Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church Part II

Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church
Part II
Narcissism, Anthropology, and the Race Track

Preface Continued from Part I

A point about Narcissism: Homosexuality is essentially Narcissistic, with its fear, hatred, or at least rejection of "the Sexual Other," and has been found in "advanced" cultures of effete urbanized elites, or in backward, retrograde cultures turned in on themselves – as with Islam or remote tribes in the jungles – for evidence of that latter, see the Peter Wood article linked to below.

For the basic modern idea about Homosexuality, the idea that "sold" it to the general public, is that people are "born that way." In 1977, only 10 percent of the U.S. population thought homosexuality was inherited, for example; it has risen ever since, to around 40-50 percent today. This Gallup polling shows the lobbying effects of "Gay, Inc." But what is the truth? In general, the current mainline thinking on how homosexuality is generated is probably as worthwhile as the "science" of Global Warming! Both are far to politically "hot" for scientists to be remotely objective. The most one might venture is it's probably due to a complex of factors, with the most weight cumulatively on the side of upbringing and home life, and for male homosexuals, their relationship with their father. (Curiously, I've never seen a study on that, but it seems very apparent that male homosexuals don't have strong, loving father-son relationships.) 

Mainstream scientists today tend to argue it isn't "learned" but "environmentally acquired", as here, wherein the author, an obviously unwise, blinder-bound scientist makes bold to write idiotically, "If homosexual people caused great societal damage, the way that psychopathic people do, we would disvalue homosexuality, whether homosexuality were innate (like psychopathy appears largely to be) or learned. But they don’t, and we shouldn’t." 

Oh? This researcher should tell that to the boys 'Uncle Teddy' McCarrick buggered. And not just that, but any knowledge of the Homosexual lifestyle in any culture, ancient or modern, shows it to be brutal and misogynist, for reasons explained anthropologically here, in a very important article by  the anthropologist Peter W. Wood.

Now, homosexual advocates would howl at all this, but "knowledge is power"; if you review the history of culture, you'll learn that adult men "imposing themselves" on teenage boys is the classic paradigm of traditional homosexual cultures (and that is exactly what the Catholic Church's sex scandal consist of). A culture that had two men of similar age as a "couple" was very rare. 

And every culture that had a strong element of Homosexuality in it was misogynist. Think of Ancient Greece in the Classical Age, wherein Homosexuality had a distinct military element to it, or traditional Muslim Arab culture at any time, past and present. For what was true in Ancient Greece and Rome and the Near East is even truer there today; the traditional Islamic culture is the most homosexual on Earth. And like Ancient Islam and Ancient Greece, quite violent.

Therefore, missing all this, intellectually curious neither about the science or the anthropology, many non-homosexual Catholic bishops and moralists see only the individual who has this burden, and try to minister to that individual, and thus not comprehend, apprehend, or "get" the titanically vast importance of the larger "program", as it were. But whatever one can say about any specific individual and their personal, spiritual, and moral struggles with homosexual attraction – Homosexuality as a corporate thing is itself far greater, and far more dangerous, than the sum of its parts. That's a truism about many things. It is very true about Homosexuality.

One simple example of this truism regarding Homosexuality is what happened in Boston to the St. Patrick's Day parade. Read here a detailed history of how small groups of homosexuals who wanted to march in it eventually resulted in St. Patrick himself leaving the parade, and anyone really Catholic – anyone accepting of the Church's ancient teachings on the subject – being driven clean out of the parade. It's a type of utterly intolerant YOU-WILL-TOLERATE-US-OR-ELSE totalitarian regime resulting in a WE-WON'T-TOLERATE-YOU reality. This phenomenon is widely known now about Homosexuality. It's the "Bake US a Cake or You Won't Bake at All" type of Homosexual threat-aggression. "You will be made to care." That slogan is horrific in its consequences. It's very real, very oppressive, and spreading ever further, contra the researcher's uncomprehending comment above.

One might say Homosexuality is like a weed, a weed that will eventually kill off or drive out every other plant in the garden. Or one might say, using religious speech. that Homosexuality is a jealous god and will have no other gods before it. From a Traditionalist Catholic perspective, of course, Homosexuality is not a weed, but a demon.

And it demands sacrifice.

This series of essays will therefore try to place that aspect of "Corporate Homosexuality" into its rightful place in the great scheme of things, particularly in how it relates to the other "worst" things confronting the Church, Islam and Protestantism. The goal is to make the point that we must "turn the corner" on Homosexuality. To recognize that, whatever or the Church's pastoral response to individual homosexuals is – and that would vary according to each individual, of course, as each person is an unique person created by God – Corporate Homosexuality, Homosexuality in the aggregate, is something deadly to the Faith. 

Only once that is clearly understood, then Homosexuality as a program, as an "alternative lifestyle" or a parallel and equally moral state to traditional Christian sexual practice, will be utterly rejected. (Or "disvalued" as the researcher quoted above put it.)

Introduction

These three things, Protestantism, Homosexuality and the Catholic Church, have been intersecting for some time now; this is a review of what is going on and of what is at stake.

Imagine a horse race track with three horses running on it. They’re pretty much nose-to-nose but it varies every time you look at them. There used to be more horses. The Arian horse ran away with the field for a while, then faltered, fell behind, and finally went lame. In the beginning, there was a Gnostic horse who seemed about to win the race, but he, too, faltered. Eventually a very strong horse appeared, an Arabian, actually, named Islam. That horse is still running. Then, 500 years ago, a second strong contender appeared, the Protestant horse. He first ran a bit behind the Islamic horse, and then they ran neck to neck, nose to nose, for about 100 years, until finally the Islamic horse fell rather far behind. By 1900, the Protestant horse was way ahead, many lengths. But then in the 1950s, and especially by the 1960s, Islam came on strong, and it was the Protestant horse that fell behind, or partially behind. But also in the 1960s a totally new horse appeared, or more precisely re-appeared, after have fallen out of the race during the great Church reforms of the 12^th century (Sts Francis and Dominic) that so strongly established the High Middle Ages Church (1053 to 1300). This is the Homosexual horse, and today that horse is nosing out the other two.

This is obviously a long-term race, lasting two millennia now, and these horses today on the track are the deadliest heresies the Church has ever faced. The race track is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. These three horses look to be final contenders in conquering that prize, and all they need is the fourth, as yet unknown and unnamed, to make the Four Horsemen of Doom. (A "one-world" George Orwell 1984-type of world government might be such a horse.)

In Part III we'll look more closely into what the horses represent, especially regarding the Incarnation.

An Préachán

Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church Part I

Islam, Protestantism, Homosexuality, and the Catholic Church
Individual Homosexuals vs Corporate Homosexuality

The Catholic Priest Sex Abuse Scandal,
The Conceits of a Narcissistic Age,
And Heresy, Past and Present
Part I

Preface

We live in a Narcissistic Age, wherein "everything is about you" and your needs, and no one can interfere with your pursuit of satisfying your needs. 

It is the Age of Relativism, wherein "what's good for me is good for me, whatever it might happen to be, so keep your old-fashioned morality to yourself" has showed itself to be a "Dictatorship", and Benedict XVI once said. It is the age of Moralism, the tedious preaching of "Social Justice Warriors" in a perpetual condemnation of traditional society. 

These are the conceits of the age, and they're wrong, stupidly so. What people do privately has tremendous affect of the larger society, and even on the civilization itself. The Emperor Augustus once called young aristocrats into his presence to upbraid them for not marrying and starting families. The Roman state needed them to do so, the emperor explained, or there wouldn't be anyone to run the Roman state. Their personal pursuit of deviant pleasures was creating dire consequences for everyone. 

The Priest Sex Abuse Scandal (now quickly morphing into the Bishops' Sex Abuse Scandal), is yet another example of a horde of hedonists (heathen hedonists, actually), working in a mafia-style network of lies so they can scratch their itches on young men and boys – in the hopeless process of trying satisfy their perverse desires. They betray everything they took vows for, and betray the laity they're consecrated to serve, and also, of course, they betray God. They "have other gods before God", breaking the First Commandment. They take God's Name in vain every time they celebrate Mass. They break every Commandment. And they're bringing down the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church into the gutter with them. 

This sex abuse scandal is the worst thing to happen to the Catholic Church in its long history. Currently, it is edging out Islam and Protestantism in that regard (see Introduction in Part II). 

This essay is the first in a series here reflecting on this situation, and it takes a Traditionalist view of the Church, Church teaching (esp. about Homosexuality). Having no desire to go to the trouble of reinventing the wheel, I shall take traditional morality as true. To me this is self-evident. For example, I know that Amsterdam, infamous for its lack of rules and morality, became a Mecca for crime and drugs; so the government handed out clean needles in an effort to reduce disease but merely increased addiction, and made the problem much worse – San Francisco's Leftist junta is finding out the same is true for them, too. As a social conservative, and a conservative in politics and human nature, I – and many other such – could have told the Dutch and the San Frans what would happen. Human nature, in other words, is immutable. 

Of course, people exist who think differently. Thus we get a "conservative vs liberal" bifurcated political world. And a bifurcated social world. And a cultural world. And a religious world, as well.  

Many don't like to apply the phrase "Left and Right" to religion. They're foolish. At bottom, the difference between "Left and Right" involves how human nature is understood, and then how that understanding is applied to everything. "Conservatives" are conservatives because they believe people are basically bad, or naturally prone to being bad, rather than good. It's much easier for people to be bad than good, at least. The Christian teaching of Original Sin fits this: G. K. Chesterton said you could prove the doctrine of Original Sin by merely opening the daily newspaper. 

A "liberal" or "Progressive" or Leftist believes people are basically good, however, and they actually think that rules, from the Ten Commandments on down, are what make people bad. Remove the rules, they think, and watch a 100 flowers bloom (to conjure Mao). Marx, for example, thought money was bad and people were on the evolutionary path to a "Communist state," and earthly utopia wherein no one cared about money. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." (Of course, to get there, those who did care about money all had to be shot.) It's sort of a heretical understanding of what St. Paul says about law and sin in Romans 5:12-14.

So, the bottom line: if you're liberal/Leftist, then live without rules in your own life. See how that works out. (Hint: it didn't work out for Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 1712-1778, the philosophical founder of all Leftism; it won't work out for you, either.)

Now, on to business:
As for the American Catholic Church and Homosexuality, this report below suggests how bad the situation is:

About half the U.S. bishops are homosexual:

Recent revelations about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick are only “the tip of the iceberg”, according to Father Dariusz Oko, a University lecturerer in Krakow, Poland.

Oko said to LifeSiteNews.com (July 26) that it is estimated that about 30-40% of priests and 40-50% of bishops in the USA have homosexual inclinations.

According to Oko “at least half of them, at least periodically, may commit serious abuses”.

He adds that the problem lies in the fact that [liberal] gay mafias are ruling dioceses, monasteries and seminaries. They even prevent the ordination of normal men.

An Préachán again:
Even assuming this is only half true (and most observers of the Catholic scene are coming to think half might be too optimistic!), it is still a devastating revelation.

And it's been around awhile, too. For example, Francis "Franny" Cardinal Spellman, Cardinal Archbishop of New York from '39 to '67, was widely reputed – it was just a given – to be an active homosexual; but leave aside the gossip: one point that subtly suggests it is true is because "Franny" was equally widely known to be a friend of the Traditional Mass of St. Gregory the Great, and in general an "arch conservative" in many things (yes, he is today considered a true hypocrite by both the Church's Left and Right) yet he unaccountably "folded" in defending Church tradition against "The Spirit of Vatican II". (Spellman died in December of 1967.)

One way to explain that is that he just suddenly changed his mind about it all; but it is more believable, more logical, that he was blackmailed. Blackmailing homosexuals was a long-standing pastime of blackmailers, especially those involved in espionage. It certainly was a literary cliché. But back in the pre-World War II days, we never had the sort of numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood or the episcopacy as we do today: it's prevalent, something we've never seen the scale of before, at least not since the days of Saint Peter Damian (1007 to 1072), who was involved in a huge Church housecleaning at that time. The Medieval Monastic Church, which lasted from the invasion of Islam in the 7th century till 1053, was on its way out, and a new, High Middle Ages Church was aborning. As one avatar of the Church collapses, there's always another one in the offing.

Reviewing some of the evidence as to how deep and widespread the unspeakable rot is in the present-day Church, the Vatican II Church, especially via Rod Dreher's columns in The American Conservative, I would have to agree with "James", who was abused by Theodore McCarrick when a child, that "If Pope Francis doesn’t act clearly and strongly to clean up this mess, says James, the Catholic Church will collapse under the weight of the bishops’ corruption." ("James" has left the Church, BTW.) 

I don't think Pope Francis will remotely do what is necessary. In fact, just recently, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, a truly evil sex predator, resigned his cardinalate. Resigning is too good for him, but maybe he'll be the first "domino to fall". We'll have to see. However, the pope should have "defrocked" him rather than waiting for the wretch to do it himself.

John Paul II didn't do much about it either, after all, and he was not only a Believer, but quite orthodox (for a Vatican II prelate). Pope Jorge Bergoglio seems to be a Believer in a non-Catholic theology, and definitely in an all-permissive deity – one who presumably tolerates a lot of priestly sodomy, or at least is not a "rigorist" about it. (This is a joke, as Bergoglio is always on about "rigorists" priests.) Benedict XVI tried to address the Homosexual crucifixion of the Church a lot more than did either JP2 or Bergogio, or both of them together – and for B16's pains he was ousted. 

So...

The Catholic Church will indeed collapse under the weight of the bishops' corruption. But to be specific, it's the Vatican II Church that is breaking to pieces as we look on. Honestly, it's been a slow-motion "crash and burn" train wreck since it came into being. We've not had a more immoral, or at least morally lax, Church than Vat 2 since the Bourbon Church (1648 to 1789.) And the degenerate Bourbons still taught orthodox Catholic teachings – they just didn't live them. 

A remnant of the Church will survive, of course, just as was the case with Ancient Israel. What will survive will be what's called "Traditional Catholicism" in the Latin Rite, what I like to hopefully call The Reconquista Church. That, and of course the small, numerous Churches in Communion with Rome who worship via Eastern liturgies.

One of the issues killing the Vat 2 Church, besides bad bishops (many of whom are homosexuals themselves, as suggest above), is simply that we've not "turned the corner" on Homosexuality in our own minds. 

Turning the Corner on Homosexuality

By that I mean Homosexuality isn't an aggregate of individuals engaged in a particular kind of physical intimacy. It's greater than that. Just as democracy isn't just some city states here or there, or a nation now and then, that practice "rule by the people" but is instead a powerful, glorious (and dangerous to many), and even quite unstable, idea of government. And just as a national literature is more than merely a collection of authors over a period of time in one national language, but a "mystic chord of memory" (to quote Lincoln) that gives identity. Lincoln applied his phase to a shared history – and it works there too: literature and shared history can actually create a people and sustain them over time. Same with religion. Islam and Judaism and Christianity (and the others) are NOT just the private belief systems of accumulated individuals. They're life-shaping, cultural-defining angels of creation. Powerful. Real. Reality shifting. 

It is ironic that all of this insight modern culture denies. "Democracy isn't much, just a myth we told each other in the past, as we abused one another for our own gain. Literature and history are just pathetic narratives, woven mythologies design to fool the ignorant." 

And religion? "None of your business. Private. Subjective. Personal. And physically intimate relations, too: just what adults do with whom they want, or by themselves, and no one's concern." 

I am describing, of course, what Benedict XVI called the Dictatorship of Relativism.

So it is that many bishops – and a good portion of the modern Vatican II laity – haven't come to see how dangerous a thing Homosexuality itself is. (Note that I capitalize it here, but not in adjectival reference to individual homosexuals.) "What two (or more) individuals do in their privacy is no concern of anyone else. That they happen to be both males or females is immaterial." This is false, false manifestly, and deeply stupid. Only being so narcissistic an idea does it survive a moment's reflection, for we live in a Narcissistic age: for any society that doesn't believe its own history is going to blow apart. Any society that has no common literature or tongue will suffer the Curse of Babel. And any society that removes the ancient controls on sexual behavior turns vicious, misogynist, and childless. The histories of classical Greece and pagan Rome perfectly example this. 

The modern (and Modernist) bishops and laity see the trees, not the looming Mirkwood beyond, and certainly not the deeply embedded Dol Guldur in the dark heart of it. 

For just as with a company, or a government department, or a church, as well, the thing itself is greater than the sum of its parts. This is crucial to understand: regardless of the spiritual and moral state of individual homosexuals, regardless of their personal struggles with it, regardless of individuals and family members we know and love, and whatever pity their struggles should elicit in us, it is the thing itself, Homosexuality per se, what one might call "Corporate Homosexuality" that is the elephant in the room – or more precisely Xochipilli, the Aztec demon-god for the vice, for Homosexuality is indeed far more than the sum of any group of individual homosexuals. ("Gay" websites, i.e., websites supporting the "Gay Party Line", proudly list many, many such deities, not realizing these are demons, demons who are, obviously, "legion".)

It is essential, in other words, to "turn the corner" and realize we're not dealing only with individuals – important as they are, but a vice that has a mind of its own, a program that easily runs counter to what a great many individuals caught up it it want; it is a system contrary – not parallel to – traditional man-woman intimacy. And it is like a computer program that will, like a malware virus, rewrite the source code of civilization. (Assuming, as conservatives do, that Western Civilization is founded on one-man, one woman family life.)

Added to that, many Catholic hierarchs and their attendant minions don't think homosexuality is a sin. That Vatican II Church chestnut about homosexual attraction not being a sin, or perhaps in more modern language, "being gay" is not a sin, but acting on it is – is worthless. It is worthless because any gay ideologue will tell you the whole point is to "act on" it, to "be yourself" or "be true to what you are." Not to "live a lie" by being celibate. To be, in a word, "free" to be "out" and proud and not crippling yourself by somehow not practicing it. 

To put it in a more logical way: if feeling X is not a sin, then why is practicing X a sin? It's a classic Vatican II type of argument, almost self-contradictory and clearly not thought out. In contrast, Our Lord said if one even looks at a woman with lust, one commits adultery. That is a very high standard, indeed. But we live in a hedonistic world, such a relativist world, and clearly a very Narcissistic one, so naturally Xochipilli is widely worshiped. With "pride". 

Continued in Part II

An Préachán

A Response to Bill Donohue About that Wretch, Theodore McCarrick

Catholic League president Bill Donohue recently wrote a response to the revelations about Cardinal McCarrick. The well-known defender of the Church (via the Catholic League) wrote, in part:

A little over a year after assuming the reins of the Catholic League, I started exchanging letters with Newark Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. He was genuinely supportive of our efforts. On October 17, 1994, he wrote to me saying, “I have been speaking to the bishops of New Jersey at our Provincial meeting and encouraging them to support the work of the Catholic League in their own dioceses.”

Now he is bearing a heavy cross. The takeaway for me is clear. ...

Mr Donohue goes on to write what I suppose would be considered a muted and sympathetic essay in Christian charity, and ends by asking us to pray for Cardinal McCarrick.

Very nice, but utterly deficient.

Why? Because: Enough of this obscenity is enough, and we're long past "enough".

First of all, Mr Donohue has no way of knowing whether a congenital liar like McCarrick (who lied for decades about what he was "into", and who lied to all and sundry, up to and including a man the current pope has canonized: John Paul II) could remotely be "genuinely supportive of our efforts". Lying and falsely representing themselves is the essential problem with homosexual clerics: one has no way of knowing how honest they are about anything. Their lives are a lie, and they lie to cover that reality up.

The Homosexual Rape of the Church

Sin makes you stupid, or as Aquinas put it, "Sin darkens the intellect." In McCarrick's case – and in the case of all homosexuals in the clergy – sin makes liars of them as well, or they would have never been allowed into the clergy in the first place. They falsely represented themselves to get in, or had older homosexuals let them in, for "favors".

Liars, and thieves, too, they are: thieves spiritual, thieves physical (rape, molestation) and thieves of ecclesiastical reputation. They've destroyed the reputation of the Catholic Church. It will take 500 years of extremely serious efforts by all the clergy to even remotely begin to restore the Church's reputation. And homosexuality has devastated Church morale. It is incredible (in a literal sense) how devastated Church morale is by these perverts, worming their way into the vitals of the Church, like maggots or parasites. (They've gutted the "Vatican II" Church, certainly, and hastened its collapse.) Were the Church not divinely inspired and sustained, truly, it would die. Read the disgust and anguish of Michael Brendan Dougherty here, for an example:

An excerpt:

There is an undeniable psychological tension between my religious belief that I cannot have hope for salvation outside the visible, institutional Church and my honest conviction that of all the institutions and societies that intersect with my life, the Church is by far the most corrupt, the most morally lax, the most disillusioning, and the most dangerous for my children. In that tension, personal prayer will dry up like dew at noon.

That's how bad this situation is. But let us put it in historical perspective:

• The Protestant Reformation has been with us 500 years. It has gone a long way – via the "Vatican II Church" and the alterations of the Mass and all our other devotions – in turning the modern Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination (despite occasional claims otherwise).
• Islam has been with us 1400 years. It, too, is the "gift that keeps on giving". 
• And now we have a homosexual mafia burrowed into the heart of the Church, a true parasite apparently resisting every effort to remove it.

Make no mistake about any of them. All three of these crucifixions directly attack the central Christian revelation of the Incarnation.

• Islam is Christianity's "kill shot", denying the Incarnation root and branch, insisting that God is one person, not three, let alone not allowing one of them incarnating Himself to save us from sin.
• Protestantism accepts the Incarnation, certainly, but takes the reason for it away. All one has to do is call on the Lord and one is saved, having accepted God as one's Savior. (Romans 10:13; the most Protestant verse in the Bible).
• But Protestantism teaches this salvation requires no change of one's nature. We are, as Luther said, Simul Justus et Peccator, simultaneously justified before God but also still a sinner, or as he metaphorically put it, we are each a manure pile covered with snow, the snow being God's grace and the manure pile our permanent human (fallen) nature. (This is, of course, grotesque; see C.S. Lewis' questioning of this teaching in his 10th Letter to Malcolm, in Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer, for one example of a push back against the notion.)
• This foundational Protestant idea denies the New Testament doctrine that Christians are now a new creation in Christ, that our nature is changed; indeed, that we are "born again" by the Holy Spirit through baptism and reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, which changes our nature through what the Greeks call theosis, and the West, Divinization. For example:

·   St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]

·   St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

·   This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)

·   2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

• It is because of this change in our nature that Catholicism has always been adamantly set against sin. Sin can have no place in a Christian's life, as St. Paul teaches throughout his writings. (Example: 1 Cor 6:9-11) But because the modern (and Modernist) Church is essentially Protestant – Luther famously wrote that he could sin many times a day and it not affect his assurance of salvation – it now teaches that we cannot live up to the moral law, and must accept moral failure and yet have no fear of our salvation, because the Church essentially now accepts Simul Justus et Peccator.
  

What Homosexuality Demands

Now, what homosexuality does is to create a third cross for Christianity to bear: whereas Islam denies the Incarnation essentially, and Protestantism denies the Incarnation as necessary for our theosis, and denies theosis essentially, so "GayChurch" now embraces "incarnation" in a wholly prurient, carnal, and libidinous sense: we are sex objects to violate. Isn't THAT what the homosexual clergy do? They violate: they violate their vows and the Ten Commandments as much as they violate altar boys and seminarians. And of these three crucifixions: denying the reality of the Incarnation, misunderstanding the salvic nature of the Incarnation, or literally buggering the Incarnation, which is obviously worse? (N.B. Traditional Arabic Islamic culture is one of the most homosexual on Earth, despite Koranic teaching; and Protestantism never had any relationship to homosexuality except to condemn it, until the latter 20th century when "mainline" Protestant Churches embraced it. More traditional types of Protestantism continue to reject it, of course. The Catholic Church is torn between these positions; Traditional Catholicism continues to uphold the ancient teaching, with Progressive Catholics going the mainline Protestant route.) 

So, therefore, with all this in mind and reminding everyone I am not God, and do not make final judgements on anyone's soul's eternal fate, I answer Mr Donohue thusly, (and certainly do not think it is "over the top"): Pray for Cardinal McCarrick? I myself pray for Cardinal McCarrick, alright. Indeed, in an utmost earnest fervor, I pray that he go to Hell quickly – if that is his destiny. I am not God and I cannot send him there, but he ought to go. Few deserve it more. Why? He has spent decades upon decades lying, bearing false witness, coveting the bodies of young men in his charge, imposing himself on them, perhaps murdering their salvation, and blaspheming and directly insulting God Himself, all Three Persons, but especially the Second and Third. (Allegations that these evils were few in number or long ago are irrelevant: it happened, and it no doubt happened many more times than reported; and McCarrick lied about it for decades.) Theodore McCarrick is a soul vampire, an undead who recreates his hideousness in the young men he's violated.

Dante put homosexuals in the Seventh Circle of Hell, below even murderers and suicides. Considering what McCarrick and those like him have done over long lives, it is, simply, quite apropos.

He can go join "Franny" Spellmen in the bottom of the seventh circle of Hell. At least he won't lack for company.

N.B. Not I do not say McCarrick is unforgivable. Were he to "come out" and admit all, instead of hiding behind the Church's lawyers, as he is doing right now – were he to "name names" and finally, for once in a long life of soul-damning deceit, be honest – maybe he can avoid the serious possibility of Hell that he now faces. But don't hold your breath. "Sin darkens the intellect", indeed. And the last thing the GayChurch wants is true conversion.

An Préachán

The Suicide Rate Suggests How Ill Western Civilization Is

The "Kirk Wager" and the suicide rate: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/the-kirk-wager/

An essay by Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club

An excerpt:

What if humanity is no longer sacred to itself and too few can be persuaded to make the Kirk Wager? Then we should observe what we actually see. The epidemic of suicide and the collapsing demography of the West. America's "suicide rate keeps rising, but nobody plans on doing anything about it," says Foreign Policy, calling it a national security issue. "Imagine if more than 40,000 people a year died from terrorist attacks in this country?" But 40,000 American suicides a year is peanuts compared to what Europe is doing to itself. Joel Kotkin in Forbes reels off the demographic numbers:

The most important EU country, Germany, has endured demographic decline for over a generation. Germany’s population is forecast to drop 7.7% by 2050 ... we can expect Germany to shrink as well as get very old ... Bulgaria’s population expected to shrink 27% by 2050 and Romania’s 22%. ... Things are not that much better in Western Europe, where fertility rates are also below replacement rates, but not quite so low. Long-term, the only option for Europe may be to allow more immigration, particularly from Africa and the Middle East, although this may be impossible due to growing political resistance to immigration.

Unless changed it will proceed inexorably.  As Thomas Andrews was reported to have told Captain Smith "the pumps will buy you time, but minutes only. From this moment on, no matter what we do, Titanic will founder. It is a mathematical certainty."

France: 20 percent of new priestly ordinations are in Trad Groups

https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/

The handwriting is on the wall. It may take a while, and the Gay-old Vatican II Church will drag its feet, (knees?) kicking and screaming all the way to utter irrelevance. But "the steady drop wears the rock." That's especially true as more and more Vat2 hotshots like "Uncle Teddy" McCarrick are drug out of the closet.

True, 20 percent is small in the overall scheme of things. But the "voting with their feet" momentum is on the side of Tradition, A, and B, there's no sign that the lame-brained Vat2 Church "gets it" about homosexuality. (McCarrick, again.) Just a minor (or not so minor) point, too, is money, as in contributions. The Vatican would have been insolvent and sold off at Helsinki fire-sale prices some time ago were it not for the fabulously wealthy German Church funding it, and the fabulously wealthy German Church is only fabulously wealthy because of that outrageous and unjust Church Tax Germany has. 

In a real sense, the Vat2 Church outside of Germany is broke, economically and spiritually. Yes, yes, of course, there are always exceptions, here and there; but I wish I had a good old U.S. dollar for every article I've seen in the past two years predicting a massive fall-off of Catholic Church attendance that's coming, and parish (and even dioceses) closing. The Vat 2 Church is a house of cards. If the American Catholic Church didn't get a bunch of money from the Federalis for bringing in tens of thousands of poor, illegal immigrants, it, too, would be openly, in-your-face bankrupt. See:

Catholic Bishops’ Support For Open Borders Hides Self-Serving Politics

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently rewrote a quadrennial advisory for Catholic voters. The timing appears geared toward influencing the 2018 midterms.

July 3, 2018 By Maureen Mullarkey

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/catholic-bishops-push-progressivism-in-the-guise-of-a-conscience-guide/

Main article:https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/

An excerpt:

As reported today by the Catholic Herald U.K. (from a La Croix article), French ordinations in 2018 paint a very clear picture as to where vocations are booming, and where they are a bust. Not surprisingly the trend is consistent with what we’ve seen elsewhere. Tradition (authenticity) is literally the future of the Church.

According to the Herald, 20 percent of the 114 men ordained to the priesthood in France this year belong to traditional or classical orders or societies. One out of five. These include three ordinations for the Institute of the Good Shepherd, two for the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) and two for the Institute of Christ the King.

Compare this with the diocesan parishes, firmly grounded in the Novus Ordo Mass and post-conciliarism, where approximately 60% of the country’s 96 dioceses have zero ordinations this year. Zero. In 58 French dioceses. Zero.

PS: I also came across a great Comment in an article on the Trad Mass here:

https://onepeterfive.com/spiritual-works-of-mercy-a-contemporary-retelling-of-matthew-2531-46/

Comment:

kiwiinamerica • 4 days ago

It may interest you all to know that the third spiritual work of mercy has now been revised and updated.

We no longer "admonish the sinner". We now "accompany the sinner".

Thank you for your attention you "rigid", "self absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagians".

Admonish the (Modernist) Sinner

When you meet someone calling you "racist", respond with "baby killer". When they explode the first time, say, "You support abortion, right? Abortion kills three times as many black babies as white, so you're both racist and a baby killer."

Something similar needs to be done here regarding these non-Catholic Catholics. "Not Catholic!" I guess would be the comment to anyone promoting gays in the priesthood, or womyn priests (priestesses) or whatever it might be, such as Liberation Church. "Not Catholic." If they go after you with some sort of  rejoinder to "Not Catholic!", just say, "The Church existed for 1963 years without teaching what it does now. The majority of bishops and priests in the world still hold and teach the traditional Catholic Faith. I'm with them, not you. The Not Catholic, you."

Something like that. I write this both because it is time to "admonish the sinner" and because the time for reasoning with these intellectual louts, these spiritual thugs, is over. 60 years of Vat2 and now Bergoglio, and it's obvious who the sinners are, and they need admonished. Their spiritual bullying stops now, too, and stops first in our our spirits.

RC

China Africa, nasty Westerners, and Reparation: an answer to a Leftist

Someone of the Left wrote recently about some comments of mine a relatively standard Leftist response. I took some time to reply. Here it is, first, the Leftist. For the most part, I left the spelling as it was written.

{T]he biggest issues are missing  from [An Préachán]s analysis. they are: slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism. trillions spent on arms race, and now trum [Trump] wants to colonize the space. terrorism has cost europe 200 billion euros in ten years, fine. how much is the worth of all the human and material resources stolen from Africa? a thousand times as much? ten thousand times as much? and now these poor africans are trying to cross the med. just for the opportunity to make a small living for themselves and their families that they left behind. the truth is the only way to save white man's honor a small bit is a massive marshall plan type of program in africa to stop the desperate migration. the ultimate truth is that we have created a barbarian civilisation based on money and power run  by ignorant and selfish people like trump. it cannot last, it is sooner or later doomed. this utter nationalism and global capitalism is a disaster: the inequality is unbearable, the rich are getting richer, some are getting crumbs, and the poor are getting poorer.

[name]

My rejoinder: 

In response, I'd express a couple of basic ideas. First, in general, one has to deal with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. Second, an individual may well feel responsible for their ancestors' wretched behavior, and try to do something about it, sure, but depriving your own children in order to repay strangers for some ancestral sin won't sit well with your children.

This is just human nature.

Then, as for past colonialism justifying current invasions, consider:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/30/china-targets-africa-with-debt-trap-diplomacy-and-military-expansion/

According to a recent report, Chinese investment in Africa could create national economies entirely dependent on China.

Although infrastructure projects can create jobs, provide an opportunity for skills development and the transfer of new technologies, Chinese loans  amounting to more than $86 billion bring dangerously high levels of debt that can prove unsustainable for vulnerable African nations.

The lure of short-term benefits for developing or troubled economies while masking long-term burdens is exactly the scenario now playing out in Pakistan, which is becoming progressively subjugated by Chinese loan-based investment

Africa faces immediate, dire, chilling "recolonization" by China. This is extremely important to know about and to call everyone's attention to.

Besides this, Africa has myriad problems we can't solve. One small example: South Africa is driving out its Whites. Someone might say, "Good! They deserve it!" but only a certain type of mind will agree with you. Everyone else sees such a development as both unjust and "racist". Also, as noted above, Africa is being exploited today -- and the Chinese are big into that. They're investing heavily in Africa, and have a military base somewhere in the Horn of Africa now. The point: Does anyone think the Chinese give a damn about "past wrongs" or "colonialism". (Try going to their embassy and protesting their actions.) True, they too were taken advantage of in that way in the past, just look up the Opium War for an example of Western perfidy. But the Opium War doesn't mean modern Britain should be invaded by the Red Chinese People's Liberation Army.

Of course, perhaps you'd still rather live as a subject of the Red Dragon than as a British colonial. Fine. But that's your decision. Others don't have to take it, and it is unjust to force it on them.

More generally about "nations" and "nationalism": People are born into nations that have languages and culture, both language and culture being traditional and rooted in the soil and also in their ancestors' past lives and in the lives and experience of the current generation. It's a holistic experience to be Irish, or German, or Magyar, or whatever. You can't just tell them to forget it, pack up, move aside, go away as their nations now belong to X, or is it Y? Maybe Z. Whoever, someone who able to make a claim that their ancestors were taken advantage of in the past. But beware: people will react very negatively to that.

That's a great way, in short, to start a revolution. And get yourself in serious trouble with everyone around you.

Also, there's no argument in: "My grandfather owned your grandfather, so I have to give you my house." You, yourself, if you want, can do that, but then the obvious question is, (again, as noted above) where do your wife and kids live? You usurp their rights to an identity. Not to mention a home. And what would your brothers and sisters say? And as noted, try to do that to your neighbors and they might attack you.

Bottom line: One generation can't owe its contemporaries for previous generations' sins. First of all, it is simply unjust. But practically, who could possibly determine how much would be owed, and then who would have the power force the redistribution? And then, thirdly, to whom would such redistribution go? Fourthly, who could handle the social upheaval and civil war that would result?

Yet it is the inherent injustice of the idea that prohibits it. An individual is owed the respect every human owes another, and that includes respect for their person and their private property; without respect for private property, we have nothing, because all we have can be taken away. Also, it is theft to take from someone who has done nothing wrong, even if one's ancestors manifestly did not show the natural respect one human owes another.

Example: How could I, being Irish, demand of the English (many of whom are of Irish descent) that they give me a bunch of money because they starved my ancestral family to death, all except for the two who escaped, one to American and the other to Australia?

Then there's slavery today. Sex slavery (usually). We need to stop that before we pontificate on reparation for our ancestors acts. In England, now, today, literally thousands of young English girls have been treated as "sex slaves" by Muslim immigrants and/or their English-born children. That's not something from the past, but all too very much in the present. Or would you dare to consider such repeated rape a good atonement for England's rule of India (and Pakistan)? A just comeuppance?

Related to all this is the perennial and unstoppable problem with Socialism. Socialism is an utopian idea; people simply won't work for free. Elizabeth once told me she thought being a doctor was like being a priest, one did it for conviction, not pay. Well, treat doctors like that and you won't have too many of them.

Far more to the point, [the author] brings ups slavery and colonialism. Islam was essentially -- aside from its famous handful of philosophers who managed to exist for a time after the Asherite takeover -- was a slave-trading empire. From the very beginning, it was all about slaves. Entire peoples were moved about the Middle East by Muslim rulers of various dynasties, and the great city of Alexandria, a wonder of the ancient world and the only purely intellectual and commerce-founded city in the ancient Mediterranean world, in one generation was turned into a fishing village. The Arab conquerors didn't know how to govern it, or even what it was for. So, when the populace rebelled (they were famously hard to rule) the emirs killed off a third of them, sold another third directly into slavery, and moved the rest to their new Egyptian capital city of Cairo.

Problem of what to do with Alexandria solved.

Also, something most of you don't know about: the Viking Age was funded by Arab silver. Arab slave markets on the Black Sea and the Caspian paid Swedes to run newly acquired slaves down the Russian rivers from the Baltic. The Norwegians and Danes captured the slaves in Western Europe and ran then over to the Swedes in the Baltic. So on and so forth.

In other words, why bemoan "the West's" "slavery, neo-colonialism, and imperialism" when it has always been a central element to Islam, and even humanity in general. They've always done so. They still do so. Act today to stop it today.

Finally, as for Trump being, as the Leftist puts it: "ignorant and selfish", well, guess what? Black Americans are doing much better financially under Trump than they ever did under Obama, and indeed, all Americans (legal ones) are doing much better financially under Trump. Jobs, money, companies, all are "coming home" to America, and Trump's popularity keep rising. It's not super high, of course. But it keeps rising slowly. National feeling is strong. And that's just natural, too.

Pretty good for a guy both ignorant and selfish.

An Préachán

Truth About Islam and Fascism

Many folks, whether people of the Left or Middle, seem to argue that Trump's travel ban is xenophobic and racist and that it "demonizes" Islam. Also, that the travel ban (and many other issues) represent a turn of the United States toward "Fascism". 

The Mainstream Media is full of such commentary.

There's an underlying premise here in these arguments, and that is that all cultures are the same, in the end, because all people are the same, bottom line. Sort of like George W. Bush's idea that Muslims everywhere were really wanting "tolerant" Western-style democracies. (I'm sure the Left would find it abhorrent to have anything in common with Bush.) Or that Islam is a good thing, or at least no worse than, say, Methodist or Lutherans are. 

Bush insisted Islam was a good thing. After 9/11, Bush said "Islam" means "Peace". Of course it doesn't. It means "Submission." Somehow Bush didn't know that. (Or, more likely, didn't dare say it.)

In fact, today it is considered outrageous, colonial, racist, and God-knows-what-else to bring up any criticism of Islam.

This "we're all equal" is an underlying premise of all "multi-kulti" ideas. For example, a Leftist I know wrote, "sctotus has just approved trump's ban of travel from seven muslim countries. this is worse than islamophobia, it's demonisation of islam," [sic]

To that I'd answer in specifics:

A: The majority of Muslim nations are not on the travel ban.

B. Many exceptions exist even for the countries that are on the ban.

C. We don't need to "demonize" Islam. It does that itself. Check this article out:

An excerpt: This Cost of Non-Europe report argues that since 2004, terrorism has cost the EU about €185 billion in lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and around €5.6 billion in lost lives, injuries, and damage to infrastructure.

Now that is, of course, a bottom line that Western intellectuals and leaders have to finally come to terms with. And they must do so whether they like it or not, or whether it is politically correct or not. It is also a bottom line that the actual European-born people have to actually pay -- in money (and in blood)!

And it is insane. Europe is -- purely in financial terms, leaving aside all the personal pain and cultural disruption -- bleeding itself to death trying to keep local Muslims in control, and more Muslims out. The next couple of decades will decide whether Europe continues to exist at all, and that is the ultimate "bottom line".

So no, no non-Muslim needs to demonize Islam. Far too many Muslims (a minority, but a large minority) are only too willing to demonize it themselves. Therefore, it seems the underlying premise that Muslims are no different than anyone else is flawed. (This naturally refers to the aggregate, not various individuals you may know, or think you know.)

Personally, I've been studying Islam (and the monotheistic religions in general) for a solid 40 years now, and all I can say is that someone who has not read the famous philosopher, mystic, and theologian Al-Ghazali (the Gazelle) 1058 – 1111, or who isn't conversant with the battle between the Asherites and the Mutazilites that went on from the two centuries before Al-Ghazali, just doesn't know enough about Islam to say much of anything.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is cultural imperialism NOT to study and understand all this. If you don't study Islam, you don't respect it. Ultimately, far too many Westerners think both religion and philosophy unimportant -- all religions, all philosophy. They could not be more wrong.

This is extremely important. The Asherites won that battle and Islam became essentially an anti-intellectual creed, and this manifests itself today in myriads of ways. The famous Spanish Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126 - 1198), born only 15 years after Al-Ghazali died, his life is also extremely important to know, as how he suffered when the Asherites finally came to Muslim Spain. It's the reason ibn Rushd was the last famous Muslim philosopher.

The other issue I'd bring up is "Fascism". Mussolini coined the term post-WWI, when he, an old-time Communist, created the whole Fascist idea, crossing Socialism with Nationalism. Fascism isn't something of the "Right" but the Left. Hitler was once asked why, since he was a National Socialist, he didn't nationalize the German companies. He laughed and said he had nationalized the German people, and so didn't need to nationalize the companies.

And ironically, the first true Fascist state was created in the United States when then President Woodrow Wilson took the U.S. into World War I. It became a crime to criticize that decision, and U.S. citizens who were German-speakers were penalized and spied on, and children in school (not just German-speaking kids) were encouraged to spy on their parents. The Irish in the US were also singled out this way. 

Woody was a Democrat, too, not a Republican.

Of course, the word "fascism" hadn't even been coined yet.

Now we have massive evidence that the Obama administration "weaponized" the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and so  on, to spy on Americans involved in political campaigns. People used to make fun of Trump for saying he was spied on. Turns out he was spied on. But this also happened "back in the day". Lyndon Baines Johnson used the FBI to spy on the Nixon campaign, but Nixon, in his turn, hired private contractors to do that, and he was caught and "Watergate" ensued, but LBJ, who "weaponized" the FBI then, and who got us massively involved in Vietnam, was never brought to account.

In other words, "fascism" is a useless term to toss around, except as a weapon. I used to like Garrison Keillor, the US public radio "Prairie Home Companion" funnyman. But then about four or so years ago, before he was brought down by a sexual harassment allegation, I heard him say of Republicans that they were "Brownshirts in pinstripes".

Nothing could be more grotesque, nothing more stupid, nothing more asinine.

Nothing, in short, could be more ignorant. And damning.

RC