Amici,
Why are modern Catholic men such saps? Sappy. Dopey. Squishy. Too many of them – and I refer to the non-degenerate, non–perverted actual men, still act sappy. "Gushing." Just not very masculine – not remotely.
Example: In an article at his padre peregrino blog, Fr. David Nix wrote a bit about the new Mass of the Ages movie, or MOTA3. He says in the article:
'But the most moving line [in the film] came from Dr. Scott Hahn. Hahn rarely weighs in on politics, but in reference to the Church crisis, Hahn said the only answer was for “all bishops to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” I think he is exactly correct: Imagine if every priest and bishop in the world “fell in hopeless love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.”'
I wanted to shout at the computer, "She's the August Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. The greatest created being in all existence! She embraced every suffering God assigned to her AND to her Son without the slightest demure. She's NOT your girlfriend!"
How
sappy can you get? First of all, most bishops in the world, and a very
large proportion of priests, are apostates. Or perhaps they never
believed to begin with. Time will reveal yourself to yourself if you let
it do so. They have allowed an absolute monster and papal imposter root
and rut and spiritually (and not so spiritually) rape his way through
Holy Mother Church for the past eleven years. John-Henry Westen seems to agree. Yes, he most certainly has. And many of them knew what Bergoglio was in the beginning! Read this description of Bergoglio from eleven years ago. Bergoglio the Tyrant has fulfilled all the predictions made of him there in that article.
So even remotely imagining that bishops and priests who don't believe to begin with can "fall in love" with God's Mother is senseless from a purely pragmatic angle. How much more sappy – and indeed, creepy – it
is in and of itself the way Hahn expresses it. Do you "fall in love"
with your own mother? Hahn is talking romantic love, that unmistakable.
It's sick, but it is also revealing.
So
often so much of Vatican II-era Catholicism is sappy, mawkish,
juvenile, silly, sentimental and shallow. Very little "mainstream"
Traditional commentary seems written by grown-ups, by the spiritually
adult. No wonder tens of millions of Catholics have left the Church
since all things Vatican II manifested, because since then everything
seems wrought in children's fat crayon and cheap polyester. Its art is
cartoonish – very much in the pathetic style of that rapist favorite of Bergoglio's, Marko Rupnik's – and its theology
is tasteless baby food that babies would reject. I was recently in a
modernist Catholic church shaped like a "cow patti", a lump of manure in
a pasture, and was being showed around. Same sick Rubnik-like "art" but
they also had a totally creeped-out statue of Padre Pio, life-size,
standing on a stair corner, sculpted like he was coming forward to grab
you with both arms, his face frozen in an "evil-clown" grin. It actually
made me jump. How utterly, utterly opposite anything the actual saint
represented!
Scott
Hahn, a professor, a Ph.D. teacher of theology, often seems just like
this. So does his University of Steubenville, which for decades was a
Catholic "holy-roller" hothouse. (I've been to a couple of Catholic
"Charismatic" events over the years, dragged along by friends: nothing, I
repeat nothing, is more fake and pathetic.)
Now,
decades ago I used to read and listen (via tapes) to a lot of Scott
Hahn. He comes across as a "nice guy" in the earnest American fashion,
and has had some good theological insights, especially regarding
"Covenant Theology"; but I now understand Hahn to also be Opus Dei. As
far as I am concerned, Opus Dei is a cult, more Freemason than Catholic,
certainly so in its cult-like secrecy and manipulation more than any regular
Catholic order ever remotely was – except the Templars. Like the modern-day Jesuits, it needs squished out of existence.
But
Hahn in his old age is certainly acting the gushy, sappy contemporary
Catholic man here in this movie, from what I can tell. And the "insight"
Fr. Nix praises him for I find mawkish and cloying. Little boy-like. A
living Rupnik cartoon with more human eyes, as it were.
We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world
itself has that problem. Look at the average American political leader
(Trump being an exception, and thus loathed) or European leaders (Emmanuel Macron or Olaf Scholz, for example) and compare them to Vladimir Putin. You may hate Putin, but he's a man's man, at least. Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyła,
was very much a man's man. Review his life. Amazing what he went
through. And he single-handedly made the Vatican II Church seem at least
plausible – for a while. (I believe Hahn initially converted after being inspired by JPII.) Compare him to Paul VI, very much the emotional effeminate "metrosexual" type we are inundated with today.
What Our Mother needs
The
Blessed Virgin Mary, the August Queen of Heaven and Seat of Wisdom,
Mother of Our Eternal Lord and King Jesus Christ, doesn't need
boyfriends or cloying teen "groupies". She needs sons who will put on
the armor of God and do battle for her and her Son. But the time seems
to have run out. Review this prophetic article from John-Henry Westen.
As Anthony Stine says, get to Confession as soon as possible, or at least make a serious act of contrition. The Ides of March, after all, are come.
An Préachán
You had me in the first half, and I could agree with your criticisms, but then you cited the "prophetic article" on LifeSite which completely blew up your whole article for me.
ReplyDeleteThat article depicts what, to me, as a man, comes off as one of the most insecure, dopey, effeminate depictions of God ever written in a Catholic sphere. This is a God who is extremely repetitive (saying more words than he says in the entire New Testament, in part one alone!), reeks of being written by a middle-aged woman with extremely flowery language ("My beloved sons. My soldiers, My faithful retinue. My Guard of Honor."), overuses adjectives ("But the battle that looms now, My sons, is far greater, far subtler, far, far more dangerous"), and is constantly shouting about things that aren't even possible ("DO NOT HINDER ME!"); none of which are traits you can find in scripture. They are all traits found in unapproved visions, but you cannot cite a single line of scripture, or even a single approved vision, where God talks in this style. The very fact that you would write your article against effeminate behavior, while promoting this obviously fake vision, reminds me of the line in scripture about the blind leading the blind.
The vision also has doctrinal problems. Jesus declared in scripture that no-one has access to the Father except through him. In all previous visions, Jesus has appeared in his human nature, and identified himself as such, accordingly, for he has a human nature and interacts with humans through his human nature. This alleged vision has Jesus identifying himself solely as "God" (which is technically true, but completely out of character to previous approved apparitions.) If it is not Jesus appearing (and the "God" in the vision never once claims to be Jesus), then it is dogmatically impossible to actually be God.
The very fact that LifeSite would publish such a vision is embarrassing in and of itself, as the comments on that post also indicate. The fact that you would then lampoon Scott Hahn, whatever the criticisms may be, while upholding *THAT* as a standard of masculinity and of God is misplaced and hypocritical, at a minimum.
Another phrase comes to mind:
DeleteYou strained the gnat on Scott Hahn and effeminate speech; and swallowed the camel on God.
St Bernadine of Sienna about Mary: "She is my absolute love!" Then go read Rachel Fulton Brown's "Mary and art of Prayer," section on Our Lady and Medieval men. And Hahn doesn't mean love in the sense of earthly teenager who is smitten due to raging hormones. Finally, Mary is our spiritual mother, not our biological mother...huge difference, not in the same ballpark.
Delete"Prophacy takes care of itself" is the old saying. Whether the prophet is a prophet will be seen, and soon enough. The Church is disntergrating as we look at it, and nothing and no one seems to be able to stop Bergoglio, or whoever is running the show. John-Henry Westen is desperate. That why he published it and why the bishop squashed the revelations: they were on target. (They'll squash Fatima and the other accepted revelatons soon enough.) Yet the situation is an exact parallel with the U.S. government. Exact. And whatever the case about that, Scott Hahn meant what he said, all right. He wasn't talking "mother love" or high adoration of the Absolute King's Queen Mother, but girl friend love. "Fall in love" he said. Maybe that's why she usually approaches kids to give messages to, as older people, especially men, can easily get all "too familiar".
DeleteThe very wording of "hopelessly in love" is bizarre in and of itself, especially coming from an alleged scholar, who one would think would possess more careful word choice. Are we to assume, then, that love (the highest supernatural virtue) can be developed through a complete divorce from the next highest (hope)? Why would anyone ever be "hopelessly" in love? If anything, it's the exact opposite. I believe the reason the author likens this to romantic mumblings to one's girlfriend is because it involves mindless adolescent language, the kind of prose used among puppy-love-stricken teenagers (at best).
ReplyDeleteThat said, Gabriel's point about the "prophetic message" is probably correct as well. I wouldn't trust many "new" prophecies for various reasons, especially if Jesus urged them to reveal it, and they waited 30 years.
Hopelessly in Love is what we call an idiomatic phrase. It has nothing to do with hopelessness. Hahn is simply making an excellent point about loving Our Lady passionately.
ReplyDeleteDemons exist who "love Our Lady passionately", as Fr Ripperger has said. Didn't stop them from falling, and in fact, that caused a number of them to fall in the first place. "Love" means "will the good". To "love" the B.V.M. is to will her good, as she clearly wills ours. It does NOT mean romantic or passion love. Romantic love was invented by the Ancient Greeks and then reinvented by medieval Muslims in Spain, in both cases as essentially a homosexual thing. The Troubadours of Medieval France were mostly homosexual Cathars. Married spousal love, parental love, patrioctic love, can never be just strong emotion and "desire". It HAS to be rational, founded of Faith in God's Creation and Will, and selfless, a product of the rational mind, as the soul is itself rational. It's our bodies that get all passionate "love crazy." Careless "iomatic usage" does NOT help clarify all this.
ReplyDelete