The False Idol Of Entertainment

How many of us have uttered - or at least heard - the sentence "we need decent entertainment that's free of moral filth"?  I have.  I think we can all agree that most of today's entertainment is rife with material that mocks God's intentions for marriage and sexuality; additionally, progressives have infiltrated almost every aspect of that industry.

This post will not focus on that aspect of the statement, but another one that is largely ignored but probably much more basic.  To start, I'll counter that question with another: "since when did entertainment ever become a need"?  Think about it; the idea that the commodity known as entertainment should be placed on the same level of necessity as food, water, air, clothing, shelter, healthy human relationships and even God Himself is rather ludicrous.  Yet even good Catholics are deluded into thinking that somehow they need copious amounts of entertainment.

Much of what passes for entertainment these days is really quite mind-deadening.  We either:

• plop ourselves in front of tv's
• attend movies, or concerts, or sports events

and just soak up whatever is being thrown at us from the screen, stage, arena, whatever.  Rarely do we evaluate the input being poured into our minds like water poured at a sponge.  In fact, peer pressure discourages critical thinking.  I recall several times watching movies with friends and pointing out holes in various plots.  During all these occasions I was scolded, with others saying that I'm "supposed to suspend thinking".  These were fellow Christians telling me that!  When the Apostle Peter warns us in his epistle to "watch always for the devil prowls like a lion", I take him at his word and denounce this concept of "suspending thinking" even for a few minutes.  This suspension of critical thinking is something that occurs with even "decent forms of entertainment.  I suspect it's very dangerous, for it encourages people to lust after entertainment that will only yank and massage their emotions and encourage mental laziness.

Besides the mind-deadening aspects of entertainment, there is also the problem of de facto voyeurism that many (even Christians!) engage when they slavishly follow the doings and sayings of entertainment personalities.  Entire industries have arisen around the insane fascination with the lives of what some call "pretty people".  Anyone who goes to a grocery store cannot help but notice the gossip rags and tabloid trash that routinely tell us who's shacking up with whom and who's having another star's baby, and a messy divorce, and on and on and on.  If an entertainment personality dies, they yammer on and on about that for months (as though no one else in the world dies).  We are also treated to their political opinions which are for the most part, progressive.  That is, they favor gay marriage, abortion, etc and are probably embroiled in those evils presently.

This voyeurism is no new phenomenum.  It has gone on for generations, probably for as long as Hollywood existed.  Even in the 1930s and 1940s, when national morals were allegedly  more sound than they are today, stars routinely played "musical marriage".  I often wondered why on earth the ordinary person seemed so fascinated by all the juvenile nonsense going on in Hollywood, especially then when morals and common sense were supposedly more valued then than in today's post-modern culture.  

Only recently did a possible reason dawn on me.  Back then, the ordinary person wasn't as wealthy as his descendents today.  In the early part of the 20th century a large contingent of the population were living on farms, and that is how they made their living.  They could not live profligate lifestyles and still have the physical wherewithall to work their farms.  Their livelihoods depended on "clean living".   On the other hand, the stars were relatively wealthy.  If they engaged in riotous activities, they had financial resources to shield themselves from consequences of their various debaucheries.  That "shielding" included abortions; yes, Hollywood was rife with baby-murder.  That didn't work all the time for enough stars did fall into ruin owing to their wanton excesses (and of course the tabloid trash would have field days with that).

I strongly suspect that the voyeurs of past generations would have liked to engage in that behavior but their circumstances militated against it.  Their fascination by the stars was borne of wishes to live as they did.  They both envied the stars and secretly congratulated them as they carried on.  In short, the so-called "moral ordinary citizen" was not all that moral in his or her heart.  As they followed the doings and sayings of their favorite stars, they lived vicariously through them, actually reveling in the debaucheries of their star-idols.  They do so to this day.

So why, on this blog that has as its purpose the restoration of Catholicism, focusing on the common but morbid fascination with popular entertainers?  Because so many of us, even decent Catholics, have glommed onto this trend and are helping perpetuate cultural and spiritual degeneration.  The "we need decent entertainment" statement indicates that Catholics have been infected with that societal sickness.  We aren't going to be able to clean up the cultural mess if we ourselves don't stop taking swigs from the swill.

So what to do?  For starters, I'd suggest procuring and reading "Amusing Ourselves To Death" by Neil Postman.  He offers some great commentary and research regarding the harm that most modern "entertainment" (even the "clean" sort) has done to people's abilities to engage in simple linear reasoning.  I'd also suggest turning off the TV; there are reasons why it is called "boob tube" and "idiot box" and "electronic deity".  For healthy entertainment, create your own by:

• reading good books that serve an educational purpose - including ones that teach the Catholic faith
• learning to play a musical instrument
• engaging in sports yourselves as opposed to watching paid athletes snub our flag when the Star Spangled Banner is played (good exercise, too!)
• learning a form of arts and crafts
• family recreations
• getting together with like-minded people for good conversation

The possibilities are endless.  The above-mentioned list does not involve dependence on major sports or mainstream entertainment industries.  Why pay one cent of your hard-earned money to fill their purses, knowing full well that some of that money will go to finance their profligate lifestyles or go to their favorite progressive causes?

Comments/suggestions welcome.

Please Sign The Declaration Of Fidelity To The Church's Unchangeable Teaching On Marriage And To Her Uninterrupted Discipline

In light of the havoc raised by Amoralis Lamentia and the danger to souls which it poses, the need for this declaration is all too obvious.  Please read it, sign and and pass along word of this.

UPDATE - The technical problems seem to have been repaired.  Try it now.

Lazarus Vs Rich Man = Catholics In Pews Vs Progressives In Chanceries

Today's Gospel was the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  I'd be willing to bet that many parishes heard "social gospel" pabulum from the pulpits and even invocations to "end poverty".  Leaving alone the fact that the cry to "end poverty" actually lies in contradiction to Jesus' own words, let's look at some groups of people who might fall into the "rich man" or "Lazarus" categories: folks who fall off the radars in too many pulpits across the country.

We also remembered the victims of recent shootings.  The Baltimore shootings happened within 60 miles of me so that's relatively close to home.  However, I'd bet that yesterday in any five abortuaries in Maryland, at least an equal number of babies were wantonly slaughtered in their mothers' wombs.  I submit that they are a group who would most definitely fit into the Lazarus group.  How about their mothers?  Into which group might they belong?  It depends.  I see too many cases where the mother is being dragged (often literally) into the mill by her parents, male companion, etc.  In that case she too is Lazarus and these others are the rich man.  The abortionists clearly fit into the "rich man" category, quite literally.  I've been to their houses before to pray Stations of the Cross in front of them.  They all live in the Potomac area, where every dwelling is a veritable mansion. Theirs' however, are more like impregnable fortresses.

But let's look at poverty for a moment.  What's the biggest indicator that a child will find him/herself in poverty as they attain adulthood?  If they grow up in a broken home, their chances of ending up poor are greatly increased, no matter the social strata in which they grew up.  What influence leads to most broken homes?  Contraception.  When Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae back in 1968, he predicted that if contraception became widely accepted, a whole host of social evils would ensue as a consequence.  Every single one of his predictions is coming to pass as we draw our breaths!

Now how much do we hear of these diabolical attacks on marriage, family life, abortion, contraception etc do we hear from the pulpit?  In the Archdiocese of Washington, way too little, particularly contraception.  Homosexuality is another topic that is particularly taboo in the ADW.  I know of at least two priests who preached on these topics over the years; both were punished.  Here we have a clear case of the rich man (some "powers that be" in the chancery) denying truth to the Lazarus-people in their pews.

Below the jump break I'll post two videos - one by Venerable Fulton Sheen - telling the truth about contraceptives and their immense sinfulness.  Only when our priests speak this forth from the pulpits will there be revival in the Church and in our Western civilization.

is Tom Hoefling Having, Uh, "Problems"?

A few days ago, I wrote about the "third-party" candidates (namely Hoefling and Castle), looking askance upon ethics that would allow them to enable Hillary's win.  Now I wonder if there are other issues as well with the American Party candidate.

Any candidate  running for federal office must comply with regulations promulgated and enforced by the Federal Election Commission.  They must file periodic reports, and these reports are open to public inspection.  Well, I took a look at the FEC page dealing with such reports.   I see that all the other presidential candidates have filed their reports, but see nothing on Tom Hoefling.

Whoopsie!!!  That's quite an omission!!  Would anyone from the Hoefling camp care to explain that?  Your would-be voters have a right to know.

Open Letter To Pope Francis, Part 3 Of 3

Here is the third and final installment.  It needed to be said.

Open Letter To Pope Francis - Part 2 Of 3

It can be found here.  The third and final installment will be posted tomorrow Sept 23rd.

Open Letter To Pope Francis From Remnant And Catholic Family News

This letter is penned by the Remnant and Catholic Family News.  It is entitled: "With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis".  I just linked to the first of three installments.  Please read it, along with the Liber of Accusation that is at the bottom of that post.

At this time, I can only reply "AMEN".  I will post these as they are published and ask that my readers circulate these.

Please offer your Masses and Rosary for Our Church, Pope and all clergy.

The Vaporous Principles Of Some Third Party Candidates

We've all come across good people who are disappointed in the selection of candidates  - Trump and Clinton to be specific.  Most of them voice their displeasure regarding Trump with scarcely a word for Clinton.  While I find that odd I'll leave that aside for the moment.

Some have stated their intentions to vote for a third-party candidate such as Tom Hoefling or Darrell Castle.  Why?  Because they "are principled unlike Trump". 

Really?  Are these third-party guys as "principled" as they portray themselves?  Think about what they are doing and the realistic impact of their actions.  Unless they are suffering delusions of grandeur, they know they haven't a prayer (literally) of garnering a decent showing let alone winning the election.  They have to realize that the few votes they'll get would have gone to Trump but for their candidacies.  Of course anyone with a modicum of common sense will understand that this would only make easier Clinton's bid for the White House.  Again I don't believe they'll garner that many votes, but since this will probably be a close election, every vote counts.  Consider that in 1960,  JFK defeated Nixon by a margin of less than one vote per precinct.

Either they really believe they have a shot at the White House or they don't care what their diversion of votes will do.  Therefore in the first case they haven't the intellectual acumen to hold the office of the US presidency or they really don't have the nation's best interests at heart.

I think it's the latter.  So what's driving their stunts?  Is it some sort of ego trip, self aggrandizement or even some, uh, "financial incentive"?  It's hard to say, and it probably doesn't matter.  Suffice it to say that their blithe disregard for the consequences of their actions causes me to look askance upon these so-called "principles" of theirs'.

I'm not opposed at all to the concept of a third party.  However, if a third party is to have any success, they have to start from the bottom up. They need to win lots of local offices then move up to Congress.  For any third party to go straight for the presidency is at best a publicly stunt; in today's circumstances it could have disastrous consequences for the nation.

If a third party does get off the ground, they better not float the above-mentioned individuals as candidates.  In their reckless pretensions for the presidency, they have demonstrated to me that they are utterly undeserving of public trust.

DC Readers! Urgent Request For Information!

Please see the comment from "Tomboysuze" in the preceding post regarding Father Imbarrato's homily.   On Sunday, Sept 18, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington gave a homily in which he flat out mocked the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding marriage and homosexuality.  This rot needs to be exposed so that it can be rectified.  If you have knowledge of this situation, please provide details in the combox.  We will investigate and publish accordingly.  Thanks.

Father Imbarrato On The Necessity Of Voting For Trump

Below I'm posting a recent homily given by Father Imbarrato of Priests for Life.  He is indeed a "protest priest" spending many hours outside the new Two Rivers Planned Parenthood abortion mill in NE Washington.  Please listen closely to this homily.  Thanks to the Johnson Amendment (the amendment that he praises Trump for promising to eliminate), he cannot name Trump nor Clinton explicitly, but one would have to be incredibly dense not to understand his meanings.

Some might think he's addressing those Catholics who would be so stupid and callous as to vote for Hillary, but I think his words could just as well apply to the #nevertrump crowd: those who plan to vote "third party" or not vote at all.

A few days ago one of my facebook friends stated his opinion that his conscience was bothered by Trump and he was considering voting for Johnson (libertarian) although the latter is pro-abortion.  I objected, of course.  In the interest of not repeating myself, I posted links to several of the blog posts that I've written in recent weeks regaarding this particular election.  For my trouble, one of my friend's other friends engaged in ad hominems, calling me a "nutcase".  My friend rebuked him and some time later the attacks disappeared from his page.

I mention this because I suspect at the heart of the #nevertrump movement, emotion reigns at the expense of logic and reason.  When I broach principles of Catholic moral theology to these people, I'm largely ignored, signifying to me that #nevertrumpers are threatened when asked to see if their stances actually square with Church teaching.  Others simply carry on as that man cited in the preceding paragraph albeit not nearly so rudely.

As I mentioned previously, a couple of mental anomalies in the #nevertrump mindset are really quite bizarre:

• Acknowledging the fact that Hillary will win should they get their way, and welcoming that outcome, opining that "our nation needs to be punished".  I suppose they haven't a care about the babies who will be murdered should she attain the White House.
• Somehow dreaming that Trump and Clinton are morally equivalent.  Leaving aside the obvious differences of policy statements that they've both made, let's look at Hillary's track history.  She allowed the four men to die at Benghazi.  She probably caused many more deaths with her sloppy handling of classified emails.  There have been a number of former associates and others connected with her that have "mysteriously" died over the past several months.  Can anything remotely similar be uttered about Trump?
• Many of these #nevertrumpers are quite blithe in assuming that our country would survive four years under Hillary, not considering that during these past eight years the fabric of our republic has been weakened and mutated almost beyond recognition.  While I might hope they'd be correct I'm not making that brash assumption.  They fail to consider that they are gambling with their children's futures.

In the video below, Father refers to an interview given by Cardinal Burke; I wrote a piece on it that gives a few more details of the Cardinal's words.  Father also cites paragraphs 2239-2240 of the Catechism.  On the right side bar of this blog is a link to the Catechism.  Please refer to this also.  Please also pass word of this video along to your other contacts.  Thank you.

Raymond Arroyo And Robert Royal On The Amoralis Lamentia Allowance For Sacrilege

Talking Tough On Catholics For Choice

I understand that both Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond and Cardinal Dolan of New York are rebuking "Catholics for Choice" and other prominent CINO's such as Tim Kaine for publicly shilling for abortion.  Well, that's very good, but the effort will be "all bark and no bite" unless some action goes along with it.  For starters, Bishop DiLorenzo would be well-advised to order his priests to deny Holy Communion to Kaine until he publicly repents (Kaine resides in the Diocese of Richmond) while the Cardinal needs to stop brown-nosing up to the Cuomos and needs to expunge his diocese of the gay network that has been too long ensconced in New York.

What are the odds of these measures being taken?

Dr. Mirus Tries To Defend The Indefensible

A few days ago Pope Francis made plain his intention to permit adulterers to seal their eternal damnation by committing sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.  I wrote about that two days ago.  I don't know why Dr. Jeff Mirus tries to spin Pope Francis' mess in some sort of "positive" way, but he makes some logical gaffes in so doing.  He tries to set forth a hypothetical case of adultery being a venial sin only.  To wit: (begin quote)

"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:

An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.

Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).

The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.

Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.

Now, even if we argue that the morally correct course is to separate from the unrepentant spouse and trust in God, it is easy to see that—at the very least—this would be hard to discern and, even if discerned, there would be tremendous fear of depriving one’s children of a family setting which includes both their mother and their father."

(end quote)  I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.

• Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily.  The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will.  The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
• When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself.  If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
• Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal.  Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given.  If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
• As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario.  If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children?  What kind of parent would he/she really be?  What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
• So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases.  Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference?  The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases".  We know how that turned out, don't we?  That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.

There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it.  Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.  

By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.

Now a word about comments.  Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church.  I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.

The Pope IS Trying To Allow Unrepentant Adulterers To Receive Holy Communion

LifeSiteNews (and others) published letters from the pope in which he stated quite plainly that there was no other way to interpret Amoris Laetitia but to admit that it does call for adulterers to be admitted to Holy Communion.  See the two LifeSite posts here and here,   Vox Cantoris links to the Vatican sites.  I have written on AL, and have explained why I redubbed it "Amoralis Lamentia".

Here we see that the pope is attempting to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion without requiring that they repent and live as brother and sister, e.g. without requiring that they cease their adultery.  In doing so, he thumbs his nose at the teachings of Our Lord Himself for the sake of deadly sentimentality.  Deadly?  Yes, for he would affirm the adulterous couple as they continue in their mortal sins AND as they compound those sins with the sin of sacrilege - that of receiving Holy Communion unworthily.

One key charge of the Vicar of Christ is to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  Right now this present pontiff seems intent on mutilating the Deposit to shreds beyond recognition.  Please take off the rose-colored glasses, pray and speak out.

Hillary Faints At 9-11 Commemoration

While the mainstream media (for the most part) is poo-pooing what happened earlier today, internet news outlets are abuzz at what took place earlier today.  See Gateway Pundit.  Even some of the mainstream media who retain some vestige of journalistic integrity are admitting that Clinton's health is an issue.  Below is a youtube that I'd suggest you watch.  This was captured by a non-media person, as mainstream media was prevented from approaching.  I'd also suggest that you pass word along and to download this video to your own machines in case something should (ahem!) "happen" to it.  Her health is just one of many reasons why she is not fit to be President of the United States.

#Nevertrumpers - Channelling The Petulancy Of Jonah

Most people are aware that Jonah is the prophet who spent a few days inside a whale's belly, but that is just one part of the story.  To understand this post, you will want to grab a Bible and read the book of Jonah.  It's not a long read, and quite interesting.

During a facebook discussion, I asked a rather adamant #nevertrumper if his conscience would allow him to do anything that would ease the way for Hillary to ascend to the White House, since he professed to be Christian and pro-life.  He replied "yes, because our nation needs to be punished."  Let that sink in, for I think his attitude is quite pervasive among the #nevertrumpers.

Now let's go back to Jonah.  After some initial rebellion, Jonah does go to Ninevah and proclaims "yet forty days more and Ninevah shall be destroyed".  After that, he goes to the hill and sits there, waiting for Ninevah to be destroyed.  From the Bible, it appears that Ninevah's conversion and repentance was rather immediate, so it's hard to imagine that Jonah was unaware of it.  When Day 40 had come and gone and Ninevah still stood, Jonah was quite displeased.  Was his disappointment rooted in the fact that what he said to the Ninevites did not occur?  Did Jonah entertain a "holier than thou" attitude against the Ninevites (forgetting his own prior rebellion)?

When I saw that facebook reply, my first thought is that "this guy is channelling Jonah in all his small-minded vindictiveness".  But I see hints of that in many of the prattlings of the #nevertrumpers, from their cavalier disregard of the consequences of denying Trump their votes to the outright vindictiveness and self-righteousness displayed by my facebook opponent.  They really don't have the good of the nation at heart; they'd rather be proven "right" than have the tide of evil at least slowed down in the country.  Perhaps that's why they spend so much time railing against Trump while scarcely uttering a peep regarding Clinton.

I don't think my facebook opponent is Catholic so it would have been pointless to invoke principles of Catholic moral theology.  Those principles would have made plain the inherent sinfulness of his attitude, and I'm thinking primarily of the principle of double effect.  One of those principles is that evil cannot directly be willed; I'm speaking of allowing the havoc of a Hillary presidency to "punish the nation", and that punishment is most likely not even a good in and of itself.  Hillary is on record of declaring that "relgious beliefs have to be changed" to accomodate baby-murder and other sins.  Sounds outlandish?  Consider what is happening in Massachusetts.  Under a Clinton presidency, we can be very certain this  will spread nation-wide, as she bestows upon Christians the status of "niggers of the new age".  (To those squeemish about that term, why not? We're already in a "basket of deplorables"!)

I've made my position before in this post (and others, see links) that to deny a vote to Trump is immoral.  I posted the episode above to get a glimmer as to what makes these #nevertrump people tick.  It certainly isn't reason and logic.  For many of them, certainly for the person quoted above, it most likely isn't good will.

Prayers Of Thanksgiving For These Bishops

Over the past few days reports have come in regarding three US bishops who have been taking stands to restore Tradition in the Church.

First, let's touch upon Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison (WI).  In accordance with Cardinal Sarah's directive, he announced his decision to offer all his Masses ad orientem - that is, facing the altar and not the congregation.  Moreover, he made that announcement with respect to Masses in the Ordinary Form.  According to 1P5, when the bishop made that announcement, it was plain to him that the congregation was happy to hear that.

Another bishop who has offered Masses ad orientem is Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln (NE).  His diocese, as a result of his fidelity to tradition (and similar fidelity of his predecessor, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz) has resulted in a large number of men aspiring to the priesthood in his diocese.  In an interview to Catholic World Report, he attributes the large number of vocations to fidelity to tradition and to the prayers of cloistered nuns.  As I read the article, I was struck with the revelation that Bishop Conley participated in Operation Rescue during its early days.  Read the article for some cogent words of his regarding the current political and cultural situation of the United States.

The final bishop that we'll consider for now is Archbishop John Myers of the Newark archdiocese.  After one of his priests came out as gay and started shilling for the lgbt agenda, the archbishop disciplined him by suspending him.  Father Hall can no longer offer public Mass nor can he present himself as a priest.  The priest seems to have had his nose thrown out of joint, judging from his tweets.  Let us pray that he repents, lest he endanger his immortal soul.

Let us pray for these prelates, that they stand firm against the sniping that they might well be enduring from some of their more progressive brothers.  Let us pray, furthermore that others emulate their examples.

By the way - here's a video contrasting Mass offered in the Tridentine Rite against, well, I'm not sure what those debacles were.  Which one do you think will attract solid vocations?

Witchcraft, Islam And Humanism - De Facto Creeds Of The New Age

This post regarding these three popular manifestations of idolatry appeared a few days ago and it provides much food for thought.  I'd go a bit further than the author does.  He merely says that these idols are merely filling in a vacuum being left by a dying and shriveling church.  I, however, believe that the church isn't merely making way for these, but actively ushering them to places of prominence.  Witness the "poop video" in the post previous to this one.

Another very recent manifestation seems to come from a most surprising source - the canonization of Mother Teresa.  There is no doubt that she and her sisters spent their lives in heroic service to many destitute people and not too many of us can forget the truth she spoke to power at the 1994 prayer breakfast.  But there were troubling signs of indifferentism throughout her writings, at least in the early days.  There is this quote from A Simple Path: "I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."  We know that the only way a Hindu, Muslim or anyone else can become "better" is to embrace the One True Faith, not to become further entrenched in their false religions.  The Bellarmine Forum carries an article about the relationship between Mother Teresa and Father John Hardon.  While it rightly praises Mother's many virtues, we see starting in the second paragraph testament to her unwillingness to teach the creeds of the Faith, saying "her sisters were there to help the poor".  So the imparting of the Faith would not have assisted the poor?  But Father was there, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, to equip the sisters to engage in that aspect of charity and I believe that they did.  But did Mother ever walk back that statement as quoted from A Simple Path?

It does seem that at least in the first stage of the ministry of the Missionaries of Mercy, Mother Teresa was content to focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy to the exclusion of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  I'll now link to an article by Msgr Charles Pope, written over a year ago, entitled "What Ever Happened To The Spiritual Works Of Mercy?"  It is worth careful study, as are the comments below.  I truly am glad that Pope John Paul II, through Father Hardon, corrected that short-coming in the Missionaries of Mercy.

Let's move onto Islam.  I'll now post an account of an interview granted by Cardinal Burke.  In that interview, His Eminence states that the belief that Christians and muslims worship the same god stems from relativism.  It might be indifferentism, too, such as the one seen Mother Teresa's quote in A Simple Path.  It is quite blasphemous to state that those who behead babies, stone rape victims, engage in terrorist bombings by using their own children, etc, etc, in the name of their god, somehow worship the One, True God.  Yet that is what progressive church leaders thrust down our throats, as our post-Christian culture makes ever-increasing concessions to muslims while treating Christians - particularly faithful Catholics - as de facto "niggers of the new age".

Again we see the Church hierarchy welcoming in this heresy, not only in the misguided indifferentism rightly condemned by Cardinal Burke, but also in troubling actions by Pope Francis.  Recall his allowance of muslim prayers to the false "allah" idol within the Vatican gardens and his washing of the feet of muslims during Holy Thursday services.

These embraces of both humanism and indifferentism by progressives in the Church not only facilitate cultural suicide, but also facilitate the damnation of immortal souls by holding up to them lies as though they were truths.

Poop Video - Explicit Humanism Rife Throughout

I like Vox Cantoris' term for these "pope videos".  It's more accurate so I think I'll follow his lead.  Watch this thing.  Considering that this thing comes from the pope, one might expect to hear some key words: words such as "Jesus", "Church", "salvation", "soul", "eternity", "God".  I must have missed them.  Now the pope is known as "vicar of ???"  Can anyone answer that question, based on the contents of that video?  It really should be "Vicar of Christ", but again, one does not hear the word "Christ" even once in the flick.

By the way - have you ever noticed how the actors in all these things engage in grinning, mugging scenes such as the one starting at the 0:47 mark?  But I digress.

At the 1:00 mark we see the main thrust in the words flashing up: "For everyone to contribute to the common good and to build a society that puts the human person at its center."  Can the humanism be any more explicit?   It is God who should be at the center of society, not man.  But in this thing produced by the Vatican, we don't hear the Name of God or Jesus mentioned once.  This is the idolatry known as humanism, plain as day for all to see (provided no one is wearing rose-colored glasses).



I will have more to say about humanism in the next post.

Blessed Sacrament In DC To Lionize Two Dissident Jesuits

The problems with Jesuits aren't new by any stretch of the imagination.  One of those who have sounded the alarm was the late Father John Hardon, himself a Jesuit but one who was a true son of St Ignatius of Loyola.  He crossed swords with Father Karl Rahner when the latter proposed his theory of transfinalization, a heresy that cast doubt upon the nature of the Holy Eucharist as being truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Pope Paul VI condemned that error in his encyclical Mysterium Fideli, as elaborated by Father Hardon.

Another troublesome Jesuit was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a priest during the first half of the century.  Fancying himself to be a scientist, he dabbled in evolutionary theory and essentially helped get the snowball known as modernism rolling down the hill.  Read here for more detail and some quotes.  As you read his "prayer", can't you just hear Obi-Wan Kenobi say "may the force be with you"?  That quote if from a Jesuit website so of course they bemoan his "suffering" by being hushed by the Vatican and his superiors (before they too were infected by modernism).  Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand wrote a detailed critique of De Chardin that is well worth the read.

Both Rahner and De Chardin (now both deceased) played pivotal roles in the early days of the modernist corruption of the Catholic Church.  But why am I bringing up these two men in this post?

I do so because Blessed Sacrament Church on Western Avenue in DC will be conducting "courses" on the writings of these two men starting next month.  See page 4 of the Sept 4th bulletin. (A word to the Blessed Sacrament staff.  Don't bother to try to pull the bulletin from your site; I already archived it.)

The language in the bulletin announcement would lead the unsuspecting parishioner to believe that the teachings of Chardin and Rahner are healthy when in reality they could imperil the salvation of those who accept and implement them.  You might recall that this is the same parish that hosted book-signings by both Chris Matthews and Mark Shriver, both "katholycs" who use their bully-pulpits to promote baby-killing, gay #mowwidge and other mortal sins.  See here and here for reports on our protest of the Chris Matthews appearance and here for our protest of the Shriver debacle.

I ask my readers to:

• Spread warning of this spiritual poison, particularly to those who attend Blessed Sacrament.
• Contact the parish (contact information is in the bulletin) and ask them to cancel both these series.

Pope Claims Environmentalism A Work Of Mercy - At Soros' Bidding?

Remember "Father Goodvibes"?  At the end of that post, I expressed my hopes that such a scenario would remain a parody.  Alas, such is not to be, as Pope Francis has swallowed the envirowhacko kool-aid.  Moreover, it seems that he's trying to force-feed Catholics that same poison on pain of sin!

Earlier today, at the "World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation", the pope called "global warming" a "sin against God", and must be "atoned" by recycling, separating trash, using public transportation, etc.  For different accounts of the nonsense, see here, here, here.  He has gone so far as to designate "care of creation" as a de facto "Eighth Corporal Work of Mercy".

Far from being a "work of mercy", the embrace of environmentalism is to embrace knowingly the demonic, anti-life dictates of Satan himself.  I and others have written extensively on:

• The lack of true scientific basis for the "global warming" hysteria.  Many scientists debunk the nonsense - and have paid dearly for it.  Please read this link, and the links embedded therein.  I strongly suggest watching the well-researched videos.
• The anti-life motives of key leaders of this "global warming" schtick.  More and more they are becoming quite brazen about their goals.

The linked post in the last bullet highlighted the possible role that George Soros may be playing in this whole mess.  We see in discoverthenetworks.org that Soros funds EarthJustice and Defenders of Wildlife.  Human Events reveals some of his envirowhacko dabblings.  Last week we learned that Soros gave $650 billion (not million but billion) to PICO and Faith In Public Life to sway bishops to doing his bidding.  Father Sirico of the Acton Institute elaborated on that, calling these groups "Soros's Catholic Useful Idiots".  Well, maybe these groups aren't the only "useful idiots" in Soros' back pocket.  That may well apply to the pope himself, as he deliberately uses the weight of his high office to attempt to bind the consciences of Catholics into accepting "global warming" junk science.

"What's that you say?" I hear the rose-glasses wearers shrieking.  Well, the only other alternative is to suspect that the pope is a knowing and willing henchman of Soros', if not a partner.

We must of course pray for the pope, that he takes up his task to defend the Teachings of Jesus Christ, not twist them to suit some well-heeled progressive megalomaniac.