Francis and Mark Carney as Abusive Fathers

 

Two unaccountable and unpredicted things have happened recently. I think they are connected.

First, everyone thought the successor to Pope Francis would be a progressive “Francis 2.0.” After all, Francis had appointed 80% of the voting cardinals. Yet Leo XIV is so far signalling traditionalism. How did that happen? 

Second, having just won an election, Mark Carney’s cabinet and caucus seems rife with dissent. This shouldn’t happen right after an election win. Liberal MPs live in fear of their leader: he gets to veto their nominations if they alienate him. And Carney just saved the party’s bacon. Until he stepped in, they were headed for a historic defeat. Why the dissatisfaction?

In the case of Rome, I think we all missed the dynamic in thinking the divide in the hierarchy was between “progressives” and “traditionalists.”

The first sign was a report that, as they gathered for Francis’s funeral, the cardinals demanded the opening of a repository of traditional vestments kept under lock and key by Francis. Were they all secretly traditionalist?

Then reports of an elevated mood in the Vatican—shocking at the death of a pope. Now someone is quoted as saying, for the years of Francis’s pontificate, they were all living in fear. “It is like we are escaping an abusive father.”

And that, I think, is the key. Not left or right, progressive or traditionalist, but abusive.

Francis gave no moral direction. He seemed annoyed by those who followed the traditions of the church; yet offered no clear alternative either. This left everything up to the will of Francis. 

Take, for the most obvious example, the Latin mass. Francis suppressed it, on the grounds that wanting the Latin mass was an expression of opposition to his authority. That was a tautology: if he did not suppress the Latin mass, wanting it would not be an expression of opposition to his authority.

I(t was all about the exercise of power. Francis was a narcissist. Narcissists worship their own will.

When a parent, or a superior, acts in this way, one lives in constant fear. You can never know whether you are doing right or wrong, you can never relax or feel good about yourself; you never know when the hammer will fall. Francis’s position on any given matter was unpredictable: he blew hot and cold; it seemed to depend on how he was feeling that day. He had arbitrary favourites, and punished others arbitrarily.

This is the essence of abuse. The sense of disorientation this causes is the font and source of virtually all spiritual distress, which we commonly and improperly call “mental illness.”

Francis was driving everyone mad.

And Carney seems to be in the same mold. What is his true stand on any issue? He campaigned on imposing tariffs on the US, and standing up to Trump. Now he has quietly suspended the tariffs. He endorsed the carbon tax, then set it to zero. 

In personnel matters, word leaked out that Chrystia Freeland was being dropped from cabinet; then she wasn’t. I suspect this was not a false rumour; Carney changed his mind. A more public example is Nate Erskine-Smith. In Carney’s first, stripped-down cabinet, he kept Erskine-Smith. Only a month later, in his greatly expanded cabinet, he dropped Erskine-Smith. This seems inconsistent, arbitrary. This is clearly the way Erskine-Smith experienced it; he got blindsided. Carney kept Stephen Guilbault in Cabinet, and promoted Anita Anand, seeming to signal a turn to the left; then publicly adopted much of the Conservative platform. This seems like a mismatch; he seems to have blindsided them too. It is as though Carney is just enjoying imposing his will. Another narcissist. L’etat, c’est toi.

A dysfunctional caucus, a dysfunctional church, or a dysfunctional family, is the result. “Mental illness” is the result.

The Ordo Amoris

 

There is a firestorm raging in the Catholic church on Trump’s policy of deporting illegal aliens. J.D. Vance cited the principle of ordo amoris: that one owes one’s greatest love to family, then community, then country, then mankind. This is indeed, as many conservative commentators have confirmed, traditional Catholic doctrine, supported by Augustine, Aquinas, several recent former popes, and even Pope Francis himself, in his past writings. Vance argued that modern leftism has turned this on its head, elevating the alien, demeaning the family, and condemning the USA. Pope Francis himself then chimed in, insisting Vance and Trump are wrong, that we must love all equally. An American bishop has proposed excommunicating any Catholic who follows Trump’s orders in deporting aliens.

I am personally torn here. Who is right? Before listening to J.D. Vance, I would have taken Francis’s view. However, I am disturbed by the fact that Francis is contradicting himself and prior popes. This suggests that for him, politics is trumping doctrine—and ethics.

We owe greatest love to family? But then, who is our family? See what Jesus says in the Gospel:

And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46–50)

We owe greater love to those of our own community? But then the Good Samaritan, from a different community, is declared by Jesus to be the true neighbour, and not the Hebrew priest or scribe.

True love, caritas, is a love extended to all. Love restricted to family, or to nation, is too often only shared egotism. Once could cite Hitler’s Germany.

And yet, in defense of Trump and Vance’s position… anyone who has lived in or even visited a Third World country must realize that it is impossible to treat everyone equally. Give of your substance to all who are in need, and you would give away everything you have while doing almost no measurable good to anyone. Seven billion pennies. The poor you shall have always with you.

And, of course, your own children would starve. Does that sound right?

The principle must be this: you help whomever God sends to you, whomever you encounter on your life path, who is deserving, who does the will of God. The Samaritan is your neighbour, because he is good. “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven.” This is also the lesson of Dives and Lazarus: Lazarus is a good man, and he is on the rich man’s doorstep, within his sight. 

This will usually mean a duty to help deserving members of your family, then your community, then your nation. But not because they are family members or physical neighbours. Because these are the ones God has presented to you for help. This also means you must support a deserving stranger before an immoral member of your family or your community.

How does this translate to government immigration policy? A government has their own population most immediately on their doorstep, literally already present. This means they must be favoured over foreigners, all else being equal. Moreover, the government owes a greater loyalty to the law abiding than to people of known bad moral character, i.e., those who enter the country illegally.

So whether or not he has the reasoning right, Vance is right on policy, and Francis is wrong. Illegal aliens are owed human dignity, but not entry.

It is harder to say how this applies to applicants for legal immigration. Those of good character should be preferred, but other than excluding known criminals, this is hard to establish. And a wealthy nation must restrict immigration in some way; otherwise you have the problem of giving away everything while benefitting no one. So the sensible thing is to choose immigrants for the most benefit brought to those already present. Which is how most nations operate. What skills are in short supply? Who is young and healthy and likely to add by their efforts to the general wealth?

Francis messed up. He is first and foremost a politician.

Darth Francis

 

At about the same time he is promoting the heresy of indifferentism, Pope Francis has also said that he cannot choose between the evils of Trump’s platform and that of Harris in the current US presidential election.

“Who is the lesser evil? That lady, or that gentleman? I don't know. Both are against life, be it the one that kicks out migrants, or the one that kills children."

This is a clear example of false moral equivalence. Francis is saying that to expel an intruder from your home is morally equivalent to murder.

This is obviously wrong; it amounts to an attempt to justify abortion.

Is it even wrong in the slightest to resist illegal immigration or to deport migrants?

Acts 17: 26 says it is God’s plan that nations and peoples have borders:

“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”

One doesn’t have the right to immigrate any more than one has the right to live in another man’s home.

It is not plausible that Francis does not know this. 

It is increasingly obvious that in our times we are fighting a war of good versus evil. The masks are off, and it is no longer a matter of people of good will coming to different conclusions. 

And Pope Francis is on the side of evil.

Is the Pope Catholic?

 

Pope Francis just said the following to the children in Singapore: 

“All religions are paths to reach God. They are—to make a comparison—like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone. If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God."

This is, straight up, the heresy of indifferentism. It is not plausible that the Pope does not understand this. The Pope is a heretic.

Of course one is Catholic because one is convinced that Catholicism has more of the truth than other religions. Otherwise what is the point of having a Church? What is the point of having a Pope? What is the point of Christianity? Why didn’t we all remain pagans or Jews? Were the martyrs just bigoted fools to die for the faith?

Yes, all religions are paths to God, and all major religions are largely true. Given a good God, it must be so. It must be possible to get there as a Hindu or a Jew, with sincerity and effort. That is the doctrine of invincible ignorance. But consider the different religions as paths up a mountain. Not all paths up a mountain are equally straight. Not all paths get you all the way, even if they go in the same general direction. Some paths will prove to be impasssible higher up. 

The analogy of language, which Francis uses, suggests all paths are equally serviceable; for that is the general view among linguists about languages. Thery all do the job. No one dares say English is a better language than French. 

Moreover, the teaching of the Church has always been, “no salvation outside (or without) the Church.” And Jesus said “no one comes to the father except through me.” Francis must reconcile his claims with these doctrines, and I do not believe he can. He cannot be indifferent to truth claims.

So now what do we do?

Pope Francis Lays It Out

 

Pope Francis has condemned “conservatism” as “wanting to cling to something, and not seeing beyond it.” “It is a suicidal attitude.” “Being closed up inside a dogmatic box.”

Merriam-Webster defines conservative as “support of established institutions”; “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions”; “marked by moderation or caution.”

Francis is misdefining “conservative” to mean “obsessive.”

But he obviously intends to malign real conservatives. 

He is, therefore,  objecting to and condemning support of established institutions, existing views, and conditions. And he objects to moderation and caution.

This means the pope stands in opposition to the Catholic Church: there is no more established institution. He stands against the “deposit of faith.” The reason for the church to exist is to preserve and spread dogma, this set of revealed truths. He calls it a “dogmatic box.” And he stands against the virtue of prudence, aka moderation or caution, which both Aquinas and the ancient Greeks considered the mother of all virtues.

"Prudence is the foundation of all these things and is the greatest good. Thus it is more valuable than philosophy and is the source of every other excellence.” It is “the cause, measure, and form of all virtues.”

So the pope stands against the Catholic church as an institution, against Catholicism as a faith or set of beliefs, and against virtue. 

Is the pope Catholic?

Clearly not.

Lent According to Francis

 

Pope Francis has apparently issued his own suggestions for the Lenten fast. 

I had not heard these. I hear them now from my leftist friend Xerxes. 

Francis seems to be more popular among non-Catholics than Catholics. Within the church, he is far less liked than his two immediate predecessors, Benedict XV and John Paul II. He has stirred up much confusion and opposition.

Here are his recommendations:

• Fast from hurting words and say kind words.
• Fast from sadness and be filled with gratitude.
• Fast from anger and be filled with patience.
• Fast from pessimism and be filled with hope.
• Fast from complaints and contemplate simplicity.
• Fast from pressures and be prayerful.
• Fast from bitterness and fill your heart with joy.
• Fast from selfishness and be compassionate to others.
• Fast from grudges and be reconciled.
• Fast from words and be silent so you can listen.

I do not like these suggestions. They do not involve giving up anything for Lent. 

You are always supposed to avoid hurting words. “Anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

You are always supposed to avoid anger and grudges; it is one of the seven deadly sins.

You are always supposed to hope; it is one of the theological virtues. Despair, as acedia, is one of the seven vices.

You are always supposed to pray; not just during Lent.

You are always supposed to be compassionate—that is the chief of virtues, charity.

On the other hand, there is no virtue, as Francis seems to claim, in being happy, nor vice in being sad. How cruel a thought is that? The Christian truth is the opposite. Jesus actually said, “Blessed are those who mourn.” The Pieta is one of the great expressions of Christian art. What is striking about the earliest Greek icons, in contrast to the pagan Greek art that came before, is the expression of grief on all the faces. And Jesus wept. No compassionate person can be happy as a rule.

There is no virtue in avoiding pressures. Did and do the Christian martyrs duck the fight? St. Paul said we are to “Work out [our] salvation in fear and trembling.” If you are avoiding pressures, you are taking the broad and easy high road to hell.

There is especially no virtue in being silent. This is a denial of the Holy Spirit and all the prophets. The duty is to evangelize. Jesus said, “Let your light shine before men.” He said “Go forth and make disciples of all nations.” He declared John the Baptist, the “voice crying in the wilderness,” the greatest of saints, of all those born of woman.

Francis is all over the map, and one cannot tell where his thinking is coming from. It does not seem to be Catholic or even religious. It is perhaps from the Rotary Club. 

There is good reason for the traditional Lenten fast being from meat (and alcohol). Meat is a very tangible thing, and one is obviously either doing it or not doing it. Francis’s suggestions are just alibis for doing nothing for Lent, and actually seem to give permission to hold grudges, be selfish, and never pray the rest of the year.

Has Pope Francis Excommunicated Himself?

 

Traditionalist commentators are claiming that Pope Francis actually automatically excommunicated himself back in 1999—by accepting life membership in the Rotary Club.

That got my attention. The Rotary Club? Isn’t that about as pedestrian and suburban-respectable an organization as you can imagine? My own father and grandfather were lifetime members. Heck, my parish priest was a member.

And yet, it seems that, although “automatic excommunication” is over the top, it is true that Catholics are not supposed to belong to the Rotary Cub. In 1950, the Vatican and Pope Pius XII declared that no Catholic priest was permitted to join or attend meetings. Lay Catholics were not explicitly prohibited, but reminded to observe the canon law that tells them to “guard against associations which are secret, condemned, seditious, suspect, or which try to escape legitimate church vigilance." Implying that Rotary arguably fell into one of these categories. 

According to Time magazine the Vatican made clear that the concern applied only to Rotary, not to other similar voluntary associations. “In answer to newsmen's questions, the Vatican last week indicated that the ban did not apply specifically to such other groups as Kiwanis, Lions, and Elks.”

This ban must have been announced at just about the time my father joined Rotary. And he must have known about it. I have the article from Time magazine, and both my father and grandfather subscribed to Time. The matter must have been under general discussion within Rotary.  Montreal’s Archbishop Paul-Emile Léger, Time reports, publicly forbade any priests from participation in any form.

My grandfather might well have been unconcerned. He was a Protestant, and had been a Freemason. The family story is that he left the Freemasons at marriage in deference to his Catholic wife. 

Yet he kept his Mason’s apron; I saw it in his belongings after his death. And Masons showed up at his funeral, identifying him as a “brother in the craft.” Would they do so if he had not been active, and not paying his dues, for over thirty years? One wonders.

Is Rotary somehow related to the Masons? They deny it. So why did the Vatican oppose Rotary?

The Time article includes their explanation. “Sometimes [in Rotary] there is undue devotion to monopolistic capitalism, and monopoly is condemnable, on both Christian and social grounds, as an offence against charity. The fact that non-members of Rotary Clubs are sometimes excluded from the benefits which Providence meant for all men . . . amounts to a condemnable monopoly."

Rotary allows only one member of each trade or profession to join each local chapter. The idea behind the club is then that other members will patronize their fellow Rotarians for all their needs. This founding concept is enshrined in the name, “Rotary”: benefits passed around the circle, greasing the gears of trade. 

This is arguably a cartel operating against the public interest: “monopolistic capitalism.” A similar collusion among those in the same business would be restraint of trade.  

Although not mentioned in the papal prohibition, I had always thought there was something else wrong with Rotary; something that ties them more directly to the Freemasons. It is their code of ethics, the “four way test,” supposed to guide each Rotarian’s words:

“1. Is it the truth?

2. Is it fair to all concerned?

3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?

4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?”

This might sound good, but it actually suppresses truth. It is a disguised vow of secrecy, the core issue with Freemasonry as well.

Proper ethics should begin and end with item 1. Truth itself is a transcendent value, divine; the Truth shall set you free. The truth is always of the greatest benefit to all concerned. The need for three more tests beyond this implies it is not.

Truth should apparently be concealed if it is not going to win friends and “benefit all concerned,” presumably in their own estimation.

The story given within the club on the origin of the Four-Way Test is that, by adopting it, an early Rotarian turned a failing business around. 

This makes clear that “benefit” here is material, not spiritual, benefit.

This vow of silence could support any sort of sin or criminality. If much muted here, such vows of secrecy have been used in other organizations for nefarious purposes, often for discrimination. The Freemasons, who used to prohibit black membership. The Orange Order; their contributions to anti-Catholic violence in Ireland are well known. Into the Sixties, nobody had ever been elected mayor of Toronto without being a member. More obviously, perhaps, the Ku Klux Klan, the Cosa Nostra, the Mafia.

Given all this, and the fact that the 1951 condemnation of Rotary has never been rescinded, how is it that we now have clergy and even popes active in the club?

It might be that Rotary has shown itself less sinister over the years. Or it might be symptomatic of a decline in the clergy—which many would argue has been evident since about 1960. Taylor Marshall makes the case that the Church has been heavily infiltrated since then by secret organizations: the Freemasons, the KGB, the so-called “Velvet mafia,” homosexual and pedophile rings, and the “St. Galen mafia.”

It is attractive to narcissists to do something like this. They enjoy feeling they are putting something over on others. It makes them feel superior.

Is the Pope Catholic?

 

A Catholic friend sends me this link, Pope Francis complaining about “reactionary American Catholics who oppose church reform.” He asks for my response.

My response is that Pope Francis is a heretic. He speaks of the “evolution” of the faith, “church teaching evolving over time,” and of “backwardism.” “True doctrine always develops and bears fruit.”

This is the heresy of modernism, which Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies.” In a nutshell, that, as Justin Trudeau put it when asked why he insisted on half his cabinet being women, “this is 2015.” As if a date on the calendar made a difference.

Truth does not change with time. An evil deed does not become a good deed through the passage of time. Therefore, Catholic teachings on faith and morals, the “deposit of faith,” cannot change; they cannot “evolve.” They can only b elucidated, perhaps to apply to new circumstances. Just as in an Act of Contrition, the Ten Commandments are applied to one’s individual circumstances.

Pope Francis gives examples of Catholic morals supposedly changing over time.

"Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin, it cannot can be practiced, and it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me have tolerated it, but things are different today."

It could not have been declared to be a sin to possess atomic bombs before there were atomic bombs; but it is not a sin to possess atomic bombs. It would be a sin to detonate one over a city.

Tolerating slavery is not the same as declaring it moral. Politics is the art of the possible. The Catholic Church is obliged to tolerate many things it thinks are sinful.

The death penalty, it has become illicit due to applying s consistent ethics to changing circumstances. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.” The death penalty was once justifiable to preserve public order when there was no prison system, and less effective law enforcement.

Francis especially has in his sights “the so-called 'sin of the flesh',” which he accuses traditionalists of having under a magnifying glass.

But it is not traditionalists who chose this focus. It is the modernists, who as of the 1950s began scorning sexual sins as “conventional morality,” and preaching, “if it feels good, do it.” It is the modernists who chose this battle, on this ground.

One might, by construing Francis’s words in a very careful, lawyerly way, avoid the charge of heresy. 

I do not accept that. It is his duty, as pontiff, to be a reliable shepherd. Even if he is just obscuring the matter, he is doing Satan’s work. He seem to be consistently obscuring, at best, the correct teaching. Surely he is not so stupid as to be consistently doing this by mistake. He believes the heresy; or, rather, he wants to promote it.

Dawn of the Dead

 

I feel as though Jacinda Ardern was the canary. Along with Damar Hamlin. I feel as though we are at a Stalingrad and Al Alamein moment. While not entirely visible yet, while the bad guys are actually at their furthest extent, they are overextended and desperate. I feel the tide is turning against the woke.

Reputedly Pope Benedict has a book coming out, held back to be published posthumously, in which he cuts loose. Now he may speak frankly about the corruption in the church. His secretary has just released a similar book. Cardinal Pell has been revealed posthumously as the author of a letter harshly criticizing Pope Francis and the wokening of the church. Their recent death actually gives Benedict and Pell added authority; a though they are martyrs, speaking from heaven. 

Pope Francis is losing the moral high ground. The moral high ground matters; it is the whole battle.

Something similar is happening in US politics; with the admission that Hunter Biden’s laptop was authentic, and now the discovery of classified documents scattered around Biden’s offices and residences. It is more than a bit mysterious; since the documents are being uncovered in slow motion, in the presence of Biden’s lawyers, why is this happening? And how much of the truth are we really being allowed to see?

Most likely, this is a palace coup. Because, as with Ardern, the dark forces who control the Democratic Party see worse scandals coming down the pike, and need Biden as the pre-emptive scapegoat. He’s old, he’s had his time at the trough; time for him to take it for the team.

 Everyone surely now realizes that Biden is, at a minimum, a habitual liar. Also probably deeply corrupt, and possibly working against the nation’s interest.

But it I not hard to guess what the coming scandal is that is requiring the defenestration of Ardern and Biden. It has to do with the Covid pandemic and the vaccine.

The collapse on the field of Damar Hamlin has similarly lifted the veil on the risks of the Covid vaccine. No more just a rumour some of us had heard; people are waking up as if from a dream. Suddenly everyone realized something was wrong. Scott Adams has now publicly admitted he was wrong to scoff at the anti-vaxx movement. 

Worse, the virus itself came from a government lab, involving US government funding.

The ruling elite worldwide are revealed as responsible for the deaths of millions. 

It is hard to see how any government that demanded vaccine mandates can now remain in power in any democratic country. Notably, in Canada, the truckers are vindicated, and Trudeau is revealed as a monster.

And he knew what he was doing. His hysterical reaction to the convoy shows that.

He, and the other leaders, no doubt did not intend the virus to escape, but they did exploit the crisis to try to seize more power and control over their people.

We now know, thanks to Elon Musk, that “big tech” and government were colluding to suppress dissent and control the political process. “Big pharma” was suppressing possible cures.

On the one hand, it is disorienting and frightening to discover that your government, and “the science,” and the media, and your electronic gadgets, and the church, cannot be trusted, and you might drop dead at any moment from a heart attack because your trusted them and got triple-vaccinated or more. The atmosphere feels almost surreal, apocalyptic.

On the other hand, although there is a terrible death toll, and it has not come to an end, this is the sensation brought on by sudden change, or sudden revelatory knowledge. There is an earthquake in our collective worldview. 

I thought as of a couple of years ago that the Covid epidemic was working like a sudden flash of lightning in the dark, revealing where all the zombies are.

Now the aftermath feels almost like a new day dawning.

Pope Francis Uses Gutter Language in Demanding All Sins Be Forgiven in Confessional

 

I think this has to be exaggerated and it is based on witness accounts rather than written sources.

But then, why does the pope so often speak extemporaneously like this? Quite possibly, so he can promote what he truly believes, and retain deniability should the orthodox object. The ambiguity that remains gives license to ignore the orthodox teaching.

In brief, Pope Francis seems to have cursed out any priest who withholds absolution in the confessional. Evil is not evil: only judgement is evil.

According to one seminarian, the Pope is reported to have invited them "not to be clerical, to forgive everything". More precisely, he is alleged to have added that "if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all. We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgement.”

This conforms to the postmodern doctrine that there really is no right and wrong. The important thing is to avoid feeling guilt. 

Given, however, that there is a right and a wrong, a priest is doing a penitent no favours in assuring them they are forgiven when they do not meet the criteria for forgiveness. This is a license to sin with abandon, in confidence that they can avoid spiritual consequences by regularly going to confession. And this, in turn, is a one-way ticket to that hot place. No refunds.

How About a Mass in Pig Latin?

 

Uneasy lies the head ...

There are rumblings of a coup in the Vatican.

That is surprising. There seems to be no legal means for unseating a pope. 

Nevertheless, discontent with Pope Francis has become quite open. Cardinal Pell, widely respected, has been revealed as author of a letter some months ago describing Francis’s pontificate as catastrophic for the church. Rumours are flooding in of a group of cardinals planning to oust him. Word is that Francis is isolated and has no friends in the curia, largely due to his penchant for individual and autocratic rule.

The flash point seems to be an also-rumoured upcoming crackdown by Francis on the Latin mass.

I am no special fan of the Latin mass. To me the mass is the mass, either way. But it also makes no sense to prohibit it. We allow masses in every other conceivable language—except Latin? How is that sensible, or doctrinally important? How is that the hill for Francis to die on? Especially since insistence on the vernacular mass has already caused one split in the church, the Society of St. Pius IX.

As it happens, having gone through various religion departments for my own education, I have some idea. Or my friend Xerxes, nominally a pillar of the United Church; he shows the same tendency. Among the ministerial elite of mainstream denominations, there is a sort of competition to see who can be most theologically transgressive. The great opponent becomes, not unbelief or immorality, but those who take traditional teachings too seriously.

Xerxes writes frequent columns against Biblical literalism; against those who have clear ideas about God; or who advocate conventional morality. He rarely rails against the ways of the world, only calling vaguely and blandly for peace, voting NDP, and giving to the poor.

A professor at Syracuse suggested in passing that an atheist would and should feel comfortable in the religion department. A major religious publisher considering my manuscript wanted to be sure that it was fully welcoming to atheists. The paper that attracted the most interest and admiration at a departmental conference was titled “So Meaning is Your Hangup?” Open rumour was that the author was in an adulterous relationship with her thesis advisor. “Rumour,” in that small department, is perhaps not the correct word.

This is what Pharisaism looks like. The problem with religion is that it imposes obligations on you, in matters of belief and conduct. If you are in the power elite, you don’t like to be constrained by anything. So once you rise to ministry, your chief opponent becomes the actual teaching you are charged with spreading. 

Some, like Cardinal McCarrick or Jimmy Swaggert, will simply continue to preach what they reject for themselves. These are the classic Pharisees. Some, like Xerxes or Pope Francis, perhaps more honestly, will instead devote their energies to undermining the faith. They will set up public services for Pachamama; they will hold “clown masses.” And they will attack on any premise those who continue to follow the faith: those who annoyingly quote the Bible, those who don’t embrace transgenderism or some other current moral fad, those who “judge,” those who want the Latin mass. Largely because they feel judged by them, and found wanting. How dare they act holier than their minister? Than the Pope? Who do they think they are?

Being Pharisees, they never stop to ask themselves who they, themselves, think they are.

The Holy Month of Educators

 

Not a teacher.

Pope Francis has declared January a month of prayer for educators. I guess I ought to be happy about this. He’s even composed a special prayer.

If I were to compose a prayer for teachers, it would be that they—we—always teach truth, and only truth, that we always think of what is best for our students, and that we have patience with them. All of these have Biblical warrants I could cite. This is also the advice of the great teachers of the past, Socrates, Plato, Confucius, St. John Bosco.

 Francis’s suggested prayer mentions none of these things:

“We pray that educators may be credible witnesses, teaching fraternity rather than competition and helping the youngest and most vulnerable above all.”

This seems off the wall; scatterbrained, as all of Francis’s pronouncements seem strangely scatterbrained.

Credible? Why merely believable, or believed, and not truthful?

If there is a moral problem with competition, we should also pray that it be abolished in the world of sports. No scores should be kept, I suppose, and all games should end in a tie. Anything else teaches immorality. Can we all get behind that? 

Competition is an effective educational tool: it adds interest and incentive. It informs the student of their progress. Teaching without it is simply far less effective.

Helping the youngest above all? Hardly a key concern; educators rarely have mixed ages in their classes. If they do, what is the moral value of favouring one student over another on the basis of age? This is arbitrary age discrimination.

Helping the most vulnerable? In a school or other educational context, vulnerable to what? Falling down the stairs? Being bullied? Catching COVID? Without specifying a threat, this is meaningless. Depending on the threat, it is primarily the job of a school nurse, custodian, or vice-principal, not the teacher.

From this prayer, I think we can conclude several things. First, that Pope Francis has no idea what teaching is about. Second, his worldview is not informed by Christianity. Third, he has at best a second-class intellect. Fourth, he doesn’t like to use it. He mailed this one in.

At a guess, it looks like the subtext is Marxism: competition is bad, because it might lead to free markets. There also seems to be a whiff of postmodern nihilism.

Francis’s papacy frequently sows confusion over faith and morals: failing in the primary responsibility of a pontiff. Nor does he show a pastoral touch, as might have compensated for this. Clarity is an important element of pastoral care; and beyond this, Francis’s management style tends to be gruff and autocratic, and dissent and dissatisfaction within the church has grown during his papacy. Think Archbishop Vigano, the dubia of the four cardinals, the German synod. 

So what were the cardinal electors thinking when they chose him?

When he first appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s, in a cloud of black smoke, my thought was that he looked like an accountant, not a pope. That may be it. Perhaps he was chosen for his presumed administrative abilities, to crack heads and put the Vatican’s organizational and financial house in order. It has been notoriously corrupt and dishevelled, and this was an area in which John Paul II and Benedict, in their gentleness, had failed.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence that Francis has made any headway on this. I hate to say it, but his attitude has looked more like “why beat them if you can join them?”

Blowing Turkey

 

Pope Francis and the assembled cardinals of Canada are under fire for participating in a pagan “smudging” ceremony during the Pope’s recent Canadian visit. Unless this was sprung on them without their foreknowledge, I agree.  The self-ordained shaman with his turkey bone is probably simply a fraud. If so, the pope and cardinals participating make themselves, and the church, look ridiculous. Sitting there in silent assent to New Age pseudo-profundity like “the heart is like a talking stick.”

But if he is not a fraud, he is summoning demons: calling on the “Western grandmother” to gather the “circle of spirits.”

There is a vital distinction here between monotheistic religions and paganism. Muslims, Jews, or devotional Hindus all worship the same one true God. All other “gods” are demons. The Bible, either Old Testament or New Testament, is clear that Christians must not participate in their worship. 

If Francis and the cardinals do not understand this, they cannot represent the Christian religion.

Apologizing to the Waves

 

As predictably as the spring rains, Pope Francis’s apology for the residential schools, delivered in Edmonton only two days ago, has already been rejected by many native leaders, notably Senator Murray Sinclair. And the media refer to it as, at best, a “first step.” All the previous apologies have been rejected—there have now supposedly been no steps before this. No surprise that this one too is rejected. By obvious implication, there will never be a last step. Every step taken will ever remain a “first step.”

It never mattered what the Pope said, or whether he came or not. Someone is not acting in good faith. The last thing the aboriginal leaders or the left ever want is reconciliation, and they will always refuse to be reconciled. The moment reconciliation is achieved, they lose their funding. And they lose their scapegoat.

Is the pope such a fool that he could not see this? I, for one, think he slandered the Church, and the residential schools, with his apology. Is this helpful? The media quote some attendees triumphant at the supposed fact that the pope has now “admitted” that “native spirituality” was right all along, and the Catholic Church was wrong. This puts native people in peril of their souls.

The media have been aggressively complicit, as usual, in this con game. For example, the CBC asserts that Lac Ste. Anne was an ancient sacred site to the Indians, “God’s Lake,” long before the first missionaries arrived. By implication, Christianity and the Ste. Anne pilgrimage are an imposition on the authentic “native spirituality.”

No, it was not called “God’s Lake.” It was called “Devil’s Lake.” That is how the HBC factors translated the Indian name, and this translation is more accurate. The place was feared and avoided, because there was believed to be a great monster in the lake that devoured people. The lake became sacred when the first Catholic missionaries consecrated the waters to St. Anne and drove away the monster.

The confusion, or deliberate misrepresentation, comes because the native groups had only the one word, “manitou,” for any spiritual being. God is of course a spiritual being; so he would in theory be a “manitou.” As were the pagan gods of Greece and Rome. However, the only spiritual beings the First Nations were aware of in their environment before the coming of Christianity were hostile toward man. “Manitou” to them was something to be feared, not to be worshipped. “Devil” or “demon” is the English equivalent.

I hope, probably in vain, that the Pope’s visit, and the immediate refusal to accept his apology, may end up calling the bluff of the swindle. It may open eyes to the fact that the left is not honest. The optics of immediately refusing to accept the apology of an aged and infirm pope may be damning. The left’s arrogance may at last be its undoing.

-- Written by a day school survivor.

Francis's Holy Week Procession

 

For perhaps too long, I tried to defend Pope Francis’s papacy. This Holy Week, he has shown himself to be morally depraved.

The procession featured, at one of the stations, a Ukrainian and a Russian woman carrying a candle together, and Francis then intoned the sentiment, “adversaries to shake hands so they can taste mutual forgiveness, to disarm the hand raised by a brother against a brother, so that concord can spring from where there is now hate."

The problem is that, in the current war in Ukraine, Russia is unambiguously the aggressor, Ukraine the victim, and Russia has not ceased their attack. Indeed, they are about to launch an offensive. Calling for reconciliation now is denying there is anything wrong with Russia’s action; the blame is on the Ukrainians, at least equally, for not accepting it and laying down their arms. It is like demanding a rape victim smile and embrace her assailant in the middle of a rape.

The worst of Francis’s crime is the attempt to assert that this position is virtuous, indeed, more virtuous than the Ukrainians are in their suffering. This is the sin of hypocrisy. This is not just making no distinction between right and wrong, but demanding that wrong be seen as right, for the sake of one’s own ego. This is the unforgivable sin, the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 

Sadly, Francis is worse than just a heretic.

Pope Francis Downplays Sexual Sin

 

Lust sleeps with Eros

Pope Francis has just caused more confusion over the faith. To reporters on a flight to Greece, he explained that sins of the flesh are not the most serious. Pride and wrath are worse.

One can understand where he is coming from: otherwise good people can easily be tempted into sexual sins. We all are.

But then, the same is true of pride, or wrath.

Francis is sometimes justified as a “pastoral” pope rather than a deep thinker, in order to justify his sometimes theologically dubious comments. But it is precisely on the pastoral side that his comments are a problem. The prime responsibility of a shepherd is to guide the sheep, not to let them wander. Directions must be clear.

Strictly speaking, there are only two kinds of sin: mortal and venial. Put as simply as possible, a venial sin is one that does not in principle turn away from God; a mortal sin is one that does. A sexual sin, like any sin, can be either—it is all in the intent and motive, not in the act itself. Accordingly, one cannot say that a sin against the sixth commandment is more or less serious, in itself, than a sin against another.

However, the traditional listing of the three temptations is “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” Our Lady of Fatima revealed to Saint Jacinta in visions of hell that “The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.”

It is hard to reconcile this with what the Pope just said. Who you gonna believe, the Pope or the Virgin Mary?

I side with Jacinta and Mary. It is precisely because sins of the flesh are so tempting to good people that they are dangerous. Among sins, they are a “gateway drug.” This is why lust is one of the “Seven Deadly Sins”: not because they are worse in themselves than other sins, but because they are addictive. They become a settled vice, and a vice causes us to turn away from God altogether.

Francis’s comments are, to put the best possible face on them, unhelpful. Who does he serve here?

Getting Frank about Frank

 

It is a grim meditation, but it is obvious to me that Pope Francis, with his recent motu proprio restricting the Latin Mass, knows he is doing wrong. He titles it, “defenders of tradition’; it is an attack on a traditional form. He says it is for greater unity in the church—he cannot believe this. Restrictions on the Latin mass caused the most recent schism in the church, the splitting away of the SSPX. He says it is to give bishops full power to decide for their own dioceses, and he does this by requiring of them that any new requests to perform masses in Latin must be referred to Rome.

These are the hallmarks of the guilty mind: to claim to do the opposite of what you are doing, is a tacit admission that you know what you are doing is wrong.

So why is Pope Francis doing something he knows is wrong?

I think we must accept that he has been a bad man all along; a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

He just had half his colon removed in a three-hour operation that the Vatican tried to keep secret. He may know he is dying. 

When an unrepentant sinner dies, his instinct is to take the world with him: to do as much damage as he can on the way out. He does not want to be the only one suffering.

That is what this looks like: Francis wants to create a schism. He does not want to leave the church in good order for a successor.

Latin Doubleplus Ungood

 

Pope Francis has just issued new restrictions on the use of the Latin liturgy. Most strikingly, he will not allow it in any church.

Who else does it harm if some Catholics want mass in Latin?

Personally, I have no fondness for the Latin mass. I prefer to understand what is going on. I feel deeply uncomfortable at a Latin mass. But why drive others from the faith over such an irrelevant issue?

The church, after all, allows a variety of liturgies—Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Greek, Melkite, Maronite, Malabar. Why shoud the Latin mass, alone, be so restricted? And if there is something wrong with celebrating the Latin Mass, doesn’t that say that the liturgy of the Catholic Church was wrong for almost two millennia? 

This is hard to understand in any terms other than an exercise of raw power. Francis is not thinking of the interests of Catholics, or of the Church. He is thinking of how to punish those he views as his enemies inside the church.

Like so much Francis has done, this only spreads confusion and conflict.

Pope Francis Comments on Coronavirus

"Mother Nature" topiary, Montreal.

Pope Francis has been quoted by UK Catholic publication The Tablet as saying, regarding the current COVID-19 crisis,

There is an expression in Spanish: “God always forgives, we forgive sometimes, but nature never forgives.” We did not respond to the partial catastrophes. Who now speaks of the fires in Australia, or remembers that 18 months ago a boat could cross the North Pole because the glaciers had all melted? Who speaks now of the floods? I don’t know if these are the revenge of nature, but they are certainly nature’s responses.

This is a disturbing comment coming from the head of the Catholic Church. It personifies “nature” and sees it as having free will and vast powers.

He also goes so far as to make the clear distinction between nature and God. Just so there can be no misunderstanding that he is merely using the one term to refer to the other.

This seems to confirm that his interest in and support of Pachamama some months ago was not innocent.

One suspects that the Spanish proverb he quotes is talking about nature figuratively, meaning natural laws: you cannot bargain with the law of gravity. If so, Francis misunderstands or misuses it. There is no science in drawing a causal link between COVID-19, the fires of Australia, and the (fictitious) melting of glaciers at the North Pole.

A monotheist might, indeed should, see in this present plague at least the passive will of God. Only a polytheist would see it as the independent action of some other spiritual being.

Put simply, the present pope is not Catholic.

Tracing the Hand of God in Current Events?

The Virgin of the Apocalypse

Stories of the rapid spread of COVID-19, the coronavirus, have been sounding apocalyptic. Stories of people collapsing in the street. Cruise ships wandering the seas, refused all harbour. Especially combined with the plague of locusts sweeping through Africa and Asia at the same time. And, oh yes, the prior and ongoing disease infecting the Asian pork supply.

None of this really has the potential to be literally apocalyptic—the end of the world. Nevertheless, could we be seeing the wrath of God? Does God have it in for East Asia?

Most readers, no doubt, who are not Evangelical Christians, will scoff. We are beyond such superstitious notions, surely.

Nevertheless, the Evangelicals have a point. In the Old Testament it is plain that God sends plagues to express displeasure. Read the Book of Exodus.

Moreover, it simply stands to reason. Given that God exists and gives a damn what happens to man, why wouldn’t he? Of course he would.

God exists; we know that from cold logic. So it is not such a silly notion after all.

Ha, the worshippers of the great god Science will respond, we have had many such plagues throughout history. Where’s the evidence that they ever did any social good, rather than being random disasters?

Good of you to ask. Consider the Black Death. I have seen the argument that it led to the end of serfdom and the rise of democracy. Aside from discrediting existing regimes, it forced up the price of labour, obliging the ruling class to treat the common laboring people better.

Or the Lisbon earthquake of 1755. The argument is common that it shook the facile confidence in the status quo that characterized the early Enlightenment, and prompted the Romantic rebellion. Which led, soon enough, to the American and the French Revolutions, and liberal democracy as we know it.

Those two are off the top of my head. I suspect examples could be multiplied, if anyone dared attempt such an interpretation of history.

An important qualification must be made here. It is equally clear that God does not send plagues or other natural disasters to punish sin. That is too facile. Jesus refers us to the tower of Siloam:

At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.”

We all die anyway. God does not need to send a disaster for this purpose, and there would be no point in doing so. He kills us one by one. Nor does physical death amount to a punishment, for a good man.

Rather, a plague or disaster can eliminate a sinful culture or regime, one that is promoting sin.

This was the case for the Egyptian plagues. It was not that the Egyptians who suffered from the plagues were sinful. The intent was to change the policies of the Egyptian government, which was enslaving and committing genocide.

This was presumably the case for Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the Bible, there was not one inhabitant who was not guilty, but apart from this, clearly, these were cultures that socially endorsed homosexual gang rape.

And the Canaanites, according to the Bible, practiced ritual child sacrifice. While not a natural disaster, this led Yahweh to command the Hebrews to wipe them out. The sin was not individual; it was embedded in the culture.

Now, uncannily enough, the progress of the coronavirus up to this point actually looks as though it fits this premise.

If you were God, which world government or culture would you most want to turn from their present course, or perhaps overthrow?

Surely the government of China would be at the top of that list. They are officially atheist, and warring against religion. While not the world’s worst government in this regard—that would be North Korea—China also holds the largest proportion of the human population under its control, and has the greatest ability to project its power and influence elsewhere.

High time, if you were God, to take them down.

Significantly, the Chinese people think the same way: they are primed to understand any natural disaster as the fault of the government. It is an indication of Heaven’s anger. So apart from the fact that the government of China might be blameworthy for being the apparent source of the virus—if it escaped from a government lab—and for trying to suppress reporting of it early on, sending the virus to China may be an efficient means for God to express his will and get results.

Now what about North Korea? Also atheist, also aggressively anti-religious. We do not know what is happening in North Korea—the government controls all information flow. But rumours are that the disease is already rampant there.

And Koreans share the Chinese idea about the “mandate of heaven.”

But why then is it also hitting South Korea?

Not, to begin with, in order to overthrow the government. Since South Korea now has a functioning democracy, a plague seems unnecessary and overkill. Unless it is aimed in this case at something in the popular culture.

Korea is an incubator for a lot of strange religious sects. Koreans are deeply religious, in a sense, but often in a frivolous way. The virus raging there was spread primarily by and through one of them, Shincheonji. Whatever else the virus may end up doing there, it seems well targeted to discredit that sect, the leader of which proclaims himself the Second Coming of Christ. This makes him, in Christian terms, the Antichrist.

Suppose the virus is soon checked in South Korea; then this will be the main effect it has had: to discredit Shincheonji, and perhaps other such unorthodox millennial sects.

After North Korea, the government I’d most like to see fall is Iran. Aside from being oppressive towards its own people, Iran has been exporting trouble across the region if not the world. And working on nuclear capability. While nominally religious, it is not religiously orthodox. In the context of Shia Islam, as I understand it, a theocratic government is, in the absence of the Imam, a blasphemy. Mixing politics and religion can and usually does result in a takeover of religion for political purposes, rather than vice versa. God is entirely liable to want to snuff that out.

And the virus seems to be on track to spread more thoroughly through Iran than perhaps even China.

Although Qom seems to be the centre of the Iranian outbreak, pilgrimages to Qom have not been suspended, and the holy sites remain open. The government’s reported reasoning is that the pilgrimage to Qom is healing, and therefore valuable in order to fight the illness.

Which may encourage those experiencing symptoms to do their best to get to Qom, and mix with the crowds.

This is putting the Lord your God to the test; this is necromancy.

It also reminds us that the legitimacy of the Iranian government relies heavily, like China’s, on the supposed mandate of heaven.

If the outbreak gets truly out of hand there, it is therefore a clear indication, even to the government itself, that God is against the government.

What about all the poor pilgrims who might die on the Qom pilgrimage? Doesn’t God care about them?

The logic of the tower of Siloam is familiar to Islam as well. If one dies on pilgrimage, by tradition, once goes straight to heaven.

The one other nation in which the virus seems currently out of control is Italy.

As with South Korea, Italy has a functioning democracy; so a plague is not useful in order to change a government.

But as with South Korea, Italy is the international headquarters of another religious group: the Vatican.

Not that Catholicism is a millennial cult; but any good Catholic will say that there is a problem at the Vatican. A year ago, a lot of Catholics were calling on Pope Francis to resign, because of his evident implication in the McCarrick scandal in the US. Before that, people were speaking of a corrupt “Lavender Mafia” dominating matters in Rome.

Unfortunately, in Catholic tradition, there is no way to remove a Pope if he will not resign. Meaning the only way may be for God to intervene. The pope and the men at the Vatican who are ultimately responsible for this rot in the church, if the accusations are true, are elderly. They are in the age cohort most likely to find the coronavirus to be fatal.

Sending the virus to Italy might be, in part, for this purpose. After all, the Vatican is, like Qom, a pilgrimage site, especially from other parts of Italy. This Pope likes to get close to the crowds and grasp hands.

Reportedly, the Pope himself has now fallen ill. There is no indication yet that it is the coronavirus.

Again, if so, this is not to be understood as punishment for sin. Yet if the present pope’s policies are seriously misguided, and spiritually harmful, God might well want to call him quickly upstairs, for the good of all his church.

Now; why an epicentre in Northern Italy, instead of Rome?

Because that is closer to the border.

The appearance of the virus in northern Italy seems also as if calculated to challenge the EU concept, which is first and foremost that of open borders. The easy spread of the virus across borders lacking any stops or customs checks amounts to a compelling argument to ratchet back on the “ever closer union” enterprise. Maybe there was a reason for those borders that we all overlooked.

One is reminded of Chesterton’s advice: never tear down a fence until you can say why it was there in the first place.

It is perhaps not self-evident that God should be opposed to the EU or globalization; or that he should prefer the nation-state. Unless you remember the story of the Tower of Babel. That is the Biblical account of the creation of nations—by God, precisely to prevent the enterprise of a world government. This was considered human presumption. There is only one rightful world king, and anyone else presuming to that office is the Antichrist.

Or unless you remember the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, declared by Pope Pius XI “a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable.” The moral principle is that decisions should always be made at as close to the individual level as possible. This is to respect the essential moral importance of free will. Free will is why we exist. This principle of subsidiarity the EU violates, in forever drawing more decisions to the distant centre.

And because the structure of the EU is not democratic, and beyond even national control, it cannot be turned or thwarted by lesser means. It might take a virus to make the point.

If so, part of the point must be made by having the virus now spread through the EU. Which seems to be happening.

If, as looks likely at the moment, the virus then spreads everywhere, the fact that it infected China, Iran, North Korea, Shincheonji, and the Vatican may be insignificant. And it will look far less like some divine judgement.

If, on the other hand, the virus is one way or another stopped soon in its tracks, this will strengthen my impression that it has been God’s weapon to root out specific sick governments and organizations.

There are early indications that the virus may have peaked in China; although we cannot trust the government figures. It seems to have been contained in Singapore and in Vietnam. There are also claims here and there of some effective inoculation or treatment coming soon.

It is striking to me, in the meanwhile, that the virus does not seem to have spread in the Philippines. This seems a little uncanny, because Filipinos are working abroad everywhere, more than any other nationality, and always coming and going. There are especially a lot of Filipinos in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, regularly flying back and forth. People are accustomed to flying to Manila from Hong Kong just for the weekend.

The islands even recorded three early cases; all Chinese. One died, the first death from the virus outside China. The other two have now recovered. Yet no spread, so far as we know. Moreover, Filipinos live packed closely together, ideal for virus spread.

How to account for the difference, while the disease has jumped containment during the same period in Japan, South Korea, and Iran?

Perhaps because in the Philippines it would not serve to upset a disordered culture or regime.

Say what you want about the current Duterte administration; say what you will about Philippines government corruption. The Philippines is nevertheless a functioning democracy; such extreme measures as a plague are not required to change things. And the Philippine culture itself is genuinely religious. Were the government system or the culture to collapse, it is unlikely it would be replaced by anything better.

And so this looks like preliminary evidence that the virus is selective and divinely directed.

Events may prove me wrong. We shall see.