24 June 2016

"The Lord hath called me from the womb"-- The Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Today's Gospel, Luke 1: 57-68:

1 57 Now Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come: and she brought forth a son.
1 58 And her neighbors and kinsfolks heard that the Lord had shewed his great mercy towards her: and they congratulated with her.
1 59 And it came to pass that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child: and they called him by his father's name Zachary.
1 60 And his mother answering, said: Not so. But he shall be called John.
1 61 And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
1 62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
1 63 And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered. 1 64 And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed: and he spoke, blessing God. 1 65 And fear came upon all their neighbours: and all these things were noised abroad over all the hill country of Judea.
1 66 And all they that had heard them laid them up in their heart, saying: What an one, think ye, shall this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him.
1 67 And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost. And he prophesied, saying:
1 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people.

21 June 2016

In a Nutshell: "We have a Pope who is convinced that in all matters, not just marriage, the Church ought to be conformed to the way he thinks things ought to be, regardless of all prior teaching and discipline."

The unfortunate but entirely unsurprising debacle of Francis' remarks last week on marriage (most Catholic marriages are null but many fornicating shack-ups are true marriages) continues to resound in the Church.  The well is so poisoned for the bishop, priest, or layman who tries to uphold the sacramental reality that the incident bears continued deploration. In the context of the internet, a whole week is forever, but until this thing is repudiated by Francis himself it should be deplored forever.  

It is with that in mind that I present a take by Christopher Ferrara on this subject, one in which he also notes the dismay of Phil Lawler and Ed Peters. As usual, clearly thought out and persuasive.

In other news just normal for the end of the world, Ann Barnhardt came out and declared her opinion that Francis is an antipope, and that Benedict XVI remains the true pope-- based on her view of the invalidity of the purported abdication. Rorate, whether in response to her or not, I know not, published a piece opining that Francis is just the horrific (but real) pope we deserve.

Since it is my blog, and you are still reading this, I'll restate my take, which you can assume unless I ever publish something to the contrary.  I understand the theory that Benedict may have either resigned out of grave fear, or may have not resigned everything of his office (the ludicrous papal expansion/ two popes/ active contemplative thing). If true, his abdication would not be effective and he would remain pope. I also get the argument, which I find less persuasive, that the irregularities in the conclave that elected Francis made the election invalid-- though I find this most unlikely. The problem with these theories is that whether they are true or not, we do not have enough information to confirm them. Ann Barnhardt, God bless her, has strong opinions and is not afraid to share them (good).  But she has a habit of taking one possible scenario and declaring it as an established fact, as though her own act of concluding it is a foundational piece of evidence.

On the other hand, Rorate's editorial that Francis is true pope, and a scourge sent from God, is also an opinion.  They make that clear in the title of their post: Editorial. That's what an editorial is, an opinion. They say that our sins have earned such a pope; they are 100% right about that.  But one could also say that our sins have earned an antipope. Like Ann Barnhardt, and indeed most of us in the world, we do not have enough information to discredit the notion that Benedict didn't abdicate.

Which is worse? Does it matter?

The end result for me is that until we have such evidence to confirm or deny the abdication of Benedict XVI, I must assume that Francis is actually the reigning pope. And believe me, it is not because I like that assumption.  As a lawyer, everything is easier for me if Francis is antipope, because all his nonsense and purported changes of Church policies (or worse) are simply null and void, legally. A practical mess of biblical proportions, maybe, but legally void. The charism of the Church, her spotlessness, her infallibility, are all blissfully untouched and unbesmirched. It isn't an impossibility; the Church has had many antipopes. Why not now? Yet again, I certainly see God smiting us with a horrible pope. In the face of uncertainty, I have to give the apparent results of 2013 the benefit of the doubt.

If I were not trying to be a faithful Catholic, but merely an observer with a legal education placing a bet at a Vegas book, I would state that I think it more likely than not that Benedict's purported abdication was invalid, and that he is still pope, making Francis and anyone who comes after him during Benedict's life an antipope. But that is too light a burden of proof for so weighty a matter, and I distrust my own motives and opinions.

Well, there's another wordy post coming to an end. I'm sorry it's so long, and I really do regret that I felt the need to write explicitly what I have felt for a long, long time. My own struggle with this whole stupid blog exercise comes down to this: I don't want to deny Christ before men, I want to be "on record" in support of Him. I submit to the Roman Pontiff and love the Church.  Yet I don't want to lead any well-meaning readers astray with what are, essentially my own very fallible opinions. So I seek prudence. And finally, I definitely don't want to be among the lukewarm, whom Christ will begin to vomit from His mouth. I simply lack the wisdom to know the right answers on this, and thus you see my blog go silent, careen from "positive" to "negative" without warning.

In the end, pope or antipope, we are called to resist any directives of Francis or anyone else that are sinful. And we are called to submit to the Roman Pontiff if we are to be among the saved. Unam Sanctam is still in effect.

How to live this? Pray, be faithful to the duties of our state of life, fast, give alms, avoid sin, try to get to heaven. The identity of the pope in this mission is irrelevant.  

Welcome to our wonderful times.

20 June 2016

Go Ahead and Tell Me Where He is Wrong

This is a Foreward by Michael Matt at the Remnant to an article there.  He discusses the importance to Modernists of changing the Mass before attempting to change doctrine. I can't find fault with it:

It is becoming apparent to this writer that many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, are waking to the harsh reality of what Pope Francis is all about. The next step is to help these same good people understand the harsh reality of what the entire Modernist revolution has been about ever since the days of St. Pius X, when popes were still vigorously battling this great ‘synthesis of all heresies’.

The Modernist revolution ‘came out of the closet’, if you will, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, but nowhere was its agenda made more abundantly apparent than in the systematic destruction of the Roman Rite, which took place in the aftermath of Vatican II and with the full blessing of the Spirit of Vatican II.

Once it is understood why Modernists at the ‘heart and bosom’ of the Church attacked the Mass first—because it was the liturgical stronghold, if you will, in which Catholic doctrine had been protected for centuries, and in which even the Latin itself made experimentation and novelty nearly impossible, and which day after day reinforced Catholic ideas so repugnant to Modernist notions of ecumenism, dialogue, universal salvationism, and ultimately the false moral liberty (a mere extension of the Modernists’ crowning achievement of a false religious liberty) on which the rise of abortion, contraception and the destruction of Christian marriage were wholly dependent—then it is easy to understand what’s been going on in the Church for a long time. Quite simply, we are all the victims of a massive Modernist coup d’état, for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy.

The ascendency of Pope Francis to the Chair of St. Peter has always been the endgame of the Modernists—to get one of their own at the very top. Francis did not emerge from a vacuum, and it is unfair to him to suggest otherwise. This has been a long time coming, but, in so many ways, the success of the entire Modernist revolution that he now represents was wholly dependent on the destruction of the Roman Rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass—both from the spiritual as well as the practical perspective.

You don’t like Latin? You prefer vernacular? You enjoy the priest facing the people so you can see his face? Of course, and this is because through no fault of your own, you have been brainwashed by Modernists, causing your understanding of what liturgy is supposed to be to become fatally flawed. You think that liturgy should be all about you, and how it makes you feel, and how you respond to it, rather than about God and the proper worship owed to the Creator. And when it fails to entertain or to make us "feel" something, it becomes irrelevant to us, just as it became irrelevant to millions of fallen-away Catholics since the introduction of the Novus Ordo.

How you and I “feel” about the Mass is really quite irrelevant. In true Luciferian fashion, the point and purpose of the Mass have been inverted. The Modernists knew what they were doing, and superficial abuses such as altar girls and use of the vernacular pale in severity when compared to what they were really all about—the end of the worthy sacrifice that since the beginning of history man knew he owed to God. Thus tables replaced altars, women and guitar strummers diverted attention away from priests, communion rails were razed to make room for ‘gathering spaces’, tabernacles--the holy of holies--were shoved off to the side if not removed from the church altogether, and celebrating the communal meal suplanted God offering God to God on the altar of sacrifice.

Come Quickly, O Mother of God!

In Quito, Ecuador, on Jan. 20, 1610, Our Lady appeared carrying a crozier in Her right hand and her Divine Son in her left arm so that “all will know that I am merciful and understanding. Let them come to me, for I will lead them to Him.” She told Mother Mariana that in the twentieth century “the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs, for Satan will reign almost completely by means of the Masonic sects. They will focus particularly on the children in order to achieve this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times.” Obviously she is speaking of the secular humanist revolution about which so much has been written that has completely invaded the secular as well as religious institutions of our times.

Our Lady continued, describing the abuses that would attack each of the Sacraments: “Woe to the children of these times because it will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and also that of Confirmation.” She warned that the devil would assiduously try to destroy the sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion. She lamented the many sacrileges and abuses of the Blessed Sacrament that would occur. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction would be little esteemed and many people would die without receiving it, thus denied assistance they would need for that “great leap from time to Eternity.”

The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders would be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. The demon would labor unceasingly to corrupt the clergy and would succeed with many of them. And these “depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings upon the good pastors of the Church.”

About the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, she said this: “Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin.  The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. In these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury that would conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”

Our Lady told Mother Mariana, the religious Conceptionist who received the revelations, that the souls who would remain faithful in those difficult times would need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. Moments would come when everything would seem to be lost and paralyzed, but that would be the moment, she promised, of the “happy beginning of the complete restoration.” “My hour will arrive” she foretold, “when I, in an amazing manner, will overthrow proud Satan, crushing him under my feet, chaining him in the infernal abyss, leaving the Church and the land free of this cruel tyranny.”

Pewsitter and Canon 212 News

Many readers have followed Pewsitter as a faithful Catholic news aggregator.  I would say it had a faithful Catholic editorial bias, with a strong predisposition to traditional Catholic expression. Not long ago, though, the person running parted ways with the site, leaving it in the hands of the former aggregator.  Now, I would classify it as faithul, but a bit neoconservative/neocatholic in its bias. Worth reading, but noticeably different than before.

Well, in good news, the recently departed aggregator has a new site functioning as it did before.  I am happy to link it at right:  Canon212.com.  

Best of luck on the new site, hope it builds traffic quickly.  It isn't like there isn't a need for it in these days of constant change.

17 June 2016

Ed Peters Lights a Candle

Look, fine canonist that he is, I have had some run-ins with Ed Peters in the past, particularly during the Unknown Canon Lawyer X debates over veiling (what a wonderful, whimsical time that now appears to be!). But today he has written a simply great piece on the validity of most sacramental marriages.  

Cursing the darkness is necessary sometimes, but this article is a nice, common sense candle that sheds real light.  I thank him for it. Excerpts, with a few emphases of my own:

...Consider: Marriage is that natural human relationship established by God as the normal way for nearly all adults to live most of their lives. God blesses marriage and assists married persons to live in accord with this beautiful state in life. When, moreover, baptized persons enter this quintessential human relationship, Christ adds the special graces of a sacrament and assists married Christians to live as signs of his everlasting spousal union with his Church.

To assert, then, that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” is really to claim that the great majority of Christians have failed to enter the most natural of human states and have failed to effect between themselves the exact sacrament that Christ instituted to assist them in it. The collapse of human nature presupposed for such a social catastrophe and the massive futility of the Church’s sanctifying mission among her own faithful evidenced by such a debacle would be—well, it would be the matrimonial version of nuclear winter. I am at a loss to understand how anyone who knows anything about either could seriously assert that human nature is suddenly so corrupted and Christ’s sacraments are now so impotent as to have prevented “the great majority” of Christians from even marrying! How can anyone responsibly even posit such a dark and dismal claim, let alone demonstrate it?


This is just a blog post so, simply invoking the same extensive credentials to speak on Catholic marriage law that I invoked two years ago, let me just say that I believe that the great majority of Christian marriages are valid, that a matrimonial contract was therefore effected between the parties at the time of their wedding, and that by the will of Christ an indissoluble sacramental bond simultaneously arose between those spouses. To be clear, I also hold that many marriages are (and could be proven to be) canonically null and that the percentage of null marriages has indeed risen over recent decades, but I can and do reject anyone’s claim that the majority, let alone “the great majority”, of Christian marriages are null.

Time for Prayer. Always Time. But Especially Now.

Please don't ever say, "Things can't get any worse." Every time I say it, they always do.

15 June 2016

Christopher Manion Agrees with Me

Not that he knows or cares.  In fact, it might make him rethink his position.  But, for what it's worth, here is his entry at the LRC Blog:

Prediction: It’s Trump v. Biden

Christopher Manion

Why would Rollin’ Eyes Joe write a letter to the Stanford rape victim?

Oh, that’s right. He’s expressed his condolences to Bill Clinton’s victims too… Juanita Broaddrick was effusive in her gratitude to the Vice President for his warm and understanding letter….

Uh-oh – wrong universe.

So what’s really going on?

Joe sends letter to preempt Hillary in defense of women against rich boorish white males (yeah, like Joe. But I digress).

Joe is planning a silent coup. Bernie’s carcass is buried, but to no avail: Hillary’s campaign is beginning to smell like one too.

Superdelegates couldn’t “Feel the Bern” but they’ll switch to Joe in a heartbeat when Hillary’s numher comes up – indictment or no, she’ll be dry, cold toast.

And Joe will be hard to beat: Trump has already engraved “Crooked Hillary” in the nation’s subconscious. But he hasn’t yet patented a “Biden Brand” (although he has hinted, only hinted, that Biden will be his opponent in the fall).

[And then, there's this aside that nails the pornography culture prevalent today and gives an excellent piece of dating advice to young women:]

By the way: Joe’s boorish exploitation aside, the Stanford rape issue is a serious one. A freshman there tells me that porn virtually rules — as it does everywhere else, alas.

The Stanford rapist was merely acting out the “rough porn” that the addict invariably comes to prefer, and then long for. Eventually, he acts out his foul fantasy.

There will be much blather about alcohol, or when “yes” means “yes,” when classes reconvene in September. But there’s a much easier way for girls to maximize their safety:

“Do you do porn? SO LONG, LOSER!”

What Do Rodney Dangerfield, Robert Downey, Jr., Sam Kinison and Kurt Vonnegut Have in Common?

They all appeared in the 1986 comedy Back to School, of course. 

After throwing Bob Dylan pearls before Beatles swine for some time now (no offense to you if you like the Beatles, Modernism has had its hold on us for some time now-- Depart from Her!), I'm giving up on culture for a while.

Let us now celebrate the 30th Anniversary of Back to School with this little fluff piece taking you behind the scenes.  

14 June 2016

I Address This to All the Righteous Voters Who Wanted Me to Hold My Nose and Vote for McCain and Romney

Tell me again how you are #nevertrump? 

Let me see: I had to vote for a Hindu Mormon polytheist, or a total warmongering liberal neo-con, but not Trump?

What's that? He's personally immoral?  Did you vote for George H.W. Bush? Multiple marriages?  Did you vote for Reagan? McCain? He's been a libertine and a braggart? Did you vote for W? He's not really pro-life at heart?  Did you vote for Romney?

You don't want to vote because the system is rigged, or busted? That I get.  But if you believe that your vote matters, yet won't vote for Trump because your delicate conscience bothers you?  That I don't get.

Back to your telescreens.  Two Minutes' Hate is coming on.