The Folly of Excommunicating the SSPX

Read about it on our SubStack feed. And subscribe for more!

Remember the Good Old Days?

 

Does anyone remember when pedophilia was supposed to be a crisis only among the Catholic clergy? Any priest was suspect, and the church itself was blamed and fined crippling amounts. All paid ultimately by innocent parishioners. Many churches had to be shut down and sold off. Not to mention church-run orphanages and residential schools.

It was always obvious that this was scapegoating. Nobody was looking for pedophilia anywhere else.

We now know it was also projection. We find increasingly that pedophilia is common in the public schools, in sports teams, in clubs, in Hollywood. We learn that huge numbers of children go missing every year. That there are vast pedophile rings involving the rich and famous. That child sex trafficking is a big business.

And now that it cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church, the chattering classes seem unready to condemn it. Instead, films about the problem are suppressed; client lists are suppressed; child grooming is fairly openly promoted with pornographic books in school libraries and drag queen story hours. And those who object are condemned as bigots.

Does nobody see what is going on here?

The Catholic Church was and is targeted because it is a voice for protecting the children: from abortion, from immorality, from neglect, from abuse, from exploitation. 

Rules and morals protect the weak and vulnerable. The strong and malicious are always against them.

Transformers

 

Our parish bulletin is dutifully pushing the “synod on synodality.” It publishes an appeal, not written by any local pastor: “Our Church is currently working to grow as a dynamic, synodal church. … Around the world, we are asked to reflect on this question: ‘HOW can we be a synodal Church in Mission?’ In this transformation, are we open to the new and ready to let go of what has been?”

The obvious answer is, “no.” The entire point of religion is to put us in touch with eternal truth. Eternal truth cannot change. Any change is necessarily a decent into error—unless the entire enterprise has been a sham from the beginning.

All ecumenical councils can do is to discern and to clarify what is understood to have always been church teaching, if and when some issue arises. Change or letting go is never on the docket.

Vatican II may look like a departure; and it was, and remains, deeply unsettling to many. But it is conventionally understood as concerning itself only with the liturgy, not with faith or morals, and to be properly interpreted according to “the hermeneutic of continuity.”

So what can a synod on synodality legitimately consider? The liturgy? Perhaps, for example, exploiting improvements in technology to feature sermons presented on large screens during the mass, from the very best preachers and expositors, instead of by the local pastor. Perhaps a return to the Latin mass. Perhaps administrative issues like how to keep the Vatican solvent, or what should be required for an institution to call itself “Catholic.” But this does not seem to call for an elaborate consultative process. It seems more like a matter for experts in a given field.

And none of this seems to warrant the term “transformation.” The last thing a faithful Catholic wants is for the Church to “transform.” 

And what sort of transformation would cause the Church to grow in membership? After all, there are already many non-Catholic alternatives out there. Does the world really need another non-Catholic alternative? Is it crying for it?

On Responsible Henhouse Management

 

Why is the government of Canada, the USA, and the Catholic Church now so historically awful?

It is simple. We have the foxes in charge of the henhouse. 

Trudeau dislikes Canada; he says there is no Canadian mainstream. It’s all just a romper room to him. Not admirable, like China.

Biden and his backers consider “Make America Great Again” an objectionable sentiment. They’re explicitly not on the side of America.

And would anyone who loves Catholicism and its traditions want to prohibit its central ritual for centuries, the Latin mass? A recent commentator insists that the modernists are well-intentioned, and think they are saving the church. I do not believe it. You do not increase your appeal by denying some option.

Of course these people are going to do what they can to trash the place while they have the chance. 

One might ask, would a moral person seek and accept a position running an institution they despise? Isn’t this deceitful? 

But we needn’t assume these are moral people. It would still be a good career move.

We can’t do much about Francis, but as voters, it was also unwise to put someone who condemns “populism” in charge of a democracy.

I hope there is still enough love for Canada, for America, and for God Incarnate, among ordinary people, those of the Beatitudes, that we can outlast this, outvote this, and salvage it all.

The Sisters of Perpetual Hate

 

The current controversy over the LA Dodgers officially honouring the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at their Pride Night illustrates the folly of the “turn the other cheek” approach for Christians, in most circumstances. This is probably the favorite Biblical passage among non-Christians: for to them, it means “Christians, shut up.”

It properly refers to a situation in which one is powerless; where resistance would be futile, or not worth the risk. Elsewhere, Jesus tells his disciples to buy knives. In such a situation, when one faces overwhelming force, the best strategy is to try to shame the aggressor. It worked for Gandhi, or O’Connell, or MLK.

It does not apply to transgender hate groups.

Keeping silent about transgenderism does no good. For the Catholic Church always has, and it makes no difference. The Catholic Catechism has no position on crossdressing. Crossdressing is firmly established in Filipino culture, and the Philippines is perhaps the most Catholic country on Earth. No, a man is not a woman. But that is not a moral issue: it is an issue of basic sanity.

Nevertheless, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as their name implies, categorically hate the Catholic Church as their prime enemy, and want to attack it in any way possible. They mock Christ on the cross; they show up to protest any important Christian events. They claim it is because the Catholic Church shames or attacks them; yet it does not.

For that matter, the Catholic Church has never had a special problem with homosexuality. Yes, it is a sin. But so on the same grounds i heterosexual sex outside of marriage, masturbation, and use of artificial birth control. Since these apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, one cannot plausibly accuse the Church of being “homophobic.” A significant proportion of Catholic clergy are said to be homosexual in their sexual inclinations, and prominent homosexuals have often found their spiritual home in the Church: Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Evelyn Waugh, Andy Warhol, Gerard Manley Hopkins, W.H. Auden, Milo Yiannopolis. One must simply abstain from sex, just as the heteros, most often, must.

So refusing to condemn apparently does not staunch anti-Catholic hatred. And it obviously does nothing to reduce the incidence of homosexuality or cross-dressing, if that were the goal. It also transparently does nothing to make either homosexuals or cross-dressers feel better about themselves. Instead, the silence of the Catholic Church and of Catholics seems to encourage this anti-Catholicism—like not standing up to a bully. Compare the attitude of Islam, and note how many groups have formed to mock and protest Islam the way the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence mock and protest Catholicism.

The Sisters and their ilk hate Catholicism because they claim Catholicism makes them feel guilty. If they could simply stamp out Catholicism, they could be happy. But it will never work, because it is demonstrably not the Catholic Church, but their own conscience, that is causing these guilt feelings. So long as they refuse to accept the real source of these feelings, the feelings of guilt will get stronger and stronger. And so they will become more and more hostile to their scapegoat, Christians and Catholics, and perhaps more and more violent. If they could only, like the Tennessee school shooter, kill all the Christians…

The only way for the Church to counter this is to stand up and defend itself. It must not turn the other cheek in a case like this.

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.

Child Abuse in France

 

\

Why have we heard so little?

Last week a report was released estimating that 216,000 children have been victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in France since 1950. This is revolting, of course, but we are sadly getting used to such reports.

It is worth noting, however, that we have no control. It is only the Catholic Church, it seems, that is ever investigated for this. We do not know if this is more or less than the level of abuse in the home, in the schools, in other denominations, and so forth.

If we really cared about children, we would be looking at all of these. The most shocking thing is that we are not. Until we do, we are all complicit.

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 on the Family

The real emergency.

Pope Francis has spoken again, apparently referring to the current scandal in the US Church and the call for him to resign. In a sermon at mass in Rome, he said:

“With people who lack goodwill, with people who seek only scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction, even within the family: (there is nothing but) silence. And prayer.”

This sounds like an intended justification of his refusal to answer the current charges against him, of ignoring abuses within the American Church.

Does this make sense? Is this the Christian response?

Surely it is not. There have been specific charges made. They are either true or false.

The motives of those making the charges are not relevant to the truth or falsehood of the charges.

In other words, this is a classic ad hominem attack in order to avoid the issue.

Nor is it Christian to cast aspersions on another's motives. That smacks of the sin of detraction or of calumny; like calling your brother “Raca.”

Matthew 5: 22:

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.

Pope Francis cites the family as model. He gives advice on how to handle disputes within a family: silence.

How well would that work in a marriage? If you disagree you stop talking, and condemn the motives of the other person? Isn't this the opposite of what any marriage counsellor says?

And what does the Bible say about disputes within a family?

Matthew 5:

23 Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

Are Francis's words here words of reconciliation? Is he seeking concord?

The passage quoted from Matthew is, of course, advice to someone who has sinned against their brother. What about looking at it the other way? Suppose that Francis is really the innocent victim. He has been sinned against. How then should he react?

Matthew 18:

15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This sounds a lot like what the folks calling Francis out have done. If Vigano is truthful in his depositions, he spoke first to Francis privately, then with witnesses, and now has moved on to speaking to the Church. The cardinals who issued the dubia two years ago seem to have followed the same path precisely, following established church procedure; first submitting their concerns to him privately; publishing them only when they received no response; and have still never received a response.

In other words, at each stage, it seems as though Francis simply would not listen.

And Francis, in turn, if he is the innocent party here, has clearly not followed the Biblical procedure. If the current charges are unfounded and come from the blue, he has made no effort to discuss this privately with those making them. Instead, he is attacking them publicly, and ad hominem.

It is painful to see this model being set by the head of the church. Francis's concerns here seem to be always political, never moral. Just like those of the bishops and cardinals in the American coverups. It's all politics to them.

Ironically, many of his defenders, and many in the press, claim any opposition to Francis now is purely political.

This is self-evident nonsense: either the charges are true, or they are not.

But if Francis's papacy has become embroiled in political issues, who did that? Who has been engaging in politics?

Only a day or so ago, Pope Francis issued an urgent call on world governments to do something about plastics pollution in the oceans. Isn't that a political issue?

He even seemed to speak against the building of a wall on the US southern border during the last US election, when this was an election issue. Isn't that injecting the church into politics?

The opposition to Francis looks political to some, because to them, everything is political.

That's the problem.

Bombshell

Apostolic  Nuncio Vigano on the job.

The Catholic clerical abuse scandal just got worse.

Archbishop Carlo Vigano, former Papal Nuncio to the US, has publicly called for Pope Francis to resign, saying he knew about the allegations against Cardinal McCarrick, and actually lifted sanctions against him imposed by Benedict XVI. Worse, Francis then used McCarrick to advise him on making appointments in the US church.

Vatican Insider further reports that there are no plans at the Vatican to take further action regarding the scandals in the US. This is significant, because at the level of bishop, nobody in the US has the authority to do anything. Sanctioning or removing a bishop requires action from the Vatican. If this is true, nothing is going to be done.

To be fair to Pope Francis, what he reportedly knew about McCarrick did not involve accusations of child abuse, only of homosexual relations and of not acting decisively on abuse by others. Again to be fair, at its worst, child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy was no worse than among the general population. And again to be fair, all accounts are that the problem has already been drastically reduced by measures now in place. At what point does this become a witch hunt?

There are two separate issues here: child sex abuse, and sexually active clergy. I think in the end they are linked, so that you cannot effectively address the one without also addressing the other. Pope Francis might believe otherwise. Francis may see no great issue with clergy being sexually active, and hence also with being sexually active homosexuals.

I have outlined why I think it is an important issue. Once people start becoming priests not out of religious interests, but for the gay culture and the hookup opportunites, it corrupts the seminaries and forces a culture of deceit that will drive out all good applicants. The people may still have the sacraments, but they have lost all moral guidance from the clergy. And where do the good men, who are genuinely called to the priesthood, go?

For the past few generations, as the West has been falling apart culturally and morally, Catholics have at least been able to rely on the Vatican to speak with moral authority: on John Paul II, on Benedict XVI, and, if with less force, on Paul VI. Now the modern moral anbiguity seems to have penetrated even the Vatican.

Bishop Morlino Offers Clarity

Bishop Morlino

Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison Wisconsin has released a pastoral letter which gets it right regarding the scandal of sexual predation within the Church. At a time when ordinary Catholics no longer know whom to trust, here, it seems, is one clear voice making the paths straight.

I wish we could count on Pope Francis to issue something similar to this. But I fear he is part of the problem. He is always wanting to fudge the moral issue, make the lines less clear, overlook sin. And he seems always to be playing to popular opinion.

Everyone should read the whole thing. But if you only read one passage, read this one:

“If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin.” 

At the most fundamental level, the problem here is a modern tendency to mistake overlooking or denying sin with forgiveness. The two are opposites. If you do not hate the sin, you hate the sinner.

“For too long we have diminished the reality of sin — we have refused to call a sin a sin — and we have excused sin in the name of a mistaken notion of mercy. In our efforts to be open to the world we have become all too willing to abandon the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In order to avoid causing offense we offer to ourselves and to others niceties and human consolation.”

And he is prepared to name the sin.

“To be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals.

… There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary.”

“It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest.”

And so, one vital step to restore the Church is to ban homosexuals from the priesthood. And this he calls for, speaking of psychological tests. Not everyone is called to be a priest, after all; woman cannot be priests either.

Moreover, those found guilty must be punished—not quietly abetted and sent on retreats. The former is an act of mercy: the latter is malicious.

“A just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty.”

Bishop Morlino concludes:

“More than anything else, we as a Church must cease our acceptance of sin and evil. We must cast out sin from our own lives and run toward holiness. We must refuse to be silent in the face of sin and evil in our families and communities.”

On this premise, he is right to call for prayer and general expressions of remorse from all Catholics. It is a systemic problem in modern life, perhaps our biggest problem: confronted with sin and evil, we now generally turn our heads and pretend not to see. 

Child Abuse in Pennsylvania

That'll teach them!

You know what ticks me off? The banners after the recent Toronto shooting reading “Danforth Strong.”

And, in just the same way, all the calls right now to fellow Catholics, or to fellow Catholic bishops, for prayer and repentance in reaction to the recent revelations about child abuse in Pennsylvania dioceses, or the homosexual predations of ex-Cardinal McCarrick.

This feels to me morally reprehensible. It feels like saying “Oh well, no one is to blame. It is everyone's fault. Nothing is to be done.” And, tacitly, nothing should be done.

This feels like denying and excusing evil. Which is to say, aiding and abetting evil. Avert our eyes, pick up our pace, and walk on. This is what the perpetrators would want to hear: it was everyone's fault. If everyone is guilty, no one is guilty.

The shooting on the Danforth, and surviving such shootings, has nothing to do with local people being either weak or strong. And while prayer is always a good thing, it is vile to suggest that Catholics in general bear guilt, or all bishops bear guilt, for what some priests or bishops did.

All evil is in the end moral evil. That means all evil is personal. It is a matter of free will. We cannot overcome evil without insisting on that basic point.

Ben Shapiro has suggested that the actions of some of the Pennsylvania priests are a powerful argument for the death penalty. This is really the worst crime imaginable; it is a crime that tends to destroy not the body, but the soul, of the victim, poisoning their recourse to faith.

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

This does not preclude the possibility of redemption; which is why I cannot agree with Shapiro.

In fact, redemption in turn is not possible without first clearly acknowledging guilt; and, for the rest of us, clearly and unambiguously pointing out the significance of the crimes, and who is responsible for them. If the perpetrators themselves are to be redeemed, they must first be thoroughly convinced that they are at fault.

This may have been the fatal flaw in the standard approach by many bishops: instead of impressing upon the guilty parties the severity of their deeds, they swept things under the rug in the name of “forgiveness.” Ah well; we are all sinners. Pass him on to another parish....

You cannot forgive someone who is not sorry for what they have done. That is only encouraging them to go straight to hell by express coach.

Do not execute them. But the key response should be one of widespread public exposure, as promptly as possible. And, for mass shooters, no hiding it behind the fiction of mental illness.

The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name

It was pretty routine to the Greeks. Pederastic "courtship."

The problem with "pedophilia" in the Catholic priesthood, such as it is, has nothing to do with celibacy.

What nobody dares say is that it has a lot to do with homosexuality.

It is mostly a matter of gay priests "grooming" younger sexual partners.

It is quite natural for homosexuals, despite all the denials, to latch on like a limpet to young teenage boys. Since their sexuality has not yet been fully fixed and confirmed by experience, they are more lilekly to be open to homoesxual acts. Moreover, in case of any resistance, they are weaker. And less credible to the authorities.

It must, after all, be difficult for homosexuals to find sexual partners. Ninety-eight percent of those they are attracted to, and might approach, are going to be repelled by the idea, and may even react violently. Not good for your ego, at best.

Younger boys are the perfect solution.

Oscar Wilde with young Lord Alfred Douglas.

It also seems quite likely, given this dynamic, that nobody is born homosexual. They are turned homosexual by older homosexuals if they are gotten to at this early, impressionable age.

Early sexual experiences are likely to leave a deep impression.

Sadly, this means that a lot of gays have probably become priests out of no religious feeling, but as a useful way to meet and gain the confidence of such young men.

As many become teachers, or coaches.

Exit question: have you ever noticed that homosexual men are generally unusually good looking? Conversely, that unusually good looking men are more likely to be homosexual?

It makes sense: an older homosexual is going to approach the pretty boys first. The girls who come later get the leftovers.

Are Catholic Priests Among the Leading Causes of Mental Illness?

Father Edward Flanagan, founder of Boys' Town, for delinquent and homeless boys.

A friend, reading the post immediately below, asks whether, in light of this, the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for mental illness. He has been properly and thoroughly primed by the mainstream media. Pavlovian response: child abuse = the Catholic Church.

The answer is, absolutely not.

Actually, we have always known that child abuse is exponentially more common inside families than anywhere else. The incident occurring outside the family is itself a rare exception. And, among these, incidents involving Catholic clergy are again a rare exception, an exception within an exception. Extra-familial child abuse is more common in the general public than among Catholic clergy (Jenkins).

On top of that, historically, the Church has been a bulwark against child abuse within the family. First, an abused or troubled child is able to appeal in confidence to the local priest. Who else can you turn to, apart from relatives? It is a needed social function. Second, for the seriously abused, escaping to a monastery or convent was for long the obvious option. It was a safe haven, off the streets. Many became orphanages. Third, to anyone abused, the teachings of the New Testament must be a great consolation. Fourth, to those who have ears to hear, they are the vital spiritual guide, calling in particular to the abused.

Rather than attacking the Catholic Church, therefore, anyone who seriously cares about the welfare of children ought to support and seek to emulate it in any way they can. Indeed, the current pogrom against the Church is caused directly, I believe, by its taking a firm stand for child welfare. It is the church's unalterable opposition to abortion, made clear and final by Pope Paul VI, which has since then made it increasingly a target of the chattering classes. You can mark the split between the Church and “progressive” forces almost to that hour.

It is especially interesting, and concerning, that the Church is being attacked first in the areas where it is of most benefit to abused children. It is, for example, being driven out of the schools and the orphanages. It is being criticised in particular for celibacy. Yet one vital way the Church prevents child abuse within the clergy is surely the discipline of celibacy.

Saint John Bosco, founder of the Salesians, champion of street children.

Just think about it. If you are the sort who gets your jollies by bullying the tiny and weak, what's your best opportunity? It is to have children of your own. By requiring celibacy of its own, the Church takes this off the table, and more or less ensures that pedophiles and bullies will avoid the priesthood.

When it comes to profession, pedophiles and bullies will of course be most inclined to become teachers; failing that, coaches. Unlike priests, teachers can marry. Unlike priests, teachers come in close contact to children daily. Unlike priests, they are expected to order them around.

There is a good reason, accordingly, why the Catholic teaching orders were also celibate. Driving them out of the schools is a good way to increase the incidence of child abuse there.

In sum, the progressive cognoscenti are not after the Catholic Church for child abuse. They are instead abusing the Catholic Church in a way quite illustrative of how bullies work with children. They are making up down, black white, right wrong, and scapegoating the victims.

The Irish Mass Grave

You may have read an AP story a couple of weeks ago about a mass grave of unbaptised infants in a septic tank outside a Catholic home for unwed mothers in Ireland.

Don't miss the correction. It seems the death rate for infants at the home was par for the course for Ireland at the time, the children were baptised, and no mass grave has actually been found, in a septic tank or elsewhere.

The Catholic Church ought to be able to sue for libel.

Scarred for Life. And Perhaps Longer.

My place, or yours

It is close to impossible to overstate the importance of abortion to our current culture. It is our central issue, just as child sacrifice was central to Canaanite or Punic culture in their day.

Because those who do wrong, and know they do wrong, hate anyone, however innocent, who reminds them of the fact, the Catholic Church's steadfast opposition to the practice, joined later also by Protestant evangelicals, has brought the entirely predictable retribution down on their heads. Why the sudden burst of concern and sympathy for homosexuals over the past few decades? Not due to their own efforts: they are a small minority. They and their concerns are front and centre entirely because homosexuality is opposed by the Catholic Church.

So too, to a large extent, with feminism. So the “New Atheism.”

So too with pedophilia. It is now an unspeakable crime entirely because Catholic priests were found doing it; and because there appeared to be some poetic justice, some evident hypocrisy, in the Church opposing the murder of children yet supposedly abusing those in their care.

However, it was always true, and known to be true, that pedophilia was less common inside than outside the Catholic priesthood. Now that it has been identified as the supposedly single worst crime known to man (as opposed, say, to abortion) a lot of other heads must inevitably start to fall. Sports teams, reformatories, public schools, and so on will inevitably be discovered to have been far worse.

Now “the coin has dropped,” this author says, regarding British boarding schools.

Which raises and interesting question. Since the rest of us were obliged to publicly apologize to Native Canadians for what happened many years ago at church-run residential schools, do the Native Canadians now owe a public apology to the British ruling class?

Having Two Legs is "Privilege." Now Objecting to Abortion is "Torture."

According to the UN.

When Confucius was asked what he would do if he were ever given power, he answered, "First is the rectification of terms."

This might seem pedantic, even irrelevant, but it is exactly right. Orwell saw the same thing. Those who wish to do wrong, always and necessarily start by falsifying the terminology, to cover up what they are doing. By insisting on correct language, and consistent definitions, we can prevent a multitude of sins.

Make the ways straight for the Lord.

A Naked Woman on the Altar

A friend sent me the following paragraph:

On Christmas Eve, while Cardinal Joachim Meisner was celebrating Mass in Cologne Cathedral in Germany, a young woman sitting in the front row tossed aside her leather coat and leaped onto the altar, naked from the waist up, arms outstretched as if crucified, with “I AM GOD” written across her bare torso.

News to me. My friend says his first reaction was shock and outrage, but reading this description, I automatically assumed the woman was insane, and felt concern and pity instead. I read the paragraph, without comment, to my wife, and her reaction was the same as mine.

In fact, a little later, the Ukrainian feminist protest group Femen took responsibility, and said this was all about drawing attention to the Vatican’s stance against abortion.

I still suspect my initial assumption was right. The fact that Femen took credit may not mean—probably does not mean—that the real objective was political. In both individuals and groups, political demonstrations are commonly used as a cover for other issues. I’ve spent a lot of time around the “mentally ill,” count a few as close friends, and not a few use “radical” politics as a cover for their delusions. Louis Riel is perhaps the most famous example to Canadians. This woman, perhaps Femen as a whole, may be doing the same. The woman’s claim and action still looks like a classic delusion. And, as someone once said, madness, while rare in individuals, is common in groups. Each member can give sanction and validation to the others’ delusions.

To be fair, the woman’s claim that she is God might also be a reasonable affirmation of the experience of mystical union in some traditions (e.g., Hinduism, Sufism). But on reading the paragraph, I dismissed that out of hand, because a true mystic would not do this as a public display. It is part of being a mystic that one does not shout out one’s experiences from the rooftops. And, of course, this would not be compatible with Femen’s claim of a political motive.

But the claim of a political motive also does not make sense.

There is no objective need to publicize the fact that the Catholic Church opposes abortion. Everyone who reads the papers—anyone who is going to hear of this protest—already knows that. Nor does the protest illustrate any reasonable argument against this stance. The assertion of an individual woman that she is God seems instead perfectly calculated to lose that argument. It is just about the wildest possible assertion she could make. At the same time, this disruption of a mass is likely to inspire sympathy for the believers, among those who might previously have been neutral.

So it was counterproductive unless the true motive was really

1) The desire on the part of Femen and this woman for personal attention, regardless of any cause,

2) the desire of this woman to advertise herself for sex, or

3) delusional. But all three of these possible motives seem, prima facie, unbalanced, not healthy, insane.

Spengler on the Coming Conclave

A fascinating take on who should be the next pope from a Jewish writer.

Catholic Ghosts

The Brown Lady: A distinguished English upper class country house ghost.

Interesting article here that outlines the Catholic position on ghosts. It turns out that it is perfectly orthodox for a Catholic to believe in ghosts—the apostles believed in ghosts, Shakespeare believed in ghosts, and so did Thomas Aquinas.

Makes sense to me. All cultures believe in ghosts, which makes it improbable that they are not real. Souls in purgatory may be given the power to communicate with the living in order to alert then to their plight. This only makes sense, since the living can help them through their prayer. Souls in heaven, too, must be free to communicate with the living as part of their blessed state. Surely this goes without saying. Heaven would not be heaven if we were separated from those we love, would it?

The Ghost of Lord Combermere.

Even souls in hell may be made visible to the living by God in order to serve as a warning.

And in addition to the souls of the dead, there are also demons about, of course. They too might appear as “ghosts.” Poltergeists, for example, seem more like demons than the souls of the dead.