Traitors

Cardinal Martini supports public endorsement of sodomy.

This would really bother me if I weren’t already maxed out on outrage from learning that, in the diocese of Washington, a priest can be disciplined for protecting the Eucharist from desecration via reception by an open apostate and pervert.

It’s bad enough that the enemies of Christ are emboldened and ruthless, while nine tenths of the laity has informally apostasized and joined the enemy; is it really too much to ask that Christ and His Church not be stabbed in the back by bishops?

45 thoughts on “Traitors

  1. While the equivocal attitude of the Church of England (regarding sodomy) has been remarked on for many years, I used to think that the Church of Rome could be counted on to hold the line on this front. Now I’m beginning to doubt it.

    Pope Benedict XVI probably won’t depart from traditional Catholic teaching on one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance. But after he dies and another so-called ‘liberal’ pope gets elected, who knows how long it will be before the Fifth Column within the church, which condones homosexuality, gets the upper hand?

  2. The only hope of the catholic church at this point would be an African pope calling for an actual inquisition. That is what the Spanish inquisition was you know. They were concerned about recently converted muslims and jews acting as a fifth column within the church and engaging in a subversion campaign. Such a thing has happened before.

    Tens of millions (and many of them clergy) would have to be excommunicated and defrocked. Also very likely donations to the church from the US would dry up, perhaps even be interdicted by the government as part of an active suppression campaign as catholic orthodoxy could very well be classified as illegal hatespeech within a decade or two.

    The other possibility is the liberals get their own pope who could conceivably start speaking ex cathedra reversing catholic positions on sexual morality. I wonder what conservative catholics would do then. I suppose if you believe in papal infallibility you would believe it would be physically impossible for a pope to declare heresy ex cathedra.

    • The other possibility is the liberals get their own pope who could conceivably start speaking ex cathedra reversing catholic positions on sexual morality.

      If a pope denied by exercise of the extraordinary magisterium what had hitherto always and everywhere been taught and believed, it would obviously be invalid, but it would indeed be catastrophic. A liberal pope, Paul VI, in fact had the chance in 1968. Instead, he affirmed the traditional teaching. If Paul VI couldn’t bring himself to deny universal Christian truths, but instead penned an eloquent and prophetic defense of them, then I doubt even a liberal pope today would be able to do so. The chrism of Peter is real and effectual.

      I cannot say what you suggest is impossible, but I believe it is very unlikely… and more unlikely today than at any time in the last 50 years. Look, for example, and Cardinal Martini’s age…

  3. The Catholic Church has practically reversed itself on the Jews and is now submissive to its elder brothers in religion and hostile to the interests of Whites. So any inquisition would be directed at those who support pre-Vatican II positions, but they usually self-excommunicate anyway.

    A revaluation of all values follows as a matter of course when the old master is overthrown and a new lord rules. The progressive collapse of Christian discipline and dogma on sexuality and family life is part of this general transformation.

    There is no practical reason not to accept the corruption of sexuality if you are comfortable with the destruction of the people whose manners will be corrupted. Those who now enjoy a superior position don’t like those who used to be dominant within Christianity.

    • Hi Daybreaker,

      You might be interested in the post I’ll be putting up in a couple of days on the Jewish Problem.

      • Very interested in reading this as well, Bonald. I sometimes wonder at the term “elders brothers in faith/religion” when Christ was rejected by the Jews; according to Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah but they don’t recognize him as such, even though his coming was foretold. The continued existence of Jews seems to indicate something is not right either with their understanding of scripture, or mine…and I admit I am ignorant in this area but eager to learn more and be corrected where necessary.

        I also wonder at the continued evolution of the position of various Jewish sects (are they sects? Hasidim, Orthodox, New Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) on homosexuality. I have a homosexual Jewish sister-in-law (complicated issue for me) who keeps the Sabbath, won’t touch pork, sleeps with another woman and promotes gay/transexual lifestyles openly. I don’t know what is going on there…

      • Bonald,

        Will your post draw upon Schoeman’s Salvation Is from the Jews (Ignatius Press 2003)? I wouldn’t want to write about Jews and Roman Catholics without reviewing or indeed rereading this book. The author is a Jewish convert to orthodox Roman Catholicism, and his book is published by a well-regarded Catholic publisher. (Incidentally, I’m wondering why no one has yet, so far as I have noticed, referred at this blog to the novels of Michael O’Brien, such as Plague Journal [y’all would eat it up], Eclipse of the Sun, Father Elijah, and others.)

        If any of my fellow Confessional Lutherans are looking at this comment, I would recommend Schoeman’s book to them and also Uwe Siemon-Netto’s The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths.

        In my church, we pray every week to God to “open the door of faith unto all unbelievers and unto the people of Israel.” May the Father send forth His Word and Holy Spirit to grant to them all faith in His Son, born of a Jewish mother.

      • I’m pretty sure gravatar assigns random doo-hickey patterns each new email address it sees… I doubt Hale intentionally tried to get a swastika looking one…. I hadn’t noticed it myself, in spite of his consistent and spirited defense of European culture.

      • Schoeman, perhaps because he is a converso, has a problem with supersessionism:

        We have seen how, at the very outset of Christianity, many held the mistaken belief that one must be a member of the Old Covenant (i.e., be a Jew) to be eligible for participation in the New. This error was quickly corrected, but was soon followed by another known as “supersessionism” – that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced (or superseded, hence “supersessionism”), made null and void, by the New. This view dominated Christian theology for much of the past two thousand years. It has only recently been definitively rejected by the Church. (Schoeman, Salvation is From the Jews, 352)

        He is “orthodox” as that term is understood by neo-con Catholics. When traditionalist Catholics draw up lists of reasons they think neo-con Catholics are a bunch of closet heretics, Schoeman is on the list. In fact, there was a cottage industry back in 2006/7 among neo-con apologists in trying to wiggle Schoeman out of what appears to be a quite straightforward rejection of de fide Church teaching (observe, he calls supersessionism an “error”). The spectacle ended, as I (dimly) recall, with some kind of limited walk-back by Schoeman.

        It’s hard to blame Schoeman too much, though. Bizarre Vatican II coinages like “our elder brothers in the faith,” various flirtations with dual covenant theology by high churchmen, the changes in the Good Friday liturgy, and other oddities would lead any reasonable person to wonder whether supersessionism is still a teaching of the Church. Casual empiricism tells me that, of Jews who know what supersessionism is, a remarkable percentage think it was abandoned by Vatican II or by John Paul II or something.

    • It really comes down to a clear choice:

      Death or Eternal Life.
      Barrenness or Fecundity.
      Perversion or Natural Affection.

      Babel or The Cross.

      • Considering what adherents of the swastika have done to adherents of the Cross, Mr. Hale, you might want to reconsider your gravatar emblem. I don’t expect that one will be seen in heaven; as for the other place… Up to you, of course.

      • India and Japan also have plenty of Swastika’s. And I think some Europeans used to use it.

      • Nowadays the choices are different.

        Eternal Life for the individual, at the price of agreeing to Death for the whole race, or repudiating that awful bargain and looking for a better one. (But most people find an even worse bargain, and wouldn’t know where to begin looking for a better one.)

        Subsidized fecundity for others and expansion into one’s own peoples lands combined with crowding out and inevitable decline for one’s own people, or (somehow) a counter-cultural strategy that defeats both the secular and the religious authorities. Emphasis on the “somehow“.

        The perversion of family life (with no-fault divorce established as part of the “normal” concept of marriage, and “gay marriage” on the way or already here) and the exacerbation of the consequences by obtuse demands that young men “man up” and enter a corrupted institution on disadvantageous terms, or else somehow forging ahead with a counter-cultural family life, an option that mostly requires a lot of luck.

        Babel and The Cross, or neither and something else. (But for most people there is no “something else”.)

      • Dale: I didnt choose the gravatar (avatar?), it picked it randomly for me.

        When you are talking about a symbol whose “adherents” have persecuted, killed, raped, tortured, and degraded Christians in the past century, I think you mean the one with six lines, six triangles, and six points.

        Wake up.

      • Bohemund wrote, “I’m pretty sure gravatar assigns random doo-hickey patterns each new email address it sees… I doubt Hale intentionally tried to get a swastika looking one…. I hadn’t noticed it myself, in spite of his consistent and spirited defense of European culture.”

        I hadn’t seen that gravatar appear with any other comments, so I assumed, perhaps prematurely, that Mr. Hale chose a swastika — surely a strange emblem to appear at a Christian and anti-modern site. The Nazi regime was, I would say, a characteristically modern enterprise: a militaristic state, a bureaucratic state, a heavily industrialized state, a surveillance state, a state ever organizing people by inflaming their resentments and meddling with every aspect of life, including the formation of families — seeking at every turn to reduce down conscientious individuals into a ghastly mass of protoplasm to be directed by a shabby pack of despots, a moral freak-show. It invoked science, notably doctrines of evolution, as the means by which problems were to be solved, discarding Christian morality in favor of the notions of modern prophets. Schoeman’s Salvation Is of the Jews sets forth fascinating material about the homosexual clubbableness of the innermost Nazi circles. Yes, the Nazi Reich was very much a modern enterprise.

        If you don’t want a Christian critique thereof such as some of Mr. Schoeman’s excellent pages provide, read Reck-Malleczewen’s Diary of a Man in Despair.

      • Nazism was undoubtedly a perverse and degenerate modern institution, but it was also born out of reaction of the banal and perverse modernity of the Weimar Republic and Imperial Germany.

        That should be a warning to us.

      • When you are talking about a symbol whose “adherents” have persecuted, killed, raped, tortured, and degraded Christians in the past century, I think you mean the one with six lines, six triangles, and six points.

        That is not a consistent and spirited defense of European culture.

        I s’pose circumcision is a great evil as well.

        The Joos™ haven’t done anything their enablers haven’t allowed. They wanted to be WASPs because WASPs held all the power… and as everyone knows: Having power gets you laid. Now they’re better WASPs than even the WASPs… so fix the fscking MA Puritans. The egalitarianism, deracination, abstract rights speak, hyper rationalism, all of it, was well-established on the North American continent long before The Joos™ arrived… Your looking for the enemy… in the wrong place.

      • Bohemund:

        And that was established in England by Cromwell’s psychoreligious fundamentalist revolution. Seems like he had some powerful friends on the continent…

        I need no lecture on Yankees. 300 years of southern bloodlines and scores of family members dead fighting the Yankee monster is more than enough to hate the Puritan Empire.

      • The egalitarianism, deracination, abstract rights speak, hyper rationalism, all of it, was well-established on the North American continent long before The Joos™ arrived… Your looking for the enemy… in the wrong place.

        And, after the Jews were infected by the Puritan Disease, those evil fucking WASPs crammed them into time machines and beamed them back to the shtetl where they infected their East European bretheren. Fucking WASPs.

        Christendom has more than one enemy. Saying any of “It’s the Jews! It’s the Muslims! It’s the Puritans! It’s the atheists! It’s the Masons!” is retarded. Politics is done by coalitions.

  4. is it really too much to ask that Christ and His Church not be stabbed in the back by Satan’s minions?

    Fixed. Answer: Yes.

  5. Samson’s pep talk time!

    Don’t get discouraged, folks. It’s easy to log all the stories that make it seem like the N.I.C.E. is “winning”, but they’re not really winning. They can’t. I often roll my eyes and think of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s final remark, delivered – even as he’s about to die – with the long-suffering frustration of one trying to explain a simple concept to an otherwise brilliant individual who simply refuses to get it. “You can’t win, Darth,” he practically sighs.

    You can’t win, Satan. Stop pretending that you can when we all know you can’t.

  6. I’ve recently returned to the Catholic church after a 16 year or so absence, and I sometimes question the type of institution to which I am returning. When I hear of things like open endorsement of homosexuality, shaming of priests who try to uphold the law and values of the church, and in general see a lack of appropriate dress and behavior among Catholics, I waver not in faith but in loyalty to my fellows.

    On this matter, I thought the church would never, ever budge. Why now? And what are the consequences of this, another schism in the Church, or something less dramatic but more tragic: sustained, gradual erosion of authority until only nominal Catholicism exists (this latter already happening, it seems, and getting more noticeable).

  7. I think that we are making too much out of this. There is reason for hope:

    1) Cardinal Martini is no longer a bishop. He is retired, and he is speaking a motu propio. He belongs to this generation of Jesuits that was far too close to those “liberation theology” deluded priests. I grew up surrounded by many of them, and they are dying off. While the Company of Jesus has had (and still has) its contingent of modernists, my experience with younger priests is exactly the opposite from what I’ve seen in those 70’s Jesuits.

    2) Bishop Wuerl may have made a pastoral mistake with Guarnizo. I don’t know the details of the case except through the internet, but he has not been teaching heresy. I will reserve a more charitable opinion towards him, as his position as bishop must not be easy. The Church is being submitted daily to attacks, and I don’t want to contribute to them. Treason is too harsh an accusation.

    3) The Church’s teaching regarding sexuality is clear and unchanged. That “America”, that 70’s Jesuit pamphlet, and the National Catholic Register are in attack mode shows their desperation, and evidence that the left in the Church is losing. All this “spirit” of Vatican II, which has nothing to do with what was actually officially written in its documents, is coming to an end.

    Lastly, let us remind ourselves (ortho-Catholics) that we are the sheep, the bishops our shepherds, and that the Church does have temporal authority, even if fallible.

    Samson: you are right. The gates of Hell shall never overcome his church.

    • OK, Martini is speaking on his own initiative. But what is his little book of 84 pages intended to accomplish if not to give strength to forces undermining a healthy (natural law) understanding of sexuality and family life?

    • Hi Ralph,

      I’d like to believe this. On the other hand, isn’t attacking us what we would expect the heretical wing of Catholicism to be doing whether they’re desperate or not? I don’t see how we can draw any conclusions from that.

    • Fr. Z. often speaks of what he calls the “biological solution.” He relates that new entrants into the seminaries are extremely conservative and a good number of them express interest in learning the Tridentine rite. The modernist heretics are all professors — aging farts ordained in the 70s and 80s. You can guess what the biological solution is.

  8. Actually, being on the attack is usually a sign of strength. If they were weak, they’d be defending themselves against our attacks.

  9. They’re weaker in the Church? Since when? Nearly every bishop that breathes air is, at a minimum, a wooly-headed liberal if not an out-and-out leftist. That’s why everybody knows the exceptions by name–Benedict XVI became world famous basically for speaking a small fraction of the full truth about the horrors that were engulfing the Church under John Paul II.

    And besides, the Church is weaker in society than at any time for the last thousand years. I note the quotation from Mt. above, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. Well, that’s true in some spiritual sense, but if anybody still thinks it’s going to be true in a temporal sense, he’s got another thing coming. The passage refers to Hell’s gates–a city’s gates are its last line of defense, so the passage is referring to the Church militant, not the Church’s temporal protection from evil as Catholics so often assume (they always quote this passage when someone points out that the Church has, in fact, almost totally apostasized from itself, as though chanting the Petrine doctrine will somehow magically change the observable reality).

    By the close of this century, in fact, anybody who calls himself a member of the “Roman” Church will in all probability be referring to something like “the eternal Rome” that lives in their hearts (or whatever). In a century’s time, I’d be surprised if half the churches in Rome hadn’t been converted to mosques, with the Vatican a pathetic supplicant to its Muslim overlords, not unlike the sad state of the Copts, who will publicly recite by rote the required prescription that one does NOT insult the Prophet. And it will have happened because of the Church’s very own liberalism and self-loathing.

    Real orthodox Christianity simply will not be preserved by the bishops of the Catholic Church, and the Church itself almost certainly will have fractured considerably by then. There is, to my mind, literally no hope for any other outcome. So in a way, we should all be glad–you can know that every day, no matter how bad, is about as good as it’s going to get pretty much until the return of Christ. So in a sense, these are the golden times, when the memory of a real, temporal, orthodox Christian faith was still visible in the world, even if the empty cathedrals are a sad reminder of the way things are headed.

  10. “O God, if in this time that is ours we can raise our heads and see that our redemption approaches, it is because we see that the Church has never fallen so low as she is now.”–Nicholas of Cusa, 15c

    “The doctrines of the Fathers are scorned, the apostolic traditions are considered as nothing, the discoveries of innovators are greatly valued in the churches. Instead of being theologians, they have learned to be speculative. The wisdom of the world has the place of honor, having taken the place of the glory of the cross.”–St. Basil, 4c

    Of course, it is always easy to say that now is not particularly bad, because, there are always quotations like above. The attack is a bit cheap.

    But I just wanted to agree with samsonsjawbone up there, and with ralph. We do not rest on men; if the Church rest on men, it would have failed when the majority of bishops were Arians, or when the popes had mistresses, or a million other times when it has been engulfed in corruption.

    But it rests not on men, but on Christ.

  11. I think Father Marcel Guarnizo’s letter shines a clear light on how much the initiative lies with the corrupters of tradition, and his punishment shows that even holding back from active cooperation with faulty behaviour is considered too provocative and aggressive a position for a conservative priest to be allowed to hold to.

    The actions of Ms. Barbara Johnson (Buddhist, lesbian and Catholic) and her lover show aggressiveness and a confidence that was justified by events. They knew that power was on their side, and that they could make a priest they had never met before do as they pleased or pay. That is not what I call desperation. This is what I call spoiling for a fight:

    “A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms. Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.”

    • Is this initiative due to belief that they are winning, or because they feel threatened? The fact is that, in this world, they won many years ago. They are the power. They are becoming aggressive, I believe, because they now see the tide moving against them. The Spanish Republicans, the Mexican Revolutionaries, the Jacobins didn’t attack the Church so savagely only because they were their ideological enemies: they attacked them because they saw a threat. When the powers that be are comfortable, they don’t attack, as they don’t want to upset the status quo. They attack because they perceive something is changing. I believe something is changing.

      On Martini, I have profound distrust of anyone over 60 with S.J. or S.I. next to their names. I cannot consider him a traitor, as he has been always against me. It is like those feminist nuns, or Catholics for Choice: can anyone here honestly say that at any point these people were on our side? That B-XVI and JP-II were popes, in spite of these guys, shows some work by the Spirit.

  12. I found some remarks from Bishop Williamson regarding modernism quite interesting. For him people like Cardinal Schönborn or Pope Benedict are no heretics because they have no concept, no understanding of truth anymore. A heretic believes very much in the truth of his point of view and defends it thus. But the modernists of today “cannot defend what they no longer understand”, as Bishop Williamson says: “Modern minds are very sick, as minds, and Benedict XVI has a modern mind, like millions and millions of modern people, including churchmen, around him. … The sickness consists in believing that there is no fixed, objective truth which absolutely excludes error. For example, I may believe that two and two are four, but I will believe that they can also be five or six or 600,000 or whatever. The “truth” is what my mind makes it. But the mind is made for objective truth like lungs are made for oxygen, so just as lungs without external oxygen are sick to death, so a mind with no external truth is sick to death.”
    “Benedict XVI believes that Catholic `truth´ can evolve. For instance, very serious statements of Catholic truth that cannot change, like the Syllabus or Pascendi, he calls merely “substantial anchorages” in Church doctrine, meaning that the Church could anchor there, and usefully anchored there for a while, but in modern times the Church needs new “substantial anchorages” in doctrine. He cannot see that this anti-modern Catholic doctrine of his predecessors is of such a nature that it cannot change, and not even as Pope can he change it. His poor mind, however gifted, is sick with that modern–especially German–philosophy which unhooks the mind from its object, like cutting off lungs from oxygen.”
    I think with “modern–especially German–philosophy” Bishop Williamson refers to phenomenologie which is the backbone of every postmodern relativistic point of view. In Orwel´s “1984” it was the expression of freedom to persist that two and two are four. Now it is freedom to claim that two and two are five. And O´Brien don´t needs to torture anyone for this, he just sends them to university.

    • I would encourage you to read “Truth and Tolerance” by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It contradicts the strawman and slander of a schismatic.

      Additionally, his homily just before becoming pope stated:
      ‘Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.’

      • I could not refute you or Benedict/Ratzinger on the basis of Dogma. I just do not know enough. And I still enjoy some of the writings of Benedict/Ratzinger. But it is not just joy, there are mixed feelings; he has sometimes so obviously an american, modern mind. The tricky thing with relativism is, that you can make a statement against relativism an still be a relativist. So I would encourage you to read “Mirari Vos” from Gregor XVI and “Pascendi Domini Gregis” from Pius X and tell me: do you find Benedict XVI and the modern Church there?

  13. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Holy Week Edition « Patriactionary

  14. I agree that the tone in those encyclicals is different. However, I don’t see evidence that the teachings are different from what we see today. At the time of the encyclicals, the Church still had standing. Not anymore. All authority is being questioned.

    The current tone, excluding the cafeteria Catholics and their supporters in the orders, just acknowledges that we no longer have power. Outside the Third World, secular education is imposed, secular values legislated, etc. The pope(s) have to walk a fine line in trying to make these people open their ears without eliciting a reaction against the flock. They have to feed and protect His sheep, don’t they?

    Additionally, “(t)o those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

    That said, it seems sometimes that they bend backwards too much. This Guarnizo case seems to be one of them.

  15. Pingback: An exceptionally bad homily « The Orthosphere

  16. Pingback: Traitors, part II « The Orthosphere

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.