Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Prof Kwasniewski's Futility, Pius IX, and Pope Francis' Criminality - Updated

Amici,

It's been all over the Catholic news, Professor Kwasniewski's Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis. (Read its full statement here at Lifesite.) I think it is not exactly an exercise in absolute futility, but it is badly flawed, and even actually incoherent, as Louie Verrecchio explains in great detail and insight here at AKA Catholic

If it has any value besides grandstanding for the ridiculous and anti-Catholic "Resist the Pope" movement, of which Prof Kwasniewski serves as the great cheerleader, I think that value lies in its listing the crimes of Bergoglio. And I mean actual civil law crimes. The document details crime after crime. Bergoglio is a monster. Period.

The Papacy
Look, the Catholic (Universal) Apostolic Church has spent 2,000 years strengthening the pope's role. The Orthodox autocephalous Churches prissily dismiss the obvious. The Protestants do too, all so they can be their own popes. Whatever. But the Church probably went overboard at Vatican I regarding the importance of the Papacy. 
  • I never had the feeling Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus was quite correct, and Pius IX himself haughtily said, "I am the tradition," like Louis XIV said "I am the state". What hubris! But who am I to pick and choose? 
  • Pius chose his poison and thus now we have to swallow it via a (I believe anti-)pope saying, "I am the Church, and I am changing it into something totally different, and there's no going back!" 
  • Bergoglio pretends to be a Mormon Prophet President who can remake anything Catholic at a whim. It's insane. His toadies and creatures make out Bergoglio to be a prophet sent from God. Forsooth! 
  • Yet what does Prof Kwasniewski want? The cardinals to be able to impeach a pope by two-thirds vote? Or a Supreme Court set up somehow, independent of the Papacy?
The great saints and doctors of the Church long before Pius IX made it plain enough: a formal heretic can't be Catholic, let alone pope. Should one manifest, we should refuse him obedience. (Hear that, Bishop Strickland?) Bergoglio clearly teaches heresy. Has done, is doing so. He's literally Hell-bent on it. Ergo, ipso facto, he is not now, and probably never was, a valid pope. You do not "resist" such a person, you utterly ignore him. He has no validity. 

Crimes
Beyond all that, however, my friends (and anyone reading this), Jorge Mario Bergoglio is guilty of actual civil crimes, specifically (but not limited to) protecting child molesters and rapists. And of course that nun-rapist "artist" Marko Rupnik. All of these monsters are obscenely evil. Bergoglio protects them. The 'Call for Resignation' goes to great lengths to list in some detail a large number of Bergoglio's crimes. Finally! The man ought to be arrested and imprisoned. 
  1. In America, bishops in favor in Rome need not worry about covering up such evil. They can do as they please, as we see every day.
  2. A bishop who is orthodox, however, finds "covering up sex crimes" a perfect way to be "cancelled", as was Bishop Robert Finn, forced out in 2015 for a minor situation that – compared to today's filth – was insignificant. 
  3. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, whom apparently everyone in the U.S. hierarchy knew for decades was an insane seminarian Xōchipilli, god of Aztec homosexuality, raping seminarians, who got away with it till Archbishop Viganò and Pope Benedict put him on ice, only to have the evil Toad-Ogre generalissimo from Argentina rehabilitate McCarrick and send him to China to sell out Chinese Christians.
  4. BTW, Bergoglio needs to be charged with simony, as well, for he certainly betrayed the Chinese Catholics for filthy lucre.
  5. Bergoglio only removed McCarrick finally when the putrid stink of it all began making his own toady press corps vomit. 
What I find astounding is how Bergoglio so clearly exhibits being a product of a Vatican II rotten Church hierarchy that allowed the sex scandal to metastasize for so long. Way back in 1985, a certain Father Thomas Doyle raised the alarm of clerical sex abuse but the hierarchy in the form of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which ought not to have ever existed; thank you Vatican II for a wholly useless "teat on a boar hog") ignored Doyle. Then a few cases occurred until 2002, when all hell broke loose with Fr. John Geoghan exploding the clergy sexual abuse hell-on-earth in Boston. (The local bishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had to admit receiving a letter in 1984 about Geoghan which, of course, he "round filled". It was Bishop Joseph Strickland whom I remember reading – in an article I cannot find now, since his cancellation dominates the news – told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual meeting that nothing had really been done about this mess, which sealed his own "molestation" order (being cancelled by Bergoglio).
  • This was probably in or shortly after 2016, when the National Catholic Register reports 'In late 2016, the plainspoken prelate changed his approach, from what he calls a “management bishop” to teaching the Catholic faith aggressively, including its controversial parts. He eventually began calling out others publicly when he considered their actions deficient, including Pope Francis.' 
  • But Bishop Strickland didn't add two plus two together, and STILL says Bergoglio is pope, and thus abandoned his flock to Hell Hounds on the order of an anti-pope.
In any event, Bergoglio is part and parcel of this sex abuse mess. He became an Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992. His higher career parallels the trajectory of abuse allegations. True, he himself has never personally been linked to sex abuse EXCEPT in covering up predators; obviously, he has no excuse about being ignorant of what was going on. It probably has something to do with Juan Perón's dictum, "For our friends: everything. For our enemies: not even justice." (Isn't that exactly how NY Judge Juan Merchan is treating Trump? Merchan is a Colombian ex-pat!) A priest compromised by abuse allegations is a much more useful tool and toady for an unscrupulous ladder climber like Bergoglio than one having a sterling reputation.

The Kicker
Whatever the case, the Kicker is that just as the horrific, insane abuse allegations and then the evidence of actual crimes became manifest, Catholics experienced tremendous difficultly accepting the reality. It was just too horrible. And now we have a "pope" who embodies the worse aspects of Vatican II, the modernist heresy, and grotesque repudiation of everything that is actually Catholic, ESPECIALLY the most Catholic thing of all, its Traditional rites. AND HE IS A CRIMINAL TO BOOT!

Thank you Pius IX for making this mess, you and your arrogant "I am the tradition". Had you just left it the way it was, a good pope would in no way be hindered in doing his job – defending and teaching the Deposit of Faith (i.e. Tradition) and "strengthening his brothers" – while a bad pope wouldn't be so "teflon" as to escape all consequences of being a tool of Satan. Which is what we've got now.

Bergoglio is a minion of Satan, and his new Synodal Church from which he and his cronies insist there's no going back from, is a Satanic anti-Church 'Ape of the Church', and I for one reject him and all his works, root and branch.

I categorically refuse to be driven mad by the obvious cognitive dissonance of trying to believe Wild Boar Bergoglio is a valid Pope. The modernist heretics behind Vatican II and the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" manipulated the gullible John 23rd, elected the feckless Paul 6, killed John Paul I and hindered and misled John Paul II, and kicked out Benedict. These popes all had modernist tendencies but bore nothing in themselves of the outright apostasy Bergoglio evinces every hour of every day, seven days a week.

Enough of Bergoglio and his madness!

AnP

Vatican invites Gavin Newsom, other pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Democrats to speak at climate event
As with everything else regarding Bergoglio, nothing about this is Catholic. NOTHING. Bergoglio is favoring "Catholics" who are abortionists and the unrepentant sexually deviant and therefore damned – about a fake "climate crisis" that only exists as an excuse to depopulate, to 'cull", humans from the Earth! Bergoglio is insanely evil and he just keeps going and going without major opposition. 

This must be the Great Apostasy. 



Friday, May 3, 2024

"The Church has buried every one of her undertakers." The Catholic Reconquista examined

Amici,

Funny, but I've said something like the title quote on the Church outlasting her critics – not so pithily – to a number of Protestant acquaintances over the decades. They've always scoffed; they don't understand the Incarnation, its necessity, and our participation in God's Incarnation as constituting salvation, our being a new creation in Christ (they're kinda Jewish or Muslim, actually), so they remain on the outside of the Traditional Apostolic Christian Faith. Unlike Jews and Muslims, Protestant acknowledge the Incarnation, sure, but they don't get the ramifications of what it means. And hence, they scoff at the necessity of the Church and its sacraments. "All you need is Jesus," they say, meaning talismanic belief divorced from corporal act. 
  1. The truth is, however, that God Incarnate set up the incarnate and sacramental Church via His Incarnation and His orders to the Apostles about baptism of course, the Holy Eucharist, Confession (for this sacrament, see: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." St. John 20:21-23); the laying on of hands for Confirmation: Acts 8:14-17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2; healing the sick via anointing with oil: Mark 6:13, James 5:14, etc.; all physical acts that transfigured via the Incarnation infuse grace, making us new creations in Christ.
  2. We Catholics put up with the clergy in order to receive these sacraments, the visible signs of God's infusion of grace into our being – physical and spiritual – what the Greeks call Theosis. Any clergy that deny or restrict the sacraments are anathema. Remember that.
  3. Vatican II fell upon us as the 16th century Reformation Come Again, a Reformation 2.0, trying to Protestantize, i.e. de-incarnationalize or hyper-spiritualize the Western Church, and while this dolorous 'church" seems to have made many conquests, it is failing, too. God is simply not with it. For always remember what Gamaliel said of Christianity. If it doesn't come from God, he told his fellow Jews, it will die out of its own accord, but if it does come from God, you cannot fight against it and will find yourselves opposing God; Acts 5:34-39. And indeed, the Church has "buried its undertakers" since Gamaliel's day. (Curious how Jews still don't listen to Gamaliel, isn't it?)
Now here again in this article linked below is a mainstream news report about the Traditional Church making a comeback. ‘A step back in time': America’s Catholic Church sees an immense shift toward the old ways.

"Who laughs last, laughs best" goes the old saying. May it be true. As readers of this unworthy blog know, your correspondent remains an unreformed Catholic, and Latin Masser, a Pius X Catholic, and something of a Counter-Reformation Catholic (with a good dose of Celtic Church thrown in), so I read an article such as this one above with a cautious joy. (By the way, hat-tip to Frank Walkers at Canon212 for referencing a Fr. Zuhlsdorf article about this article on his blog.)

It's not a bad investigation, as these mainstream news reports go, though one has to be careful since the author sets up various 'straw-men arguments" as Anthony Stine points out here. Yet even so, it is especially valuable, I think, for its continuous expression of bewilderment so many Vatican II Catholics experience about the Reconquista, the Return to Orthodoxy. They just don't get it. Fr. Zuhlsdorf has some comments about it but what struck me was the obdurate stubbornness of Vatican II Catholics simply refusing to participate in the Catholic Reconquista. It's beyond them. In fact, it is obvious that they are become Protestants. One woman quoted excoriates this return to tradition, and says she has left the Church and won't raise her daughter as a Catholic. Well, Mrs Obdurate, you were obviously raising your kid as an Episcopalian anyway, so go literally join that Church, then. They are about dead, that Church, and need new members. (I write this with sarcasm.)

The article reports how younger priests are more orthodox (or "conservative" as modernists would have it), more Traditionalist. The author, who has the very Irish name of Tim Sullivan ("Timothy" was a name the Irish used when they switched to English, changing the old Celtic name Tadhg to "Tim"), writes:
The progressive priests who dominated the U.S. church in the years after Vatican II are now in their 70s and 80s. Many are retired. Some are dead. Younger priests, surveys show, are far more conservative.
I must hasten to write we should pray for those old farts, so full, alas, of a false Catholicism. And all this, of course, against the very strong Vatican II headwinds, exemplified by that blowhard Bergoglio (another one we should pray for, for his conversion before it is too late), who is also quoted:
And the pope clearly worries about America.
The U.S. church has “a very strong reactionary attitude,” he told a group of Jesuits last year. “Being backward-looking is useless.”

Thanks, Bergi, for being a shallow martinet worshiping at the altar of the mindless imp named "Progress". Your anti-American Perónista skirts are showing, BTW. You've canned Bishop Strickland and are making noises about cracking down on the American Church, haha, as if you were really a pope rather than an heretical imposter. Yet note that the above bit about "progress" was a constant and standard Vatican II refrain: "You can't go against progress!" 
  • Yeah, and when you finally pass from this world, Bergi, you can join all your fellow Progressives progressing to wherever Progressives progress to. What was it King Caspian said? "Progress! I have seen it in an egg, We call it going bad in Narnia". (IIRC, from memory.)
I remember many years ago some enterprising American journalist sent a questionnaire around to Liberal/Leftist/Progressive U.S. Congressmen and Senators, trying to ascertain how much Progress they thought would be enough. They kept harping on change and progress; alright, well, the journalist asked, just when would they say, "OK, we've reached our goals and have enough progress?" 
  • Of course, none of the idiots could answer. They hadn't a clue. 
The nebulous idea of Progress in itself had become the goal, like insisting on traveling without a destination except toward some vague Utopia. That's Vatican II in a nutshell. And that's why it is dying: it is going absolutely nowhere, and fast.

The orthodox Catholics reported on in the article, though, they want to go somewhere. They want to embrace the Incarnation, and the Most Holy Spirit is directing them right back onto the correct road to that. If one has to "go back" to find the right road, so be it. Only a fool, or a Vatican IIer, fast becoming a Synod Churcher (or maybe a Jew or Muslim or at least a One World Religioner), would keep on going into the gathering darkness.

The Reconquista cannot be stopped. The Holy Ghost clearly wills it.

An Préachán



Tuesday, April 23, 2024

They need Christ more than ever; instead, they seem to have Simon bar Kokhba come again

Friends, and
To all those defending Israel:

Every time I write one of my essays here, the world is exponentially worse than it was when I wrote the last epistle. I despair of it. God is gonna have to fix it.
  • The American government is a disaster; it is totally NOT representing the American people.
  • The Catholic Church is a disaster, if you count the official Church as the full Catholic Church, that is. If you think Bergoglio is pope or his regime in remotely CATHOLIC, then I despair for you.
    • But I certainly despair of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It's a hopeless mess, and has been that way since the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. For Israel, it would take a King Solomon come again to try to bring either justice or peace to this fiasco, or most importantly of all, they need Jesus. (I'll probably be labeled an "antisemite" for saying that. Imagine my response.)
If anyone ever needed Jesus...
If anyone anywhere ever "needed Jesus", it is the Jews and Arabs. But instead of Jesus, the Israelis got Simon bar Kokhba come again.
  1. Ok, so who was Simon bar Kokhba? A warrior, the last of the Zealot types Our Lord Christ knew a century earlier. Zealots were those Jews who wanted to fight the Romans with war (or terror, however you want to put it), like the Irish Republican Army wanted to fight the British. They had their big moment in 66 A.D. when the First Jewish War began. Zealots held Jerusalem for four years before the Romans destroyed it – and most of them, along with a million or so other Jews – in 70 A.D.
  2. Barabbas was one of these insurrectionists 40 years earlier in Jesus' time. St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary and the composer of St. Mark's gospel, describes Barabbas (in 15:7) as “The man named Barabbas [who] had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” That would definitely be a Zealot.
  3. Simon bar Kokhba himself was the last and maybe the greatest – in terms of power and cruelty, if not military skill – of all Zealots. He fought the Romans (when they tried to ban circumcision and force Jewish assimilation) and "the greatest rabbi of the time", Akiva ben Yosef, apparently claimed for him Davidic descent and might have given him the name bar Kokhba, which means son of the star, a messianic reference. 
Whatever about all that, when the Romans finally defeated bar Kokhba in 135 A.D., they killed 800,000 of his followers, and probably more than a million Jews died, all told. So, the Jewish people collectively chose Barabbas instead of Jesus, and 40 years later the Zealot leaders of 66 A.D., and in 132 A.D., Simon bar Kokhba. All these Zealots did was lead the Jews to catastrophe. Now they have Benjamin Netanyahu. 

The Jewish perspective
From the Jewish perspective, it ought to be a simple calculus. "We want our own nation, and we want it to be a Jewish nation, not a country where 'Jews also live'". After the bar Kokhba revolt, Jews remained scattered for two millennia, basically, and while often persecuted, they also took advantage of what opportunities they could, as well. That in itself caused them to be hated. It was like a curse: they're dispossessed and despoiled, a stateless nation who thereby incur contempt and loathing; yet when they become wealthy bankers and powerful influencers, they're hated all the more. A no-win situation.

Maybe they should not have chosen Barabbas. Or the Zealots of 66 A.D. Or Simon son of the Star, heir of David. Or just maybe Pontius Pilate got the last laugh when he maneuvered them into shouting "Crucify the Peacenik and give us the terrorist!" 

Zionism
Eventually, toward the end of the 19th century, European Jews began the Zionist Movement. The Jews supporting this romantic colonization theory (not all that many did, actually) left Europe and entered the Ottoman lower Syrian desert by hook and crook and began removing – none too gently one can surmise  many of the native inhabitants. (Jews in Europe often bought the land from Turkish absentee landlords living in Istanbul, and then European settlers showed up who told the locals to clear off.)  
  1. Again, they wanted their own state – a JEWISH one – and European Jews who embraced Zionism planted European Jews in the southern Levant. 
  2. Did the Zionist promoters have a plan about the Arabs? I don't know. Did they suspect the locals would rebel? I don't know.
  3. The whole Zionist idea was so quixotic that most everyone probably thought it would fail, I would guess.
  4. Events in Europe under the Nazis and the horrors of the Holocaust sort of eventually proved the Zionist argument, however, or so the non-Muslim world thought. The Catholic Vatican II Church has certainly bent over backwards to apologize to Jews for the Holocaust, that's for sure. But the problem was, the Jews had planted their colony among Muslims (originally the area had numerous Christian Arabs). 
  5. And the Muslims had an insane, religiously founded hatred of Jews. That was the kicker. (Why Muslimsfrom their beginning hate Jews more than Christians is the subject for another essay. Suffice it to say "Muslim Judgement Day" is the day they get to kill all the world's remaining Jews.)
  6. But as the Nazi tide rose, the Jews kept coming and "making the desert bloom", even as the British occupiers of the region after World War I opposed them. 
  7. Eventually, when the British "mandate" expired, the Jews declared the State of Israel after WWII. At first and for many decades, it was a Socialist Eastern European-style "state", mirroring the ideas of it settlers, many of whom were from Eastern Europe. Ideological, yes; romantic, maybe, but not the booming economy it has since become.
The Return of the Crusader States?
Though the Muslims often enough bring them up, I'm always amazed that Westerners – especially Jews – never mention the Crusader States. That's probably because Israelis don't want to be considered associated with "Crusaders" under any circumstances, and because of the sad fate of those states.

Going on almost 1000 years ago, Western Europeans invaded the Levant in their Crusades. They wanted to free the Holy Land from Turkish Muslims who had recently set up shop. Their success was so-so, but they did capture territory (killing Jews and Muslims in the process, which both Jews and Muslims insist we remember: there's no "forgive and forget" with either) and so they set up a series of Crusader Sates – one was the "Kingdom of Jerusalem". These began to create a Little Europe in the desert heart of Islam. They implanted European law, counties, sheriffs, the whole shebang. The Muslim powers of all stripes could not tolerate that, so they kept attacking the Europeans and over 100 years or so, destroyed them. Every single one of the would-be colonists that weren't killed or didn't flee, were enslaved. Always remember Islam was founded on slavery and was and is essentially, quintessentially a slaver system. 
  • Medieval Europe was essentially different than Ancient Europe in that
  • A, the Medievals had Christianity and 
  • B, they didn't have slavery (except in rare instances, like pre-Norman Gaelic Ireland). On the other hand...
  • Islam has ALWAYS had slavery and it always will. Why? That's because while Christianity didn't condemn slavery in its beginnings, it became repugnant to own fellow Christians as slaves: we're all parts of the Body of Christ, after all; whereas... 
  • Islam's raison d'être was to bestow on the original Arabs – a violent minority in the vast seas of people they conquered – the divine right to steal everything everyone else had: including the people themselves.
  • N.B. This violence works for Muslims. It always has. It does now throughout the world (except in China: see Uyghurs, Chinese treatment of and Islam's ignoring of). One example: Muslim immigrants into England have enslaved hundreds of girls, especially; it is a national tragedy and horrific scandal, though you don't hear the mainstream media howling about it because everyone fears Muslim VIOLENCE. Anyway, slavery: that's why Islam was founded, really, to be honest.
Judaism and Islam for Outsiders
While Judaism has always maintained its separateness from surrounding cultures, basing that on its religious identity and beliefs, its special covenant relationship with God, Islam sort of mirrors that in a darker mode. Islam has always been a consensus-driven, self-isolated monocultural civilization living off the theft of entire nations, a herrenvolk taxing Christians and Jews to death, and so of course after the initial seventh-century conquest, Islam turned the Fertile Crescent region of the Near East into desert. (The conquerors were allowed to graze their herds of goats and camels wherever they wanted, you see?) 

In effect, the Muslim powers had destroyed the previous "Europeanized" Levant after their initial Muslim conquest in the 700s. That area was once the HEARTLAND of Christianity, and a rich region on every level: cultural, agricultural, linguistic. The Muslims invaded, conquered, dispersed and enslaved. And monoculturalized. Example: Alexandria on the Egyptian coast was always the second largest city of the ancient Greco-Roman world, vying with Rome or Antioch or later Constantinople. Yet within a generation of the Muslim Conquest, it was a fishing village. That's history.

So the modern-day Jews, seeking a Jewish nation-state "Tackled the Islamic Camel", as it were. In essence, they actually "stole something back" from the Islamic Empire and wow, THAT is NOT allowed. 

And also, in so doing, they revived the ancient rivalry between the brothers Isaac and Ishmael. Religious Jews (a minority of Jews, you know) still claim to be direct descendants of Isaac through his second son, Jacob, whom God renamed "Israel". Arabs claim Ishmael, Abraham's first born, as their ancestor. Both sides base their claim to the land on being heirs of these two sons of Abraham. Of course, the kicker to that is:
  • A: Jesus Christ came along and said the "Chosen People" were chosen precisely to be the womb of the Messiah, i.e. to birth the young Jewish girl who said yes to Gabriel. So, their long existence was fulfilled in her Fiat to God.
  • B: From a Jewish perspective rejecting such theology, they base their claim to the land on God's giving it to Abraham's descendants through Isaac. The kicker to that is Moses warned them they were to be careful to obey all of God's strict moral laws. They only ever did that for a few generations at a stretch, however; most of the time, they lived as they live in Israel now: it is a modern culture, meaning one with lots of sex behavior against the ancient commandments, like homosexuality, abortion, and so on. That concert that was attacked on October 7 exhibited a huge Buddha statue, for example. That doesn't justify the Hamas attack, but the God of Moses would zap them for it as He did of old. And maybe He is. Or if a modern-thinking person argues God is not concerned about their behavior against His ancient Covenants, then the God of revelation no longer exists. And if He has "evolved" or no longer exists, then what right can they claim to the land? See the conundrum they have? (A no-win situation, again.)
Israel bears the "five minutes of hate" right now...
Right now, it is Israel bearing the "five minutes of hate" of the world's propaganda. It seems the old Jewish war cry of "Antisemitism!" doesn't work as well as it did. Like "racism" in the U.S., it has probably been used once too often. 

Importantly, though, the ultimate source of this madness lies in Muslim culture and xenophobia. Oh, to be sure, the Jews are not blameless, either. They chose to enter an ancient minefield and planted a garden in the midst of it. They planted a tree in salted earth, a rose bush in a corral of hungry goats. They dared challenge the 1700-year-old Islamic Imperialism. Look what that has brought them. 

It has brought them continual or near continual state of war – certainly global political machinations and ceaseless spycraft and behind-the-scenes maneuvering – remains perpetual. It has also affected all the rest of us, all of non-Jews. 
  • Terrorism has made life in the West miserable.
  • It is the justification for the infamous "Deep State/Intelligence Community" of other nations' control of their people, such as the spying on every American via the vote on this awful FISA-702 law Congress just renewed. And it just never stops because of Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews, traditionally ingrained in that religion, and spreading terrorism far and wide nowadays, giving the "spies" the right to seize control. But also because of Islam's intrinsic xenophobia.
Islam
Muslims hate Christianity & Christian civilization. Not as much as they hate Jews, but still, it is enough. Read John Zmirak on the attack of that bishop in Australia, and why the bishop and his people are in Australia in the first place at The Stream. A most excellent, and depressing, article.

Right now, it is self-evident that Israel is losing the Gaza war (or front or operation or whatever one calls it) – many insist it is genocide, which the Israelis consider a "blood libel", but the claim of genoide is being made, nonetheless. If true, Israel has lost what it cannot regain. Meanwhile, the West Bank is hyper-tense and war is breaking out with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Persians and Israelis are lobbing missiles at each other.

I certainly can't speak to allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza. Twenty-percent of the Republic of Israel's population isn't Jewish, but Arab (Muslim and Christian). So, they obviously weren't genocidal in the past, though yes, Zionism has always wanted a JEWISH state (Islam merely wants an Islamic world). Many argue right now the new Simon bar Kokhba strives for a "Greater Israel", which would include territory (like Gaza, but much more besides) as a buffer to protect the country.

A Serious Query
What do people hating Israel want? Or what do its critics want it to do? Do they want the Jews to leave? Do they want them to confess: "Yes, we stole your desert land and created an semi-apartheid state in which we made the desert bloom as it once did before you Arabs came because after two thousand years of being robbed, murdered, and treated as pariahs, and finally slaughtered in mass by the Europeans in the Holocaust, we thought we needed a JEWISH homeland. Yet we admit we simply don't have the right to live anywhere." You want them to do that? That seems to be the idea.

Well, one can counter argue: how about we give the Americas back to the Indians. North, South, and Central – just give it back and leave. All Irish Americans can return to Ireland and all Slavic-derived Americans can go back to Russia and so forth and so on. How about that?

One can also ask quite seriously: How can any set of people mentally survive such total war, decade after decade? I don't defend genocide on either side or genocide at all in general: but in such a no-win, Hell-on-earth mess, it's no wonder they've all gone – or are going – mad. And remember that in a Muslim culture, a man can have more than one wife, and thus a LOT of children. Gaza's population explosion growth is phenomenal, and the percentage of young people is astounding. Western cultural norms, especially degenerate modern ones, can't remotely keep up in terms of number of children per father. And just how can a father be a father to 10 or 15 or 20 sons from different women?

Bottom Line
Israel either survives or it doesn't. Islam will certainly survive. Until it doesn't. But Israel? It most certainly will go the way the Crusader States did unless they nuke the Muslims. Maybe even then. It is not hard to imagine "the world" once again slaughtering Jews in rage, this time for starting a nuclear war. Iran could start using nukes and it would be a different story, somehow, wouldn't it? Or maybe the world would finally turn against Islam and decide the heirs of both Isaac and Ishmael need to depart these earthly coils.

One way or the other – unless both sides convert to Christ and forgive each other, which is, of course, very unlikely outside pure miracle and probably the Second Coming – mass slaughter will once again turn the region back into desert, and Simon bar Kokhba's unquiet ghost, and Barabbas's wandering spirit, all of the old Zealots so frustrated by Rome, will drag their chains through the empty kingdoms of Pluto once more.

AnP

Friday, April 12, 2024

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? Women certainly betray themselves...

Amici,

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? As abortion is such a horrific evil, the short answer is Morally, yes. But then the longer answer is politically not quite – or not immediately – when you cold-heartedly consider that "politics is the art of the possible."

Unfortunately, Trump keeps digging his own political grave. He took just the bait and answered an abortion question that will kill him with Pro-Lifers: he said he would not sign a federal abortion ban if it reaches his desk. See Lifesitenews for details. This is an "unforced error" since any federal abortion ban is impossible politically in the foreseeable future. What a fool Trump is. No conservative American politician speaks "unscripted" about abortion. Ever. Such called-out questions are traps.

Abortion should be banned outright, of course, but politically in the United States, that can't be done – not without another Civil War at least – that's the Democrats for you: they build up an evil like slavery or abortion till the only way to fight it is to fight it, literally. But then, that's what they want you to say so their "Deep State" can arrest you for threatening violence.
Consider: the U.S.A. has two parties, although they're basically a UniParty, and more or less alike in a great many ways, and nowadays under the control of U.S. Intelligence Bureaucracies. Regarding abortion, though, one wing of this UniParty is willing to restrict abortion a lot more than the other wing – more or less; recently a lot less. The other wing, the Democrats, unabashedly now want abortion up to birth, and even after. Thus, as a pro-Lifer, I have to vote for the side that is more willing to restrict it; I cannot (and have never) voted for the other side.
  • HOWEVER, I am no fool, either. Abortion politically is like slavery. As John Daniel Davidson so eloquently points out here. The American nation cannot exist half abortion and half pro-Life. It will become all one or all the other, just as with slavery. We see that happening in "red state" Ohio and Kansas. Davidson's essay is a fascinating and insightful article well worth the time to read.
The 2024 Election
Well, in terms of "normal" American politics, former President Donald Trump looks to be winning the 2024 presidential campaign, except for the fact that the Democrats will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to keep him from swearing in January 20, 2025. Remember: the American election system is completely unstable. Election theft and fraud remain endemic to it. Since Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 from the feckless Richard Nixon, we've actually had a number of true coup d'états: Kennedy by the gun (two Kennedys, actually, if you remember RFK), Nixon by lawfare (remember "Watergate"?), Reagan – almost by the gun a few months after his inauguration, and by lawfare rendering him impotent in his second term (remember "Iran-Contra"?) – and so on and so forth, till Trump's first term, where The Powers That Be tried to render him impotent via lawfare (remember "Russian Collusion"?, and then they finally brazenly stole the 2020 election. (And have you never noticed how no one tried to assassinate Carter, Clinton, or Obama? Gee, how curious. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over a carnal escapade, but the Democrats impeached Trump what, three times – once for a phone call?) So, with a record like that, and with all the unbridled lawfare against Trump, we can expect disaster this November.

And now maybe Trump himself has shot himself in the foot over abortion. Now multiple times, as noted above. Pro-lifers across the nation groan in true heartache. In the process, though, did Trump really betray all the pro-Lifers who have supported him through all the devilish hell he's been subjected to? Or is he the Machiavellian politician – as was Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent – just trying to win? See Lifesitenews for details of Trump's new abortion position (if you're not already sick of this). Trump has a stubborn streak. Note that he's never admitted the rush to Covid vaccines was a disaster. Despite the growing evidence, he won't budge on that. But now he won't budge on his pro-abortion positions that he is staking out.

First thing to consider and weigh in the scales is that the Democrats, i.e. the party who booed God at their convention years ago, the Left, the Communists and godless hoards galore who have completed their "long march" (the term is Mao's) through our institutions and academies, have won the propaganda war – largely but not entirely – on abortion. 
  1. Tens of millions of women seem to regard killing a child as absolutely untouchable. And I mean, they are adamant about baby killing as were the terrible Erinyes, the Furies of Ancient Greece.
  2. Any politician who wants to ban abortion will be defeated, and most politicians on the Right who even bring limiting it up get lambasted by the mainstream media (a.k.a., the Democrats' lap dogs). Therefore, Republicans are backing off of abortion, as John Zmirak astutely explains in this column. So it is that Trump probably thinks, "Why should I stick my neck out?"
  3. Yet abortion as a universal carte blanc right, as in France? We've come a very long way from Bill Clinton's infamous call in 1992 for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare", that's for sure. No Democrat today could repeat Clinton's line without being ripped to threads by the pagan furies that seem to possess Leftist women, and many not so leftist women.
  4. The Left has spent, and will spend, immeasurable oceans of money to promote "Women's Reproductive Rights", and pump money into red states like Ohio and Kansas to garner state constitutional changes mandating unlimited abortion (and also bring on "gay rights" and "sex change" and so on). It is as though the Supreme Court ruling opened Pandora's bag (yep, Panni had a bag, not a box.)  
  5. It's obvious that abortion has become the spear point the godless use to pierce the hearts of millions, especially women, regarding the sanctity of life, turning living hearts into stone. "Who among you would give your children a stone if they asked for bread?" Well, today, they stone 'em to death, just kill them, or mutilate their young bodies. 
  6. Just as with slavery by 1860, abortion has gone beyond any sort of civil discourse now. Beyond civil discourse, or even rational discourse. It's taken on quasi-religious tones; indeed, it is the worship of Moloch, Ba'al, and Satan in the technological age.
Trump the Fool
Against this seeming juggernaut from Hell, Trump plays by its rules. All Trump had to do in terms of callow political expedience was stop soon after he started on his abortion statement. Yes, were he not going to remain 100 percent pro-life, he should have begun as he started out: i.e., abortion is now, thanks to the Supreme Court, a states-right issue. He did start with this. Then he should have stopped and said: "I'm not running for governor of a state, but as president of the nation, and as a nation we have absolute Armageddon hanging over us economically, Armageddon in a fight against Communism within our own Federal government, and obviously Armageddon with our insane foreign wars! We need to focus on those national issues first and foremost."

All of that is desperately true. How hard would that have been?
  • That should have been that. But no. Trump brought up Democrat talking points, like the infamous "rape, incest, or health of the mother" smoke and mirror. It's a fraud. Had he had to open his mouth on that, he could have said regarding "rape, incest, health of the mother", that that's for the states to work out in their legislatures. But no, he had to endorse those "exceptions".
  • That's a grotesque cop out, as well. Donald John Trump should meet and have a long, long talk with Rebecca Kiessling, a woman, a lawyer, a pro-life fighter, who was conceived via a rape. Watch her profound eight-minute presentation here. Donald Trump, you should be ashamed. Political expedience or no.
  • In terms of IVF, Trump has actually endorsed it! IVF is the artificial fertilization system that creates dozens of fertilized eggs/zygotes in order to produce ONE child, Trump should have been honest and declare, "I don't know much about this and I'll have to research it for myself, in terms of science and religion. When I know what I'm talking about, I'll form an opinion." 
Simple. Again, simple re: political expedience. Morally lame in the extreme.

Abortion is absolute evil, and we are nowhere near getting it banned

Now, obviously, my Machiavellian-inspired suggestions above would be a "cop out". A political dodge. It's what Stephen Douglas tried 150 years ago. Machiavellian maneuvering to get elected. Morally, abortion remains an absolute evil. One stands either appalled by abortion, sickened, horrified, and want it to end, or one can say he's uncaring about it, or one is a worshiper of Moloch (like so many Leftists in the world and Democrats in America) to the loss of one's soul. Those are the three options. No others exist.

Many pro-Lifers say we have to elect Trump, or the country is lost. I tend to do that myself because it is true, but then, what kind of country would we be saving? An abortion horror? A narcissistic nirvana of stunted "juveniles for life"? Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0?
  • Abortion is the only crime where the absolutely innocent one gets the death sentence. Also, fully 97 percent of all abortions, it is said, occur BEFORE 15-weeks. Mainly are now done chemically; i.e. "the morning after pill". This little factoid is crucial to understand because it shows how pointless the Left's manipulation of Conservative politicians is: they don't do it to "keep abortion legal" at all, they fight this fight to manipulate women and win elections. The whole thing is one big fraud.
IVF
And finally, Trump highly touts the execrable IVF method with creates extra zygotes then kills them (after freezing them).

That, readers, is not merciful. It's the height of narcissism. Yes, it is. Think about it. I feel very sorry for couples (and yes, I mean a married man and woman!) who cannot have kids. Any healthy person would feel sorry. But what person possessing any sort of moral mind or with a moral soul at all wants to have ten or twelve kids just to "harvest' one of them? That's sick in the extreme. Purely diabolical. That's like killing babies to test drugs, etc. 'For the greater good, many must die." Bovine guano.

And Trump covered himself in it. Was he ever truly pro-life? He was a pro-abortion Democrat for most of his life. Did he have a real conversion? God knows, and God will pass the judgment. 

Clearly, everyone can see that Biden won't last even the summer, let alone to November, and that Kamala Harris is a complete idiot. (That's been proven again and again out of her own mouth. And her uncontrollable laughter is freakish. And unnerving.) The Democrats will replace them when expedient. But whoever they run for the presidency, he or she will be "more of the same" as Biden and Harris. Thus we find ourselves between Scylla and Charybdis. If Trump isn't elected, the country is finished. Yes, but again, what country would be saved, really?

Then there's the women who make abortion possible

Do not mistake me. Women are easily manipulated by men. Worthless, immoral men want cheap carnal "full-body contact with women" and for the past 100 years have worked on women's self image to get it. Abortion exists almost solely because guys want to carnally take advantage of gals, and pay no penalty. Read that sentence again. It's part of the over-all contraceptive culture that is hollowing out our civilization. That's why men scientists developed "the Pill" in the first place. Women test subjects DIED in testing it. But they sold it as a "freeing" of women, a "liberation" of women. But that was all a lie. It enslaves women to endless male predation.

Nowadays, abortion owes a lot of its unshakable, iron-clad position in America (and Europe, etc.) to the support of women. Unmarried women tend to be Leftist anyway, and then again, married "soccer moms" have tended to vote Democrat because that party cynically cries up the poor and downtrodden and supports abortion, as well. American Jews have traditionally voted Democrat for protection from what they saw as an aggressive Christian culture; women vote Democrat because they are taught to feel like a threatened minority, as well.
  1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt owed his second to fourth elections largely to women who voted for "that handsome, feline man". 
  2. And of course he flooded the country with bureaucrats to "look after" everyone. 
  3. Women elected FDR the second time in 1936, when his policies had left the country in a worse state than when he came in. (Women, and the Republicans, who ran utter non-entities against him.)
  4. Women elected Jack Kennedy (voted for him enough that he only had to steal the vote in Illinois), and women voted for Bill Clinton and Obama, the "Metrosexual".
  5. And today, Democrats keep harping on the "Alpha-Male" Donald Trump and what a threat to women he is. (Anyone who knows Trump knows this is not true, except maybe per aborting them.)
Women and the State
Also, many women tend to vote for "the state", a paternal state that promises to look after them and their children; see this excellent Ann Barnhardt essay here. There's also this

Now, of course, the country has millions of sane women, conservative women, patriotic women. And a Catholic author, Kimgerly Begg, writes about them and why they tend to "give in" to peer pressure here: Survey: Most Young Women Hold Conservative Beliefs But Hide Them. I recommend this very thoughtful article; it is fascinating.

Conclusion
But this is our situation. Because worthless miserable Leftist godless men, ruthless ideologues and narcissistic hedonists, have been manipulating women ceaselessly for generations so that women tend to vote against their own self-interests. Again, it is much like Jews who reflexively vote for Democrats. Now, the flood of "tranny" men who insist on pushing women out of sports and gyms and toilets and even redefine the female sex entirely may finally drive home to women how wretched their conditioning has been. Maybe. Maybe not. The incredibly blatant antisemitism that's everywhere now might get Jews' attention, too. Maybe. Maybe not.

Truly, everything is such a mess that only a full return to God can save what's left of our civilization. But where is the Roman Catholic Church? Read that John Zmirak article linked to above for that. It ain't pretty. And our situation is dire.

AnP

 

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Easter: Open Letter to Catholics re: Our Perceptions of Schism

Friends,

We know that this Easter week, Pope Francis, whom I call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being polite) is ailing. Whatever the immediate future holds for him, though, the Catholic Church suffers massive ailing as well. Catastrophic ailing. The first step to any cure is to recognize the sickness. Curing ills cannot occur if we don't know what's causing the ailment. And our understanding of anything, from the Church to Black Holes to Reformation History to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is based on perception.

It is precisely this essential perception of our realities that generates the problem we're having in the Catholic Church. We perceive – most of us – that there's one Catholic Church that has a host of difficulties and numerous factions who seem increasingly divergent. I suspect this view in the clergy at least stands strongest among those bishops consecrated, and priests ordained, when Karol Józef Wojtyła held the papal throne. Their ranks are thinning out now, but many remain. "The Church" for them is as they perceive it to be. But is it? And was it ever? And what of the other ideas of "The Church" that exist, pre- or post-John Paul II?

What if we could willingly change our perception? What if we perceived more closely that three separate "Catholic Churches" exist: i.e. the steadily drying up (and confused, and fading, and straying) Vatican II Church, the aborning Synodal/One-World anti-Church that Bergoglio is midwifing, and of course the Traditional Catholic Church, with its Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional Catholic teaching.
  • This is a simple perception, and it doesn't involve endless contortions of cognitive dissonance. Achieve the perception by simply asking about the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Polls indicate that around 25 percent of the Vatican II laity believe in that, probably next to none of the Synodal Church believes it, while most likely near 100 percent of Traditional Catholic believe it. Thus, this question serves as a simple way to discern which of the three Church "avatars" one belongs to.
How did this situation develop?
Look again at Church history over the past three-quarters of a century. Under pressure from the Modernists, the Vatican II Church clearly broke ranks with the entire Church before it, as exemplified in the multitudinous Vatican II documents and the basically impossible ditching of the Traditional Latin Mass (impossible on a number of levels, not least Pope Pius V's famous 1570 Apostolic constitution Quo Primum). These dense, tedious, and prolix Vatican II decrees – that naturally very few have read or certainly studied – contain a thorough mixture of typical Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant heresy, and 1960s "pop-psych" palaver. They basically offer "something for everyone", depending on who is reading and what their conceits are. Whichever Church faction is strongest can implement them in any way they like. They laid the foundation of the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" that blew in so many dire phantoms that plague the Church today.
  • To use a metaphor, they set the Barque of Peter's voyaging on an initially slightly divergent course from what it had been sailing on for nearly two millennia, and slowly, imperceptibly to millions, it began to head away from its ancient Witness Against the Worldly Powers route, and into dangerous Waters of Surrender to the secular, fallen "pop" culture. The Church went from "The world will always hate me because it hated my Lord" to "The world will love me because I will surrender to it."
  • While probably 20 percent of Catholics (and certainly many onlooking Protestants and Jews) were not fooled by this new trajectory, millions of priests and laity were indeed misled. But now, nearly 70 years on, can we not see how far the Church has wandered off the counter-culture course its Founder chartered for it? Grasp our reality. We now have no excuse to tolerate this misdirection any longer.
I can't be sure of John Paul I, poor man, or the vacillating Paul VI who became a recluse after 1968 and Humanae Vitae, but clearly Pope John Paul II was the only pope who actually believed the Vatican II Church would be THE Church from now on. Perhaps the Polish pope's near assassination refocused his understanding a bit, but still, it was his Curia (papal court/administration) that held the line for Modernism. For example, John Paul II's refusing to approve bishops for the SSPX – and the perfidious way his people kept saying "yes" then changing that to "er, wait a bit longer," stringing the SSPX along – forced the necessity of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's ordaining bishops without papal approval. This was pure "Deep State"-style treachery.

Pope Benedict XVI would eventually rescind the resulting automatic excommunications of the SSPX bishops because of the absurdity of it all, and even the cunning, duplicitous Bergoglio seemed to occasionally favor the excellent Society's work to some extent, though technically it remains somewhat "canonically irregular". (I discount all such qualms entirely, of course. "Partial communion" is nonsense. And it remains a blessing the SSPX is not under full Vatican control.)

Benedict's Fall
Although an early and idealistic Vatican II revolutionary, the hyper-intelligent Joseph Ratzinger was no fool. Eventually, he could see "the handwriting on the wall" for the Vatican II Church. But as pope, Benedict's inability to control the "Junta" of homosexual mafia, Communist sympathizers, and the Freemasonry-Globalist clique that runs the Church – and has done so for decades – proved that the Vatican II version of Holy Church was hopelessly hollowed out and drifting toward the rocks. Yet Benedict knew he was not going to be allowed any true course correction. To buy time, therefore, he tried a subtle, sideways attack via his Summorum Pontificum, creating a Hegelian type synthesis-antithesis via his "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass. Very clever. 

But of course it only enraged the Junta. They removed Benedict in a less violent way than John Paul I had been, or the attempt to assassinate John Paul II. (Ever notice how the "cancellation"of Jack Kennedy, Nixon, John Paul I & II, and assassination attempt on Reagan and the lawfare against Trump all just seems to coincidentally happen? "Gee, what bad luck we have in our popular leaders getting removed!" Well, it ain't no coincidence, my friends! Wake up and see the very clear pattern going on here.)
  1. Bergoglio was brought in to put paid to Benedict's "Reform of the Reform". 
  2. But the Vatican II Church was too far gone. 
  3. The Covid fraud gut-punched it and left it prostrate. It's a husk of what it was even 20 years ago, though the remnants of Team Pope John Paul II might not see that yet. 
  4. So, Bergoglio began his employment of a legion of heresies to pave over it, to bury it alive, in effect, enabling the Synodal Church to drive over its grave. 
  5. The Argentinian Peronist "Junta of One" clearly now wants to create a new Church entirely, an Anglican doppelganger called the Synodal Church. It happens to serve as the Jewish, Muslim, and Globalist-approved non-governmental organization for the New World Order that the elites want to establish. (None of those powers want to see a strong, confident – and independent – Christianity in the world.)
Schism from all that
So where does that leave the One, Holy Catholic Church? The Church of the traditional theology, worship, and spirituality? The events of a Biblical lifetime have partially submerged it, and scattered it too, though thanks to Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, it began a serious comeback. Now Generalissimo Bergoglio wants to crush it. Therefore, this Traditional Latin Mass Catholic Church simply HAS to break with the other two ecclesiastical avatars, or they will drag it down into the Abyss with their own self-destruction.

In other words, we actual Catholics – Catholic Christians who pray the Tradition, thus believe the Tradition, and thereby live the Tradition: Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi – MUST perceive full schism to be a necessity from what one needs call the Unbelievers. In a metaphor, the S.S.Vatican II is going down, and it has only two lifeboats; one boat is leaky and full of trannies, catamites, and absolute landlubbers, the other staffed by regular old-time sailors; indeed, the veterans of Lepanto. Which lifeboat would you chose?

Perception, Perception, Perception
Again, this is about perception, perception of our reality. And once you see this, grasp it, comprehend what's going on, there's no more trying to square the circle. A great burden is lifted from the soul, and cognitive dissonance is banished.

  An Preáchán


Friday, March 22, 2024

"Prophecy will take care of itself." Re: The Mission of Divine Mercy

Friends,

A recent essay of mine mentioned the prophecies of that group in Texas  the Mission of Divine Mercy who claims to be receiving messages from the B.V.M. See one of the Lifesitenews articles here

And the local bishop, a notorious Modernist infamous for shutting down a Catholic family retreat center, squashed them for it. A number of commentators told me "they lost me" when I brought this up and that John-Henry Westen should be ashamed of giving space to them. The Mission of Divine Mercy has been receiving prophecies for 30 years or something but is only now making them known. Or so they say.

In a return comment, I wrote that "Prophecy takes care of itself" is the old saying. Whether the prophet is a prophet will be seen, and soon enough. The Church is disintegrating as we look at it, and nothing and no one seems to be able to stop Bergoglio, or whoever is running the show. (A Freemasonry committee? A Communist junta? Atheists R-Us?) John-Henry Westen is desperate. That desperation is he published these prophecies and why the bishop squashed the revelations: they were on target. They'll squash Fatima and the other accepted revelations soon enough, as well. Bet on it. Yet the Church's situation is an exact parallel with the U.S. government devolution into tyranny. Exact.

If it is a true prophecy, it will happen whether we note it or not; if it is not a true prophecy, it will fade away and be forgotten – unless, of course, the "Usurper" finishes off the Church. Whether a true prophecy or not, however, as I've been arguing for years, Bergoglio is obviously an usurper who has been allowed to sit on the throne of St. Peter. 

You don't need a prophecy to see that. 

Just common sense. 

AnP  

Thursday, March 21, 2024

What Is Love? Follow up on Scott Hahn and "She's not your girlfriend".

Friends,

Following up on my earlier criticism of Professor Scott Hahn's assertion in the Mass of the Ages 3 movie that every bishop in the world should "fall in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary", I received a number of comments that make me realize "What is love?" is a question that first must be answered in order to understand how cloyingly mawkish, just plainly over-  sentimental, Hahn's comment is. 
  • But first of all, please note he is speaking of bishops using their full Apostolic powers. In my original essay, I reported Hahn as saying, “All bishops and priests ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” 
  • I have now watched the MOTA3 movie, and at 39 minutes in, Prof Hahn's full quote is, "I think bishops need to really stretch themselves to move from the natural to the supernatural. The bishops ought to be in persona Christi in a way that corresponds to Vatican II defined as the plenitude of holy orders. They ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only safe way they can lead us."
A bit of a jump there, a bit tangled too, though now I understand his comment in context. (And for me, any reliance on anything Vatican II produces an immediate headache.)

Yet my initial observation in my original critique STILL stands: I wrote then that the majority of (at least the Western World's) bishops are chosen for their "hard-nosed" unbelief in the supernatural. All of Vatican II, especially the Novus Ordo Mass, is a desacralization of the Faith. That was exactly what the 16th century Reformation was, and Vatican II is exactly that revolution come again. In other words, the Modern Church Catholics who don't know what the Eucharist is regarding the Real Presence, they are a FEATURE of the Vatican II Church, not a BUG!

All this is because a non-Catholic "junta" or "deep state" runs the modern Church, and has done so since Pope John XXIII let his people he chose to manage the Vatican II Council be removed when the Council opened and "young Turks" took over.

This is self-evidently obvious. To deny it is to go cross-eyed with cognitive dissonance. And I mean that. The junta running the Church since the '60s has never relented in its goals. It wants no-nonsense materialist financial and "bottom-line" managers; it does not want "men of Faith". That's why Bergoglio dumped Bishop Strickland (and others): they obviously believed. That's why Benedict was deposed (and he was deposed.) That's why the Vat 2 junta remains at war with the Traditional Latin Mass: that ancient liturgy creates and inspires believers. Ergo, they want it G.O.N.E.
 
So, with that observation reinforced, I also note again how cartoonish, written in thick crayon and felt, like decorations for kindergarten, Prof Hahn's statement is. Therefore, here's a quick discussion of what love actually is.

Love
First of all: love, real love, is to "will the good of another", and it is to will their good without demanding or even wanting a return on that investment. Fr Ripperger so defines it in one of his online talks. How simple, how direct. And so of course the Vatican II Church never uses it. 

Christians use the Greek word "agápē" for this love. It was a Greek word originally employed as just a generic term, and Christians used it to denote their new love revelation: God is love. This sort of "real" love is different fundamentally from other kinds of love. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."; John 3:16. Translate that as "For God so willed the good of the human race and His creation that He gave Himself...". 

Love in English
In English, we can say anything from "I love you" to a spouse or a child, or "I love ice-cream" or "I love the old Twilight Zone show" or "I love baseball" to "I love God" or "I love my country". The Greeks had a different word for each of those. Many languages invest in different words precisely to avoid confusion. But English doesn't. The word "like" is no substitute: "I like ice-cream" is quite different from "I love ice-cream." But idiomatic phrases like "fall in love" specifically refer to romantic love, and that's the phrasing Scott Hahn used. Note he used "hopelessly". That's clearly used of romantic love.

But romantic love is the cheapest and silliest of all "loves". It didn't exist for most human beings for most of the human history. There's an old joke about a Greek and an Italian arguing over who had the better civilization. For every thing the Greek came up with, the Italian had something to match it. "We created democracy" said the Greek. "We had a republic" the Italian countered. "We had the Parthenon" said the Greek. "We had the Pantheon" said the Italian. Finally, the Greek boasted, "You must admit, though, that it was we Greeks who created romantic love." The Italian thought for a bit and countered, "Yeah, OK, I'll have to admit that. But you have to admit one tiny fact about it." "Oh," said the Greek, "and what is that?" The Italian said, "We Italians first gave it to women."

This is funny precisely because it is true. What we call romantic love was a homoerotic creation, first by the Ancient Greeks, and later by the Muslims of Moorish Spain, where it was transferred via the Cathar heresy to Southern France and the famous troubadours. Only later did it become a standard affectation of average people. And of course, fiction writers and playwrights like Shakespeare made it a nearly de jure icon men and women were supposed to experience.

Maybe Scott Hahn didn't intend for his comment to be read this way, but he's supposed to be a professor, a knowledgeable man. As I wrote in the original essay, "We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem."

And so it is. The most important types of love: i.e. married spousal love, parental love, patriotic love, can never be just strong emotion and "desire". It HAS to be rational, founded in Faith in God's Creation and in the Will, and it must be selfless, a product of the rational mind, as the soul is itself rational. We get our emotions from our bodies, rationality from our souls. It's our bodies that get all passionately "love crazy." Careless "idiomatic usage" does NOT help clarify all this. 

AnP