorously protecting those things that are prime directives.
The satan is very subtle in how he inflames vanity. Often, insecurity is merely a perverse form of pride. Stay away from self-absorption of all kinds. If you are constantly worrying where you fit in or whether your work is good enough, you are at the edge of vanity – for you put far more emphasis on your role in the unfolding drama and not nearly enough on the work itself. My mother was prone to this. She was ever uncertain about herself and how she was coming off – and was largely clumsy and ineffective because of it. But when her dander was up, when she got completely outside of herself for a cause, she was magnificent. I told her after our relations became very warm again that this was true. She pondered and agreed – but told me how terribly hard it was to get outside herself…that something had to be big enough for her to forget to think of or care what people thought of her for it to kick in. It is no wonder…she had some brutally tough things to deal with and ugly people when she was little. But I am grateful that after we spoke of it, while she could not call up at will the effortless competence that she had when her blood was up, she was able to act comfortably far more consistently. The devil uses our pride, our shame, our guilt and our uncertainty to hobble us. Stay focused on the work with humility and fortitude and all will be well.
Remember that there is no coercion in Christ. He calls us freely and respects our conscience. We gain converts by, first, the witness of our lives and, second, the persuasiveness of our arguments. That is not to say Christians should be milquetoasts. While we cannot force anyone to be Christian, we must also forcefully defend Christians from assaults by the enemies of the faith. We will not coerce anyone’s conscience neither will we suffer our own to be coerced.
I know many are dismayed by the strange doings in the Church. I count myself among them. I think of the Church as a great hospital for souls, founded by the Divine Physician, who commanded His followers to carry on and do likewise in His name. At times we have had “doctors” who were all doctrine and no pastoral care: who eagerly diagnosed the illnesses, but were so disgusted by the sick that they would do no doctoring. That is a betrayal of the Master – and they will be held to account for the arrogant tyrants they are. That is not the main problem now. Today we have “doctors” who, faced with a deadly disease, have no answer except to tell the dying patient he is okay just as he is while congratulating themselves on their mercy. Vain fools! Their “mercy” is to condemn their patients to death, merely soothing them in their misery. They are passive serial killers of the soul – and they will be held to account for their betrayal of the Master. In his magnificent new book, “The Power of Silence,” Robert Cardinal Sarah says that “Bishops who scatter the sheep that Jesus has entrusted to them will be judged mercilessly and severely by God.” But throughout the ages, the tares have always grown alongside the wheat – sometimes in abundance among the laity, sometimes among the consecrated. And in all ages, God has raised up just the sort of saints needed to protect His Church and defend the faithful. When Martin Luther began his dissent, there was just cause for dissent. Yet he was not content to call for reform of abuses. Had he just chased out the rats of abuse, he could have been a great reformer. But he chose to try to blow up the castle to get rid of the rats – and brought terrible divisions into Christianity. Let us resist the rats while carefully preserving the castle. In all ages, whether the bulk of corruption is found in the sheep or the shepherds – or both – we can always choose to be faithful…and the God of abundance takes those little seeds of faithfulness and multiplies them gloriously until the Church is renewed. Every period of fallow faith is merely prelude to a great new flowering. So we are called to be seeds of a great new flowering of the faith that we cannot yet see.
Recently, a friend on the team described my style of leadership as “Leadership by giving away leadership.” I like that a lot. God gives us each unique characteristics, with particular strengths. When we lead, we exercise our creative capacity – a fundamental way in which we are created in the Divine Image. If a group is led by one charismatic figure who insists it all be done his way, you unleash the creative capacity of one person. When all in the group take counsel with one another, but each is given deference in his own area of responsibility, you unleash the creative capacity of all. It is the difference between lighting a candle and firing up a great power plant. The creative capacity of all, working in unity (but not uniformity), is the nuclear power of human endeavors. So I say bear with each other and bear each other up, not just in matters of style, but in matters of judgment where the range of licit choices may vary. That is supremely important now when many choices will be between bad, worse, and truly atrocious. To insist that your conscience must be everyone’s conscience is to destroy unity for the sake of uniformity, barring of course, actual illicit means that are Magisterially forbidden in all cases. Let us not be a hand that condemns a foot because it is not a hand (1 Corinthians 12). Sometimes autocratic leaders give their subordinates leave until those subordinates make a blunder – then reassert control. I say anyone who makes no blunders is not doing enough. Support honorable colleagues at all times. Rejoice in their successes and bear them up in their failures. Cover their mistakes with your competence as you depend on them to cover your mistakes with their competence. You will thereby forge an unbreakable solidarity in good times and in bad. In these times, God calls forth a symphony of talented followers, no one-man bands.
Know that, if you are the most brilliant person in the history of the world, there is much more you don’t know than that you do. All the temporal knowledge, all the temporal power, all the money in history is a pitiful impoverished thing in the sight of heaven. The only thing any of these things is good for is how they can help us lead our fellows to Him who is all things – and for that purpose, they are great gifts, indeed. Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas was absolutely right when, after receiving a vision near the end of his life, proclaimed all his writings to be so much straw. But it was straw that led people to Christ, so rich is his reward. He spun the straw of his words into the gold of souls gained to Christ. The richest, most powerful, most brilliant man who uses his gifts to aggrandize himself is a piteous eunuch. The simplest who cares for his brother and brings one to share in the joy of Christ is a great man. How often are those who are considered great on earth regarded with pity and contempt in heaven – and those despised on earth held in the greatest honor in heaven! Bear each other up, cover each other’s failings.
People often say I have a gift for conveying complex notions with vivid simplicity…and I suppose I do. But the truth is that one of my greatest frustrations is how poorly I am able to explain the true beauty of what I am shown with such tender clarity. If people could only see the goodness of the Lord, the tender and intense love He has for each of us, even a hint of the true paradise He has prepared for us, they would worry not at all about who has the biggest bucket in this little sandbox of our mortal lives. How I wish I could explain it with real convincing power, but I take consolation that, even in my clumsy way, I seem to have sparked some hope and love in some people these last few years. That we may be neighbors in heaven…now there is a worthy goal.
Make your case with vigor, act decisively in what you are responsible for, always leaving room for the knowledge that our ways are not God’s ways. I have long thought that Judas’ fault was not that he did not believe, but that he could not get beyond the bounds of his own limited perspective. I think he DID believe Jesus was the Messiah…but Judas only thought in terms of a temporal kingdom. He did not seek to betray Jesus, I don’t think, but to force His hand, to make Him reveal His supreme power…to get on with the business of restoring the kingdom of David. He substituted his judgment for that of God – and a great tragedy was that he could not even conceive that if Jesus was Messiah, that He could have a different, better plan than Judas. Let us not be Judases, eager to denounce what we have not the wit to imagine the scope of in God’s intentions. Trust Him even when we do not at all understand why He permits what He permits.
On a very bright note, Donald Trump gave a truly inspirational and noble speech in Poland. Of course, when a man speaks eloquently of faith, family, fortitude and freedom under God that gets right to the heart of what is most important to me. Even if it is not strong enough yet to forestall the darkness around us, I am grateful that we now have a core of people in government who are committed enough to those things that we can think in terms of preservation and restoration in America. This truly is global in its scope, but it is good to have something to build on.
If, somehow, this darkness fades away without the need for battle or confrontation, I will be deeply grateful and enjoy my retirement. But if as seems likely, it degenerates into a great struggle, I pray to do my little duty faithfully until the end, knowing that God will set all things right again in His good time and endeavoring to cooperate with Him in driving away the smoke that has obscured the glorious light of Christ in this poor, bleeding world of ours. You probably assume that I have reason for sending you such a long rambling missive. I don’t know exactly what is going to happen or when, but if it does, I wanted to share with you some of the mainstays of what guide me in hopes that some of it may fortify you whatever challenges come. If the “invasion of Poland” moment comes, I will probably vanish for a short time to make camp in the mountains, to pray and seek instruction in the silence. It will be brief, certainly not as much as two weeks. But should it come, I do not want you to think I have fled or been taken.
God bless all of you. You have different strengths, different characteristics, different charisms. There is no uniformity among all of us friends, but may there ever be the unity that will help us show the light of the world in all His glory! Defend the faith, hearten the faithful, defend the faithful: that is our charge, to the service of Our Lord under the banner of Our Lady.
charliej373 | July 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm | Categories: Spiritual Preparation, The Storm, Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p4dCVy-23A
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

FRANCIS KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE UNITED STATES

Pope Francis: World Government Must Rule U.S. ‘For Their Own Good’

Pope Francis said that the U.S. has “a distorted vision of the world" and Americans must be ruled by a world government "for their own good."

Pope Francis told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica that the United States of America has “a distorted vision of the world” and Americans must be ruled by a world government, as soon as possible, “for their own good.”

The Pope made the observation in an interview with La Repubblica reporter Eugenio Scalfari.

Last Thursday, I got a call from Pope Francis,” Scalfari reported. “It was about noon, and I was at the newspaper when my phone rang.”

He said Pope Francis had been watching Putin and Trump at the G20 and had become agitated. The Pope demanded to see him at four that afternoon, according to a Google translation of the Italian report.

Pope Francis told me to be very concerned about the meeting of the G20,” Scalfari wrote.

As translated into English by Agence France Presse, which picked up the story, the Pope said “I am afraid there are very dangerous alliances between powers who have a distorted view of the world: America and Russia, China and North Korea, Russia and Assad in the war in Syria.”

The danger concerns immigration,” the Pope continued to La Repubblica. “Our main and unfortunately growing problem in the world today is that of the poor, the weak, the excluded, which includes migrants.

This is why the G20 worries me: It mainly hits immigrants,” Pope Francis said, according to AFP.

[RELATED – Putin And Trump Tell G20 Leaders ‘NWO Is Finished’ Right To Their Faces]

Pope Francis’s idea that Americans would be better off under a world government doesn’t stop there. The radical leftist pontiff also went on record stating that Europe should become one country under one government.

In the same interview, according to La Repubblica, Pope Francis said that Europe must take on a “federal structure,” resembling feudal times when the peasants were ruled by unimpeachable monarchs.

I also thought many times to this problem and came to the conclusion that, not only but also for this reason, Europe must take as soon as possible a federal structure,” the Pope said, according to the Google translation of the La Repubblica article.

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@yournewswire.com
Follow: @baxter_dmitry
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

LIBERAL HYPOCRITES NEED TO HAVE THE WHISTLE BLOWN ON THEM

 

Blowing the Whistle on Liberal Hypocrites

On various websites and papers “Catholic” writers discuss “spirituality” in reverent tones and say how much they love the church while they support abortion, same sex marriage, women’s ordination and the whole progressive agenda. They’re hypocrites. As Pope Francis has pointed out, a Cafeteria Catholic is not a Catholic. They say they believe one thing–the Catholic faith–but they publicly and formally renounce the Catholic Church’s teachings and they think they’re just fine in doing so.

It gets worse. The real snakes in the grass are the liberal hypocritical priests and bishops. You know there’s a sort of media darling priest who smiles and writes clever books and goes on TV to give seemingly sage spiritual advice who then turns around and supports the LGBT agenda.

Only these priests are cagey. They know how the church works. They pose their points as “compassionate questions” and “observations” They are very smart and  know how to walk the tightrope–never going too far, but all the time undermining true Catholic teaching with their talk about “listening” and “dialogue” and “acceptance” and “accompanying”.

They’re hypocrites, and the worst kind of hypocrites because they assume the outward form of being good, faithful and true Catholics better than anybody else.

They’re not true and they’re not faithful. They’re wolves in shepherd’s clothing and Our Lord spoke clearly about the rustler who comes in to the sheepfold to rob and kill.

It’s time to blow the whistle on these hypocrites and call them what they are.

But do you know what will happen if you do?

They’ll play the passive aggressive game. If you blow the whistle and declare that the emperor is naked they’ll come over all offended and hurt.

They’ll put out their bottom lip and assume the spanked puppy dog look and say, “How could you be sooo judgmental and harsh? How could you be so unaccepting?”

They’ll sneak back in with their serpentine smiles and say, “Come, let’s be friends! Let’s forgive one another! Let’s talk. We need to listen to one another more!” Which means “You listen to me. I’m going to filibuster this debate until you give in. I’m going to talk and talk and use false logic and human reasoning and emotional blackmail and spiritual bullying until I wear you down and you change your mind.”

Don’t be taken in by them. They’re hypocrites and usually they are not only hypocrites but heretics. They divide and destroy Christ’s church and imperil souls.

Here endeth the rant.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LIBERAL HYPOCRITES NEED TO HAVE THE WHISTLE BLOWN ON THEM

IS THE REIGN OF FRANCIS THE WORST OF ALL THOSE OF THE MEN WHO HAVE OCCUPIED THE CHAIR OF PETER? THE ANSWER, SAD TO SAY, APPEARS TO BE YES !!!

 

The Conclave Of Cardinals Have Elected A New Pope To Lead The World's Catholics

VATICAN CITY, VATICAN – MARCH 13: Newly elected Pope Francis I appears on the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica on March 13, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th Pontiff and will lead the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

 

WORST POPE EVER? FRANCIS’ ASSAULT ON ORTHODOXY FROM A TO Z

by  Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

The above question is, I am afraid, no longer just a way to let off rhetorical steam. The present Holy Father is not of course a libertine or a worldly and irreligious seeker of power and wealth, as were a few notoriously immoral medieval and Renaissance popes (e.g., John XII, Alexander VI and Julius II). On the contrary, Francis is a man whom no one has accused of failing to live up to his Jesuit’s vow of chastity; and his modest personal lifestyle and concern for the poor are not only well-known to all, but remind us that these virtues are central to Christ’s Gospel.

However, the Church’s greatest and most essential treasure – to be guarded and preserved at all costs – is the revealed deposit of saving truth: Christ’s doctrine, transmitted through Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, and given its primary living expression in the Sacred Liturgy. The aforesaid ‘bad Popes’, in spite of grave scandals in their personal lives, rarely if ever made public statements that contradicted or undermined Catholic orthodoxy. But Pope Francis has not only done that innumerable times in a seeming effort to accommodate Christian doctrine to the worldly ‘wisdom’ of current secular élites; he is – still worse! – harshly punishing those offering orthodox resistance and filling the Church’s key leadership positions with like-minded prelates who will, he hopes, entrench his revolution permanently. Since this project is provoking a terrible and unprecedented crisis throughout the Catholic Church, and is set to do her far greater long-term damage than an immoral private papal lifestyle, the question must be raised in deadly seriousness as to whether he is the worst pope in history. Not the worst man to attain the papacy. The worst pope, qua pope: the one whose governance of the universal Church is the most harmful on record.

This pungent LifeSiteNews ‘A-to-Z’ list of the boldest Bergoglian bombshells, all backed up with hyperlinks to documentary sources (see below), strikes me as an excellent resource to pass on to friends and family whose views have been formed by glowing mainstream media presentations of Francis as a smiling, humble, open-minded pontiff, and who therefore can’t imagine why any Catholic should be troubled by his leadership.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/b logs/the-abcs-of-our-concerns- with-pope-francis

The A – Z list of concerns with Pope Francis
www.lifesitenews.com
The confusion caused by Pope Francis in the Catholic Church is out of control.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

………..

Brian W. Harrison OS[1] (born 1945 in Sydney, Australia) is an Australian-born Roman Catholic priest and theologian. Harrison is a prolific writer on religious issues and an emeritus professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico (1989–2007). He speaks Spanish fluently. Harrison is also an associate editor of “Living Tradition”, a publication of the Roman Theological Forum hosted by the Oblates of Wisdom in St Louis, Missouri, United States, where Harrison currently lives at the order’s study center. The forum’s website contains many articles by Harrison, including one of the very few serious theological analyses carried out so far regarding biblical and Catholic teaching on torture and corporal punishment.[2]

Harrison was baptised in a Methodist church and brought up in Presbyterianism. He spent a few years with a Lutheran mission in New Guinea, where he became a Roman Catholic in 1972.

Harrison is doctrinally conservative. While opposing some interpretations of the Second Vatican Council allegedly made by progressive and Modernists, he also opposes what he considers excessive criticism of the actual texts of that council by some traditionalist Catholics. His main published work is Religious Liberty and Contraception (Melbourne: John XXIII Fellowship, 1988), in which he argues for the doctrinal continuity (non-contradiction) between Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and the earlier papal encyclicals on church, state and religious tolerance. He concludes that the kind of doctrinal development represented by Dignitatis Humanae does not, as some[who?] have claimed, set a magisterial precedent for more radical changes such as a hypothetical future papal reversal or mitigation of Catholic teaching against contraception.[citation needed]

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Canon law and canon lawyers, Dr. Peters included, owe every lawyer and judge direction on the issues of separation and divorce

On Light and Lawyers: A Response to Dr. Edward Peters

ONE/PETER/FIVE

FacebookGoogle+PinterestPocket

My article – regarding the dilemma created for Catholic lawyers related to whether or not the local ordinary’s permission is required before seeking a civil divorce – has received a reply from the internet’s pre-eminent canon lawyer, Edward Peters. Since I am not a canon lawyer, I welcome any correction from a competent authority (and blogmeister Dr. Peters certainly qualifies). Instead, I was treated to an assortment of rhetorical rope-a-dope misdirections. As a lawyer, I recognize the application of the tactical maxim – if you don’t have the law or the facts on your side, confuse the issue.

Dr. Peters levels that I am a petty complainer who maligns saintly men and the Church herself and that I would be better served doing some basic internet research before inserting my virtual foot into my virtual mouth.

Dr. Peters takes considerable umbrage at my arguments – so “painfully and obviously ignorant” as to compel him to “sit down and make this reply” – based on two misconceptions, both centered on the straw man argument of confusing the part and the whole. First, he takes my solitary use of “the Church” to mean the entire Church, globally and throughout time. But my intent, and an honest reading of my first article makes this clear, is to take “the Church” – along with “the churchmen” and “pastors and bishops” – as the group most actively touching our lives: the representative majority of Church leadership over the past 50 years. In fact, the great care the Universal Church throughout the ages has taken in guiding and forming those within the legal profession puts into stark relief the negligence of Church leadership in the modern age. Can anyone argue that “the Church,” meaning the present leadership, has utterly failed to promulgate Humanae Vitae to the faithful? Or protect young men from predators within its ranks?

Second, Dr. Peters widens my criticism of his use of Fr. Felix Cappello, S.J. to an “insulting” attack on Fr. Cappello’s person and scholarship as a whole. I’ve done nothing of the kind. I suspect that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” position promoted is more Dr. Peters’s reading of Fr. Cappello than Fr. Cappello himself. But even if Dr. Peters has accurately reflected Fr. Cappello’s position, still I challenge it – and I have sinned no more than if I point out that St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas were wrong in denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Now let’s talk about the meat of my argument – that the Church (as clearly defined above) needs to expressly consider the part civil lawyers are asked to play in American divorce proceedings as the Church decides whether ecclesiastical permission is required to divorce. In response, Dr. Peters – a canon law professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit and referendary of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Rome – admits that his first inclination is to dismiss my concrete reality as a Catholic lawyer trying to balance the duties of faith and profession with “something akin to ‘Okay. So, deal with it.’” He then challenges me to do some “googling,”* go read some books, and generally engage in self-study to determine my moral duties as a Catholic lawyer.

In fact, I began that process nearly four years ago. What I learned was that there was no guidebook for American Catholic lawyers currently available, and only an extremely rare volume from 1963 was available secondhand. So I took two years to write the book for Catholic lawyers for myself that didn’t exist. (N.B.: This was done with the full and gracious support and approval of my local bishop, lest I be accused of being a bellyacher who indicts the Church top to bottom.) What I discovered was not a conspiracy of silence, but a rich body of teaching that has been ignored, Humanae Vitae-style.

Let’s set aside googling for a moment and take a look at that rare 1963 guidebook, titled the Catholic Lawyers Guide. It is the work of the Catholic Lawyers Society in Dr. Peters’s own Archdiocese of Detroit and bears the imprimatur of Archbishop John F. Dearden (hardly a theological “right-winger”) from May 21, 1963. The guide is replete with references to the very best theologians and thinkers of the day, including the illustrious Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., author of the moral theology guidebook Morals in Politics and Professions, dean of the School of Sacred Theology at Catholic University, charter member and first president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, and peritus for the Second Vatican Council. What does that book say about the topic at hand on pages 105-106?

Some dioceses have had, or do have, an excommunication attached to anyone who seeks civil divorce or civil separation without permission from the Church. But even if such a penalty is not attached, the Catholic who goes ahead without such a permission, except in extreme cases, puts himself in a most difficult position. He is not fulfilling his duties and he has set himself up as his own judge in a matter in which he is forbidden to judge.

Dr. Peters offers a quote from 1956 from Dominic Prümmer, O.P. supporting the proposition that both the civil lawyer and the uncatechized layman deserve blissful ignorance of the requirement to obtain the ordinary’s permission to divorce: “In practice a confessor should not cause disquiet to any Catholic advocate who cannot refuse to undertake such cases without very serious inconvenience, provided that there is no scandal and nothing more is intended than the civil effects of the divorce” (emphasis from Dr. Peters). The more recent 1963 Catholic Lawyers Guide, on page 106, states (emphasis mine):

A lawyer who takes the case of a Catholic desiring a civil separation or a civil divorce from a valid marriage, when the Catholic does not have ecclesiastical permission for such action is putting himself in a state of sin. It would seem that any good Catholic lawyer would be happy to let the Church make such a difficult decision and not assume to himself something which he is definitely forbidden in conscience to do.

This is not exactly “Okay. So, deal with it.” The Catholic Lawyers Guide clearly contemplates lawyers’ reliance on ecclesiastical input and speaks to the “public good” dimension of permission to divorce, which Dr. Peters avoids.

The Catholic Lawyers Guide also warns of the moral hazard of civil lawyers assisting in a non-Catholic divorce:

In dealing with a non-Catholic, the Catholic lawyer should proceed cautiously. He must bear in mind that the morality of a civil divorce action always involves the basic question of whether or not the action taken by the plaintiff in a given instance involves sin. If it does, the lawyer must remember that he is not to participate in the sin of another; neither may he give scandal.

While representing the plaintiff in a forbidden divorce action may not in a given case be a formal cooperation, it is almost certainly proximate cooperation. This demands a very serious reason indeed for the plaintiff is doing something seriously sinful. If scandal cannot be avoided, no reason is serious enough to allow the lawyer to act.

In the chapter on the duties of a Catholic lawyer in his book Morals in Politics and Professions, pages 110-111, the aforementioned Fr. Connell states:

May a Catholic lawyer undertake a divorce case? Generally speaking, the answer must be in the negative[.] … Moreover, the Catholic lawyer should know that the Third Council of Baltimore forbids Catholics in the United States to approach the civil court for the purpose of obtaining a separation a thoro et mensa (from bed and board), without first consulting the ecclesial authorities. It would be the proper thing for a Catholic lawyer to bring this legislation to the notice of a Catholic seeking his services for the introduction of a suit for a civil separation.

Given that Fr. Connell makes it incumbent upon a Catholic lawyer to inform the Catholic client of canon law requirements, how exactly are Catholic civil lawyers supposed to know about that canon law requirement in the first place? As googling was not an option in 1963, I will offer that there was an expectation that “the Church” was taking care to inform civil lawyers. We may also surmise that the provision of this information was not viewed as an instance of Prümmer’s “disquieting” the Catholic advocate.

Sticking with the “public good” aspect of divorce, let’s turn it up a notch and see what the 1963 Detroit guide states about judges participating in divorce proceedings As Dr. Peters points out Pope John Paul II’s address to the Rota, so I point to the guide’s quote on page 110, referencing Pope Pius XII’s November 7, 1949 address to the convention of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, wherein the Holy Father stated:

In particular a Catholic judge cannot pronounce, except for reasons of great weight, a sentence of civil divorce (in countries where that is recognized by law) in a case of a marriage which is valid before God and the Church. He must not forget that in practice such a judgment has not only bearing on the civil effects, but in reality rather leads to the false belief that the actual bond is dissolved and that the new one is consequently valid and binding.

Finally, per Dr. Peters’s advice, I did some googling at the Archdiocese of Detroit’s website. A search of “lawyer” and “attorney” bears precious few returns: annulment information, press releases about abuse cases, and links to Dr. Peters himself addressing the stripping of the name “Catholic” from a popular apostolate. Where are the resources for Catholic lawyers? Where is a digitized version of the Catholic Lawyers Guide? Is it no longer a valuable resource? Was Archbishop Dearden wrong to grant the Catholic Lawyers Guide an imprimatur? Did Father Connell, a moral theologian of some renown, have it all wrong from the get-go, or has moral theology “evolved” on the issue?

As a mere lay American lawyer, not versed in canon law, I have tried to educate myself using trustworthy sources bearing the imprimatur – including a major work coming out of Dr. Peters’s own diocese – and not just Catholic internet chat rooms and message boards of dubious authority. As a practical matter, I can tell you that most American Catholic lawyers don’t even have these issues on their radar. And as for them having enough free time among the demands of work and family to go web-surfing to hunt for potential moral issues that haven’t been presented to them – good luck with that. To demand such is to set these men and women up for moral failure.

I read and respect Dr. Peters’s blog, but his attitude here is lamentable, and his prescription for the civil legal profession is unfair. He challenges Catholic lawyers and judges to browse the internet to get answers to questions they might not even know exist, and then he castigates the conclusions of these dilettantes when he doesn’t like them.

My concerns for the effect of my professional practice on my soul are born of care and study. Canon law and canon lawyers, Dr. Peters included, owe every lawyer and judge direction on the issues of separation and divorce. Rather than hide behind straw-man arguments and descend into name-calling, why not provide some needed moral assistance?

St. Thomas More, pray for us!

* As an example of the post-Conciliar Church’s having “dealt many, many times with the duties of Catholic lawyers toward their clients and the civil legal system,” Dr. Peters offers only Pope John Paul II’s 2002 address to the Roman Rota. This is a limited document; although it does correctly restate a standard concerning lawyers’ cooperation with divorce, it is silent as to the permission question and its ramifications.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Canon law and canon lawyers, Dr. Peters included, owe every lawyer and judge direction on the issues of separation and divorce

CHARLIE GARD, PRISONER OF DOCTORS AND JUDGES, HIS LOVING PARENTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS OVER THEIR SON IN ENGLAND; WAKE UP AMERICA

charlie-gard-parents
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CHARLIE GARD, PRISONER OF DOCTORS AND JUDGES, HIS LOVING PARENTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS OVER THEIR SON IN ENGLAND; WAKE UP AMERICA

PORN, IT IS FREE BUT IT IS NOT REALLY FREE, IT COMES WITH A FRIGHTFUL PRICE TAG, LOSS OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY, JUST AS WITH DRUG ADDICTS

Rod Dreher

The Terrible Cost Of Porn

I’m sorry if the graphic details from this piece in the Telegraph upset you, but we cannot turn away from this demon. In the piece, the writer recalls a dinner conversation among mothers talking about how hard it is to raise kids in a culture where pornography is ubiquitous. Excerpt:

A couple of the women present said that they had forced themselves to have toe-curlingly embarrassing conversations with their teenagers on the subject. “I want my son to know that, despite what he might see on his laptop, there are things you don’t expect a girl to do on a first date, or a fifth date, or probably never,” said Jo.

A GP, let’s call her Sue, said: “I’m afraid things are much worse than people suspect.” In recent years, Sue had treated growing numbers of teenage girls with internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex; not, as Sue found out, because she wanted to, or because she enjoyed it – on the contrary – but because a boy expected her to. “I’ll spare you the gruesome details,” said Sue, “but these girls are very young and slight and their bodies are simply not designed for that.”

Her patients were deeply ashamed at presenting with such injuries. They had lied to their mums about it and felt they couldn’t confide in anyone else, which only added to their distress. When Sue questioned them further, they said they were humiliated by the experience, but they had simply not felt they could say no. Anal sex was standard among teenagers now, even though the girls knew that it hurt.

There was stunned silence among the mothers around that dinner table, although I think some of us may have let out involuntary cries of dismay and disbelief.

For Sue’s surgery isn’t in some inner-city borough where kids may have been brutalised or come from cultures where such practices are commonly used as contraception. Sue works in the leafy heart of Hampshire. The girls presenting with incontinence were often under the age of consent and from loving, stable homes. Just the sort of kids who, only two generations ago, would have been enjoying riding and ballet lessons, and still looking forward to their first kiss, not being coerced into violent sex by some kid who picked up his ideas about physical intimacy from a dogging video on his mobile.

Read the whole thing.

You think that being “nice” people, and maybe putting your kids in Christian school, is going to protect them from this? You’re dreaming. I get so fed up with Christina parents who have no restrictions on their kids’ access to technology, and who aren’t teaching them how to cope with it. They somehow think that either their kids won’t find porn, or that everybody uses it, so how bad can it be, really?

They don’t want to face the reality because if they did, they would have to institute radical changes in their family’s life, including forcing their kids to be weirdos in their peer group.

But what is the alternative? At a conservative Christian college not long ago, a campus minister told me that every single young man he works with, helping them to prepare for seminary after graduation, is addicted to pornography (meaning that they use it compulsively, and find it impossible to stop, even though they want to). Sixteen young men — conservative, churchgoing men who want to serve God and others as pastors — caught in that trap. You think it can’t happen to your kids? Really?

This is not just a moral crisis. It’s a social one. And it’s a crisis that is destroying something vital and precious. Here’s a story about the disaster unfolding in Japan.Excerpt:

Nearly half of Japanese people are entering their 30s without any sexual experience, according to new research.

The country is facing a steep population decline as a growing number of youngsters abstain from sex and avoid romantic relationships.

Some men claimed they “find women scary” as a poll found that 43 per cent of people aged 18 to 34 from the island nation say they are virgins.

One woman, when asked why they think 64 per cent of people in the same age group are not in relationships, said she thought men “cannot be bothered” to ask the opposite sex on dates because it was easier to watch internet porn.

It’s one thing to be a virgin because you choose to abstain until marriage, for religious or moral reasons. It’s quite another to be a virgin because you are too afraid of emotional and physical intimacy, and would rather sit home and watch porn.

We are conducting a radical experiment that has never before in history been tried, because it has never been possible. What happens to individuals and societies when images — moving images — of the most bizarre and violent sex acts imaginable can be instantly accessed by anyone, anywhere, at any time? What does that do to our brains, our minds, and our hearts? What does it to do us as a people?

I keep telling people that the Benedict Option is not about heading for the hills. But when I read stories like this, I think, “I should reconsider that.” True, wherever there is an Internet connection, pornography can find you. I don’t mean “the hills” in a geographical sense. I mean it metaphorically. By “the hills,” I mean a more radical separation from this culture of death.

Let’s say that our own children manage to get through childhood without having porn colonize their minds and hearts. One day, we want them to marry and start families, if that is their calling, right? Think about what the ubiquity of porn does to the prospect of finding life partners who are capable of loving them, in soul and body, in a caring, compassionate, righteous way? This is not a crisis that we can face adequately as individual families. We have to do it as a community. We have to do this as a community embedded in Weimar America, where there is widespread indifference or even contempt for our values. We not only have to do our utmost to protect our sons and our daughters from it, but we have to rescue those of our children who have been ensnared by it.

This British general practitioner is treating teenage girls under the age of consent for incontinence. They cannot keep from soiling themselves because the muscles in their rectums have been stretched out from anal sex. You want to turn away, I know. So do I. But we can’t. Nor can we turn away from the young men who have been convinced that demanding this of girls is something good and right and necessary.

Posted in , , , . Tagged , , .

62 Responses to The Terrible Cost Of Porn

← Older Comments

  1. Xenia Grant says:

    Rod:

    I read your latest article with sadness and horror. This article brought up for me not only memories of when I was a ore teen and young teenager.

    I was that age in the late 70s during the time of studio 54 and Saturday Night Fever. At that age, I hated it when classmates asked,”Are you a virgin?’ I played dumb and it was easy for to as autistic kid whose main interests centered around Battlestar Galactica and the USSR. That question scared me because at that time, off and on over a multi year time frame, I was raped by a neighbor’s grandfather. And I thought what was happening to me was “having sex”. And it mortified me if anyone found out. I thought that rape happened at knife or gun point at that age. It wasn’t until 1984, when I learned that what happened to me was rape.

    The reason why I am writing this is that is a major reason why I am more socially conservative and find chastity and monastism attractive.

    Our culture finds chastity and being a nun or a monk foreign. And it confuses my friends (especially liberals) that I am this way because I am way to the left on other issues.

    I wish young people today learn about how heroic it is, for example, for a young woman to protect her virginity to the point of being a martyr during the Roman Yoke because her bridegroom is Jesus Christ. And it would be nice for young men to watch videos showing the hero fighting to protect a vulnerable person (male or female) from being taken advantage of.

  2. KW says:

    I apologize, my earlier comment lacked compassion. I grew up in the “swingin’ ’70s,” came from a broken home that blossomed into all manner of seedy and unfortunate situations, and I long for my child to not be exposed to the many terrible things I was exposed to growing up. The territory explored in “Hillbilly Elegy” was very familiar to me, and I will do what I can, by the grace of God, to ensure that is not the case for my child. Parents, please consider doing likewise.

  3. Northern Observer says:

    What amazes me about this is I don’t think any of the advocates for social liberalism be them ivory tower giants like Foucault down to grubby freshmen SJWs belting out slogans at an “inclusivity” protest, have any inkling of what rolling back Christian sexuality will mean long term. They have no idea what is being lost. In fact the very victory they claim to be gaining, personal sexual autonomy and freedom, is disappearing from the landscape as the spiritual logic for a sacredness of the body and a respect for the human soul evaporates.
    Commodification, Raw physical power, psychological manipulation – all the joys of pagan sexuality are roaring back into the World hungry to devour anyone it can lay hands on.

  4. Blackrock says:

    Plus, despicable articles in Teen Vogue showing teenagers how to do it . . .
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/10/sjws-melt-feminist-youtuber-says-scientifically-correct-thing-sexes/

  5. Heyseed says:

    Is pornography the cause or the effect? Might the problem be that we (Society) has decided that satisfying monogamous sexual relationships, and marriage in particular, are for when one is too old to participate in the laissez-faire sexuality we have foisted upon our young people in the guise of “liberation”?

    I don’t know what to think about those girls with the rectal injuries, but those seminarians, in an earlier era, would have been paired off, if not actually married, to someone who could help them have a healthy sexual life. I have to think it’s the delay of marriage which leaves the vacuum pornography is used in an attempt to fill.

  6. k says:

    “However, the benchmark in the evangelical community for a “porn addict” is pretty suspect. It is usually defined as “someone who looks at a sexually explicit image once a month or more.”

    I usually find it discussed as being when people hate what they are doing, feel guilty or repulsed by it, hate what they see it doing to them, yet find themselves drawn back to it again and again even though they keep trying to quit – as with any addiction.

  7. Lllurker says:

    “…but when people who have endured this blight come of age and have children, they’ll know the score and perhaps (?) they’ll be more vigilant about phone use and so forth. a slender hope, but that’s about all we’ve got …”

    There’s an odd technical twist in all of this. Those of us who were parenting in the nineties and aught’s were (and in my case still are) technical troglodytes compared to the teenagers. Even had we been fully organized politically to do something about this I don’t think we would have had much of a chance because the tech companies and our kids could all run rings around us. The new parents coming on the scene now are not so technically ignorant.

    This is really a pretty straightforward issue by the way. It’s always been illegal for 14 year-old boys to hang out at strip clubs right? Well it should be even more illegal for them to have ready access to Internet porn, which can be far worse.

    It’s going to take a lot of activism to cram this genie back into the bottle (and all the tech companies will insist that it’s not possible) but we need to get back to where only adults are allowed access to this kind of thing.

  8. Anna says:

    Lllurker: “Have you come across any sort of programs that teach parents how to deal with porn, preemptively?”

    I have. The Mormons have been producing a lot of material for this purpose, and what I’ve looked at seems pretty good. The LDS church has a website called “overcomingpornography.org” where you can find some of it.

    They have young kids (perhaps 8 to 10 years old) narrate the videos, and they keep their definition of porn simple and general enough not to have to explain more about sex than is appropriate. Of course, there’s all the weird “Heavenly Father” language, which will sound odd to any non-Mormon kids, but other than that, I thought they seemed pretty good for non-Mormon use too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on PORN, IT IS FREE BUT IT IS NOT REALLY FREE, IT COMES WITH A FRIGHTFUL PRICE TAG, LOSS OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY, JUST AS WITH DRUG ADDICTS

AGAIN AND AGAIN I AM COMPELLED BY MY LOVE AND CONCERN FOR YOU TO WARN YOU ABOUT PORN

 

Rod Dreher

What Porn Did To Their Lives

Some amazing responses to my “Terrible Cost Of Porn” post from this morning. These came in the mail, and I post them with permission:

 

[Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum]

 

First off, I want to offer you a profound and heartfelt thank you. This won’t make sense until I offer a little bit of a back story about myself. I am a man in my early-20’s who was raised in a fairly devout Protestant home, attending church every Sunday and Wednesday nights until I was around the age of 15. My family attended this church in the very liberal, atheist Pacific Northwest, and let me say that I learned just about every amoral behavior I could from people I met at church. I had my first encounter with Marijuana in a church parking lot. My friends from youth group turned me on to pornography at the age of 11 (perhaps one of the worst decisions I ever made, but more on that later). These same friends taught me how to swear, catcalled the girls in our youth group, and gave me a pretty good compilation of dirty jokes (I confess, I still enjoy the jokes).

My mom stopped attending the church around the time I turned 14 or 15. She had a falling out with the leaders of the church when she served on the board directing the youth ministry. She had seen what I was learning at youth group and at church and urged a change in course for our youth ministry from one focused on seeming “cool” to one focused on actually imparting the importance of orthodoxy AND orthopraxy. She was laughed off as a hyper-conservative freak (she was raised in the south and was always seen as something of an oddity in our corner of the world). She became so frustrated she left the church and urged me to stop attending youth group. But those were my friends, and I, too, thought she was overreacting. It was just a bit of fun wasn’t it?

My parents divorced when I was 16. I was going through confirmation at the time (a little late), and still saw myself as a committed Christian despite rarely displaying any behavior that would cause anyone else to describe me that way. I’m the oldest child in my family and have always had deeply conservative views on life (again, contradictory to my lifestyle). Around this time, I was volunteering on the Santorum campaign in Washington state. I was scared for my sisters, knowing being raised in single-parent households was bad for emotional development. I was angry and hurt, feeling that my parents had betrayed me by breaking their vow of “to death do us part.” I sought answers and healing for my anger at the church I was still attending. I found none

I yearned for some deep meaning, some sort of way of understanding everything that was going on in my incredibly fucked up brain at the time (pardon the language). The divorce, a fairly debilitating porn addiction (again, more on this later), and multiple failed attempts at relationships (strangely, because the girls were always fearful to commit) had left me feeling empty and unmoored. My parents moved between three different houses/apartments that year, and that didn’t help. But my youth group leaders practiced Moralistic Therapeutic Deism through and through and all they focused on was providing me with some sort of new age, semi-spiritually infused psychological claptrap counseling.

I became so disgusted I began to lose my faith. In fact, I quickly became very hostile to faith and organized religion. I remained deeply conservative but prided myself on being more intelligent than the other suckers. I was “smart enough” to figure out that religion was just to placate the fears of the “stupid people” (yes, I really was this pretentious). I continued to go through confirmation, because I had made a commitment and I don’t break those, but I did say I would not ask for membership in the church when I stood on the stage with my confirmation group. My youth group leader called my mom and asked her if maybe, just maybe, could I just “pretend” to ask for membership? My youth group leader said I was a leader among my peers and that if the others saw me renouncing the church, the others might follow suit. She wasn’t so concerned that I’d lost my faith. She was just concerned that I not LOOK like I lost my faith, because that would be an embarrassment. To the credit of my mother, whom I genuinely believe should be up for canonization shortly, my mom was furious with the youth group leader and told her so in no uncertain terms– despite the fact that I know my leaving the faith broke my mother’s heart deeply.

From about 16 through to November-December 2016 time frame, I lived a life of pretty pure hedonism. I struggled with romantic relationships (I’ve had one successful, long-term one, but even that was clouded by the girl’s inability to commit–I’m unfortunately still pretty madly in love with her). I consumed nearly every drug I could get my hands on, developing a deep dependency on cocaine and nicotine for a time. I continued to watch porn multiple times a day and engage in promiscuous sex–I even went so far as to engage in a threesome. All this while remaining on the face of it a very successful person for my age. I go to a small liberal-arts school in the South, have been awarded a full-ride scholarship for academic excellence, have been elected to campus wide leadership roles, have served as a leader in my fraternity, and am in the top 5% of my class. I say this not to brag, but rather to say that people looked at me as though I was someone to look up to.

I knew, however, that something big was missing. Or at least I began to know around May of 2016. Everything seemed to be going well, I was poised for success, I had great friends, and I had an absolute blast partying every weekend. But I felt empty. In the Spring of 2016, I went with a good friend of mine to his lake house to celebrate his grandfather’s 80th birthday. The grandfather’s best friend was a Catholic priest, whom I ended up drinking some wine with and having a conversation. He told me I wasn’t an atheist–I was just on a vacation from God. I’d be back he said. I laughed in the moment, said I liked the way he put that, and tried to ignore it. But I thought about that phrase often for the next six months.

Not long before the election last year, I stumbled upon to the American Conservative (I was working a little on the Trump campaign and was led to the site through that). I read one of your blog posts. And another. And another. And another. I won’t go too much into detail as I’m already annoyingly rambling, but God spoke to me through your work. Your blog posts made me realize that I needed to return to the faith. I tried some Methodist services, some Presbyterian services, and an Episcopalian service. It all still felt empty. I read one of your posts about orthodox services, and I decided to at least try a Catholic Mass (I was raised with a Southern mother and a British father, so my household had no shortage of anti-Catholic bias). One of my professors whom I have grown very close to is a Catholic, so I asked where he attended Mass. From the first service I attended at the local Cathedral, I knew I had found what I was missing. I will be going through confirmation in the fall. I have given up heavy drinking, stay away from drugs, and have sworn off casual sex.  I feel happier, more fulfilled, and calmer. I have some answers–or at least enough faith to know that if I don’t have the answers, God does. And I have you (and God and my professor) to thank for that. So, sincerely, deeply, thank you.

Notice that in the list of things I don’t do anymore, I did not say that I have given up watching Porn. That’s because I tried. In fact, I try multiple times a week. I pray about it. I have sought spiritual mentorship on it. I easily gave up cocaine, nicotine, binge drinking, and casual sex. But I cannot give up pornography. Well, I give it up multiple times a week actually. But it never sticks. I think it is evil, soulless, empty, and always leaves me feeling that way. But I still find it incredibly difficult to stay away. The Bible and spiritual guidance have helped me to lessen my dependence on it, certainly. But I cannot rid my life of it. It is a looming presence despite my deep knowledge that it could destroy my life and any hopes I have of a fulfilling, intimate relationship. I have told my mother to keep my young sisters (in early High School and Middle School) off technology as much as possible, and I know that if I am ever blessed enough to have children of my own, I will do my utmost to keep them far, far away from porn. I have even begun to tell my friends of how corrosive it is (even just physically–huge cause of young E.D.). I have been shocked how many of my friends, even the liberal atheists, have said they absolutely agree–that they, too, feel porn is empty and sad but that they just can’t stay away.I apologize for the length and rambling-nature of this email. But I had a lot to thank you for and I didn’t think the weight of it would come across unless I gave a little back story. I also wanted to give you yet another example of how disgustingly corrosive pornography is–and how even people who have no relationship with God can sense something is wrong with the stuff, but just can’t give it up.

{Porn is more addictive than any drug.  It becomes part of a person’s psyche.  Because it resides in the brain, one can never forget it; it becomes part of who you are.  Avoid it if you value your life here on earth and your life in the hereafter}

Thanks for your time and all you do. I remain a faithful reader. I think that same Professor who is helping me convert has probably grown annoyed with how frequently I have sent him one of your posts. But it is truly exciting when someone writes what I think and I learn that I’m not merely a lone crazy person worrying about societal disintegration.

Here’s another letter:

I am very grateful to God for your highlighting of the pornography epidemic (not too strong a word), and in light of your most recent article I wanted to share some of my own experiences in the hope that it would enrich your understanding and perhaps enlighten some of your readers.

To quote your piece:

“For Sue’s surgery isn’t in some inner-city borough where kids may have been brutalised or come from cultures where such practices are commonly used as contraception. Sue works in the leafy heart of Hampshire.”

And also this:

“You think that being “nice” people, and maybe putting your kids in Christian school, is going to protect them from this? You’re dreaming.”

I want to state, without intending to brag, I am not one of the so-called “fail-sons” and I am not one of the great mass of unemployed young, white men living in their parents basement and spending inordinate amounts of time playing video games and watching porn. Too often the porn epidemic has been associated with these men. It goes so much deeper than that, as this passage also made clear:

“At a conservative Christian college not long ago, a campus minister told me that every single young man he works with, helping them to prepare for seminary after graduation, is addicted to pornography (meaning that they use it compulsively, and find it impossible to stop, even though they want to). Sixteen young men — conservative, churchgoing men who want to serve God and others as pastors — caught in that trap. You think it can’t happen to your kids?”

I grew up in a stable, two-parent household, went to a great college and then to a prestigious law school. I am actually found paying work as an attorney and have been responsible even for some jury trials. I was raised to be successful, do the right things, check all of the right boxes…and I have struggled with porn greatly. It has hurt me personally and, I regret to say, has done awful harm to my wife, who I love dearly. This is not a “lower class” problem, not a problem for slackers or someone else’s kids; this is everyone’s problem. Being “nice” and “moral” in a vague sense was not enough. Porn attacked and wreaked its havoc on me regardless.

Like I said, I grew up in a stable, two-parent household, and my parents worked hard to raise me well, but I lacked any sort of Christian formation from them. I had to go to youth groups and later campus ministry groups to get that, and praise be to God that I did. But, when the temptation arose, porn was everywhere, and despite my resume and good intentions, I lacked the spiritual discipline to resist.

I was a ’90s kid, so I was not even part of this current, smartphone-inundated generation. Only Christian formation done early and often at the family level can guard young men today.

I am happy to say that, despite continued struggles, I am making progress and experiencing more freedom because I have recently been involved in tight, intentional Christian community. A brother at my local church who has experienced victory over this same demon has prayed with me and helped institute a habit of prayer and fasting for the most stressful and vulnerable days. The spiritual power of this has already made a world of difference.

Countercultural and tightly-knit community to inculcate these spiritual disciplines has been my saving grace in this struggle. In order words, I can tell you from personal experience that something that sounds suspiciously like the Benedict Option (hmmm…) is needed to beat this demon back.

Thank you again for your heart for this issue. I hope this letter was not too long, but your attention to this and your work on the Benedict Option has touched me deeply.

Thank you, brothers. I will update this post throughout the day, as people send me their own stories. If you are willing to let me post it here, please say so. Anonymity assured.

Posted in , . Tagged , .

 

Hide 2 comments

2 Responses to What Porn Did To Their Lives

  1. Jen says:

    It’s interesting that this guy twice mentions women’s “inability to commit.” Dude, if relationship after relationship isn’t working out, then you have to look at the common factor: You.

  2. E.J. says:

    So…what would you suggest that adults do? I worry about one of my brothers, who is nearly 18. He’s never seen pornography on the internet to my knowledge–my mom isn’t a fan of the internet and never wanted to pay for in-home access, so his opportunities have been limited. But he is going to be taking some online dual credit courses this coming year, and I think that getting in-home internet access won’t be avoidable any longer. He’s been warned about porn from multiple sources, but I know it would be easy for him to pick up an addiction without much exposure. Is filtering an answer? It’s one thing for church leaders to warn about pornography, but a lot of them are hesitant to offer specific suggestions on how to guard against it, because they don’t want to be seen as “legalistic.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on AGAIN AND AGAIN I AM COMPELLED BY MY LOVE AND CONCERN FOR YOU TO WARN YOU ABOUT PORN