The greatest site in all the land!

Pope Francis: Another Cultic Papacy Arises

Pope Francis: Another Cultic Papacy Arises
By  Joseph Andrew Settanni


“There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” – Lord Acton

Commentators and assorted sycophants who increasingly praise Pope Francis are becoming believers in the ever growing papal cult surrounding his exalted personage. But, is this really a good thing?   Cultic papacies, as had been also true of John Paul II, ought to always be thought of as just highly anomalous, distinctly abnormal, in that a pope is to direct requisite attention to the living Christ, not himself, as to the true focus of needed worship at all times.   Otherwise, something is ever profoundly wrong. What is meant by such an assertion?

They, those who rather excessively adulate him, do adore his loving stress upon what is said to be a heightened concern for pastoral, not doctrinal, efforts to then deal with how Christian religion can openly show its human side to the poor, the suffering, the downtrodden, the underprivileged, the forgotten. etc.

He so seeks to quite deliberately, one does easily suspect, renew the Spirit of Vatican II by dramatically pursuing an ever expansive and, of course, decidedly humanistic engagement with the world, with the home of primarily earthly people. An affectational religiousness, intent upon hiding its ugly hubris, is proclaimed for the seeking after of a community of Man, but, as always, nemesis awaits.

And, this modern terrene engagement will surely expand, his troubled traditionalist/orthodox critics do contend, until that which is of the vital essence of what is (or what was?) firmly Catholic will, eventually, be mostly taken out of a then redefined understanding and cognate redefinition of Roman Catholicism.  This thought is heartbreaking to many people, who feel scandalized, in a time when exigency is not balanced with the need for maintaining an enduring standard matched to an expectation of the cardinal virtue of prudence that ought to be practiced.

The plainly nominalist cognition of Pope Francis, due to his very considerable devotion to the Spirit of Vatican II (VCII) totally reverses and, in effect, holds in cold contempt the classical notion that doctrinal integrity ought to correctly govern all spiritually valid pastoral work; this had been of the basic essence of proper Catholicism within, of course, the preconciliar Church, which is sadly scorned by the aggressive modernists as an antediluvian absurdity best left to the unwanted past.

His manner, one suspects, overtly suggests his mode as to a modus operandi that, in turn, reflects so surely upon the mode of his odd existentialist manner, which then bodes ill for doctrinal certainty, in a postmodern world, given to much phenomenological speculation and existentialist angst.   A spiritual immiseration, logically, should be expected as a direct consequence of this then dispiriting experiential vacuum where faith, troubled by needless ambiguity, gets a short shrift; he is, as was said, at ease with himself.   At first, admittedly, it all seem paradoxical and, perhaps, simply inexplicable on the plain surface of events.   But, what is really indicative of the truth concerning what is going on with this papacy?

Pope Francis: Idolater and Revolutionary

Thus, it is seen, by critically astute and intelligently informed observers, that Francis is a revolutionary 1  [See: Notes]  zealot really determined to viciously undermine the traditional underpinnings of Catholic orthodoxy by such (aforementioned) deliberate theologico-epistemological corruption.   Many and, perhaps, most of the hierarchy is quite ready, willing, and able to join him in this demonic effort to wreck the very foundations of Holy Mother Church, though, of course, it will finally fail.   Subversion is being attempted deliberately that is usually quite subtle, not an outright activist toppling of structures; but, the effect, by and large, is still a type of revolution  done from the top down to the laity.

Moral and religious neoterism guided by extreme apriorism, however disguised, offends God, though it warmly pleases Satan, of course.   However, the Holy Father, as to attitudinal expression, does not care to be horribly inconvenienced when he prays, as was publicly expressed recently, and prefers to sit it out, with a version of—what—noblesse oblige no doubt.   It is an oh-so-better natured insouciance that gently, tepidly, inspires lesser souls toward an enervating aspiration, not thoughts of a severe sainthood certainly.   Nor exactly, for that matter, the heavy sacrificial spirit of suffering Christian martyrs in the second and third centuries of the Church.

What is actually going on is the often covert replacement of what had been the spiritual sense of proper Catholicism with a form of theological primitivism disguised as a supposed merely postmodern and sophisticated type of Christianity quite suitable for the dawning postmodern age. Prime elements of authority, prescription, veneration, and tradition, the guideposts for sagacious Christian men aware that contemporaneousness possesses no inherent virtue, tend to get rather pervasively and, thus, perversely ignored under such odd circumstances.

The largely surreptitious effort involved, because kept necessarily hidden from the bulk of Catholics, is the morally harmful suggestion that the Church, through this current Holy Father, can do the humanism of secularism better than the secular humanists themselves can do it. The shallow dispute, with the laicists, only concerns the particular source and not the ultimate goal of a spiritualized humanism that clearly flirts with elements of the demonic concerning its here revealed primitivism.

One can read, e. g., the by now quite classic volume entitled: The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud by Philip Rieff for the deeper gaining of knowledge of the true horror involved.

It is, therefore, the taking of the “Catholic” doctrinal sense out of Catholicism that must, also, have the effect of perverting pastoral concern toward mainly anthropocentric values centering upon emotions or feelings. This should now be fairly expected, therefore, to have religiously and spiritually deleterious consequences for the faithful, for the pontiff manifestly has, e. g., a soft spot in his heart for liberation theology, as ought to be better known; in short, he should stop this terrible scandalizing of too many of the faithful, regardless of his personal ideological preferences.

More and more, the proverbial tail is to wag the dog: Pastoral involvement, efforts, attitudes, concerns, programs, policies, missions, etc. are now to control and govern redefined doctrinal matters. This is surely a form of idolatry, the proverbial cart before the horse, as the worship is made greater than God.

Thus, the current pontiff, imbued with his postconciliar emotionalism, is so revealed to be an idolater, which is, of course, entirely unfitting in terms of what ought to be the religious and spiritual attitude of the Vicar of Christ on earth. No pope is ever to be or act as an idolater, as ought to be obvious in the pious and informed minds of sincerely religious believers.

One sees this, quite empirically, in how the Holy Father, e. g., wants to publicly deemphasize various Catholic doctrines/dogmas through the greater public effort to supposedly stress the predomination of pastoral concerns. It can only, in the end, lead to the debatable creation of the triumph of a kind of feel-good religiosity, not a holy religious attitude prefaced upon sound theological structures, for instance, as to dogmatic faith with its then own proper doxological and doctrinal orientations as such.

Appeals to proper doctrines, especially as they may entail integral adherence to the three main pillars of the Catholic teachings, namely, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, may “unfortunately” seem much too harsh to many non-Catholics, liberal Catholics, apostate Catholics, and so-called reform-minded (read: radical) Catholics. And, this unfortunate fact is known.

They do then quite fervently look toward him in the hope that he can act as an accommodationist and mediate and ameliorate quite significantly what are thought to be the harsher aspects of all so-called extremist dogmas and doctrines that, (from their truly demonic point of view), do not fit in with the postmodern dictates of the “new morality,” of the postmodern era and its cognate sweeping dictates; these do, of course, completely include triumphal and militant homosexuality, as is, e. g., covered in Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior by E. Michael Jones and, much more recently, in Robert R. Reilly’s Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything.

Thus, Pope Francis seeks to (wrongly) revolutionize his version of Catholicism in a vainglorious attempt to exercise his massing cultic powers toward a reformed style of syncretistic secularism turned inside out and into a paralleling Church-based form of neo-Catholic humanism aligned firmly with the Spirit of Vatican II. But, this overt thaumaturgic nonsense can only have a bad end to it, since it is so lavishly steeped in heavily erroneous cognition and radicalized pseudo-theology strictly foreign to the ancient and everlasting Faith, to the perennial fundamentals of Catholicism itself.

It is all part, one suspects, of a last gasp effort to somehow perversely revive and revivify what he thinks was most relevant in that Vatican Spirit matched to the postmodern era’s blatant neopaganism, which has, in fact, resulted from the utter failure of a pandemic secularism to so fully capture the mind of the (often depraved) masses. Good reading would include Robert P. George’s Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Our Age that satisfies the moral need for gaining truly useful and explicatory insights and comprehension.

This vainly primitive religious and theological fiasco qua effort can only ultimately fail, however, once enough people are no longer that enthralled by the influences of the tendentious papal cult and its once, one may hope, seductive powers.   Phenomenology, however disguised, is not theology, certainly not Catholic theology that ought to rigorously confirm the requisite sensus Catholicus; this is versus the various rationalizations of evil pandemic to most of contemporary society and culture.

Millions of people, as could be here guessed, will finally come to so realize that they cannot, in fact, viably sustain their deepest beliefs merely based upon a feel-good religiosity, which, in the end, is no real substitute for genuine religion, for deep faith in Christ.   But, since Pope Francis will have by then stripped away, in the minds of most Catholics, the Church’s vital ontological essence of everlasting dogmas, the damage would have then been already done and the ecclesial establishment, consequently, would justly be turned into a grand sociocultural mess unworthy of true belief, much less respect.

This must, as an adjunct consequence, fully accelerate the predictable downward slide of the main postconciliar Church, though it will not have such an affect, harsh influence, on the traditional Latin Mass Community that still rightly rejects the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) of Pope Paul VI.   But, what’s the indicative point commanding attention here?   The sacred teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are increasingly set to nought.  And, what has happened?

The theologico-epistemology of the New Mass “rapes” the orthodox ontology put forth by the Holy Faith as it was properly understood, of course, by the preconciliar Church and its consistant teachings.   However, traditionalist Catholics, concerning the larger reality involved, have not been fooled, which shows, once again, how the Mystery of Good battles against the Mystery of Evil.

Within that growing and vibrant religious community, orthodoxy will not merely survive but, moreover, continuously thrive onward with the sense of the Church Militant that this current Pope does not have much use for in his own calculations; this militant remnant, now no more than about 5% of the Church, will survive and thrive, which partly, at least, suggests that it is a true miracle brought forth by the Holy Ghost.

The absurd effort at one last try to finally and fully effectuate the intra-attitudinizing Spirit of VC II can, therefore, only result in an unmitigated disaster, along with all and every idiotic attempt to reform the reform; this is manifestly because, among other reasons, true Catholicism is always opposed to any merely ersatz version of it, even when aided by the ever questionable powers of a seemingly triumphal and prevailing papal cult. And, historically speaking, it has, in fact, totally failed before to achieve an expected success.

John Paul II, during a papacy that seemed, at times, on the verge of a triumphalism of a sort, had utterly failed to achieve this assumed theologico-humanist revolution carried out in the (dark) light of VCII; it is, thus, rather highly doubtful that the amazing adulatory prestige of this now current Sovereign Pontiff can really pull it off any better even with most of the Leftist media readily and forcefully on his side.

In full contrast, orthodox Roman Catholicism, the integral truth of the Faith, possesses always the both substantive and substantial energy and vitality for picking up the pieces of the aberrant postconciliar Church by so infusing it, as could be then rightly expected, with the ever true strength and sure integrity of religious and theological orthodoxy in the true spirit of St. Athanasius, a good guide for truth.

Papal cults, in reiteration, are truly a bad thing. They do improperly confuse a particular pope with the entire ecclesiastical meaning and Sacred Office of the Papacy. For instance, Alexander VI (Borgia) was personally a very evil man, as had been documented, e. g., by Warren Carroll and many other Catholic historians; however, regardless of all his sad faults, Alexander VI was, nonetheless, an orthodox pontiff; nothing he ever publicly said as to, pertaining directly to, any Church teachings could be interpreted or misinterpreted as heretical.  Reading, on this general subject, can include Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.

Although in all matters of faith and morals the Holy Ghost always guards every pope from heresy as to ex cathedra matters, however, the personal opinions or private conduct of any pope can still involve sinfulness and heretical opinions; the problem is, of course, that a papal cult obnoxiously wraps up the Vicar of Christ into a kind of protective cocoon, which then ends up wrongly exempting/protecting him from what ought, in fact, to be valid and profitable criticism.   This has had too many baleful consequences as can be empirically below perceived.

Michael Voris, S.T.B., the Catholic President and Founder of St. Michael’s Media and Senior Executive Producer of ChurchMilitant.TV, thus, exemplifies supremely this kind of terribly improper adherence to Pope Francis’ papal cult. Having a degree in sacred theology, he ought to know better.  Papal infallibility only covers faith and morals (inclusive of ethics); a pope cannot, e.g., declare that all Roman Catholics should stop believing in the existence of gravity; he cannot violate any Natural Law teachings nor can he impose, e. g., his particular aesthetic beliefs upon the faithful.   Neither reasoning nor rationality gets suspended.

The very narrow spiritual power that is papal infallibility, equally, does not mean that a pope, thereby, becomes a sinless creature, exempt fully from criticism, due to his papal office, which ought to better clarify matters here.

Voris forgets, conveniently, that St. Paul had publicly rebuked St. Peter concerning the vital question of whether the Gentiles had to be, first, Judaized before becoming Christians, that St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Ávila both criticized popes, and, moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor, wrote that it was, in fact, the true moral duty of Catholics to admonish, respectfully, of course, any pope in defense of the need to guard or uphold Catholicism.   He does not know better, in short, than the Angelic Doctor of the Faith, which ought to be obvious.

The requisite freedom to rightly defend holy orthodoxy, as well as the always inherent justice of it, is certainly coterminous with true faith; such freedom and faith are reciprocating hemispheres that thematically do form a coherent, never disparate, whole in an obligatory furtherance of Catholicism for the salvation of souls; it should never be a question, for instance, of possibly hurting the feelings of a particular pontiff through some appopriate manifestations of public disapproval.

As is so typical of most conservative Catholics or neo-Catholics (as they have been better denominated), he addresses only secondary or tertiary principles and does not epistemologically ground his theological argumentation in first principles, namely, the hearty promotion and adamant defense of orthodoxy.   As an educated man, with a religious degree no less, he definitely ought to then know better.   Mr. Voris improperly commits the vulgar cognitive reductionism of saying that it all, meaning the real controversy surrounding Francis, gets subject only to a simplistic Right v. Left series of interpretations.   This is false.

The truly paramount issue and definitely substantive crux of religious and theological argumentation and disputation, ever most certainly, revolves significantly around the highly contested matter of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, not lesser concerns, and certainly not any political disputations.   Therefore, Voris, whether ignorantly or not, commits a distinct disservice to the Catholic faithful; this is by so deliberately confusing the issue and diverting wanted attention from what ought to be of central concern, of focused thought, and not the various alleged or observed peccadillos produced by this papacy.

Furthermore, it is how the forces of the Left pick up or abuse the words of the Holy Father that ends up provoking an agitated response from those who disagree with the supposedly erroneous interpretations or ideologically-inspired misinterpretations.   If the Sovereign Pontiff would be much more careful and circumspect, suitably sober and judicious with his often imprecise or poorly worded verbiage, in serious terms of the interviews given, then there would be a great difficulty whenever the radicals may attempt to utilize such words for their own nefarious ends.

The many worried and troubled Catholic traditionalists, therefore, are only reacting in response to what these secularists are writing about that, therefore, causes the questionable cultic aura to be created; this is by which the Pope’s words can be then manipulated or operated upon successfully and easily, as has been, too often, the unfortunate case.

Public criticism is said to give scandal and aid to the enemies of the Church; the scandal, for instance, is said to negatively impact converts or would-be converts and severe critics of any papal censure point to the noted divisiveness that results, with this broadly in-your-face pontificate.

Although it is freely conceded without question that the papacy is an elective monarchy, however, it is not equivalent to (an oriental-style) despotism; converts, thus, are not ever required to simply check their brains in at the door of the Church.  Voris, one suspects, has forgotten this important fact, for there is no scandal in loving charitable rebuke; the contrary is, however, true.

But, Voris (in, perhaps, being naïve) stating that Catholics ought to be writing private letters of concern to the Pope brings up the pathetic fallacy, meaning “if only the Czar knew, if only the Pope knew,” etc. then he would not do or say certain things, or allow certain things to happen.   He, in fact, obviously knows.   How may this be, therefore, easily verified?

He, e. g., had swiftly and publicly replied to Rush Limbaugh’s accusation against him for seeming to side with Marxism, which does empirically, of course, prove that this informed “happy time” Holy Father is then most clearly cognizant and surely aware, not ignorant, meaning supposedly being in a state of genuinely not knowing that he can and does aggravate, dismay, annoy, or upset many faithful Catholics.   An increasing bunch of letters is not really at all needed, as should be logically guessed by now.

Instead, let there be a critical analysis through supplying an appropriate analogy. Are newly naturalized citizens of the USA (read: recent/potential converts) to be wholly freed from ever being “scandalized” by public criticism of the President (read: the Pope) such that any possible animadversions are then to be spoken of only in private? Good citizenship, on the contrary, would rather morally dictate otherwise, and the vile perversity of saying that this speech ought to be completely concealed from public hearing is best reserved to dictatorships, not free governments.  Though all analogies have their limitations, of course, however, the truth of the principle involved yet remains.

As ought to be properly said, Voris totally forgets that a pope’s personal religious, theological, moral, or ethical opinions are just that, they are (only) his personal opinions, not the true perennial teachings of the Faith.   They, therefore, hold no dogmatic or doctrinal sanction whatsoever because these opinions are not within the scope of faith, morals, or ethics needed for achieving holiness, for then affirming the economy of salvation.

More to be significantly noted, the (Leftist) Church dissidents agree with the neo-Catholics that the orthodox objectors are to be appropriately silent, which ought to give one pause.   The attempted faux censorship, favored by Voris, is so evidently seen here to be disproportionate, besides being, in effect, morally perverse as well.   Thus, both sociologically and psychologically speaking, the basic potency of popular impressions, within human thought and interaction thereof, generally so depends upon the existent valuation of preconceived ideas; in short, perception (often) defines reality.   And, humans, fallen creatures, are prone to sin in a fallen world.

An epoch strongly antagonistic to religion necessarily perceives events and meanings through (warping) secular lenses, which Voris, a neo-Catholic, may have forgotten to remember as a noted function of the massive de-Christianization of the West, which has vitiated a humble questing in the real world of being.   Both elements of neopaganism and secularism, the former provoked into existence by the latter, have come, more or less, to predominately define and vilely saturate societal and cultural reality in the present Western world.

The only adequate spiritual response to civilizational crisis, regardless of the advancing postmodernity, is an authentic revitalization of divine revelation in the soul of every man, for which an appeal to the Holy Ghost may be properly made.   As ever, Christ is the Truth, not public opinion surveys or democratic votes, especially in an anti-Christian age.

The traditionalist critics are, therefore, being merely reactive and not at all excessively “provocative” regarding many given responses just openly rendered; this is so because of the quite too deliberate or, perhaps, intentionally corrupted popularization of such (often carelessly expressed, as admitted by Voris himself) papal statements, as is freely done by the progressive intellectuals, degenerate cognoscenti, and their logically associated press outlets.

There is, nonetheless, an aforementioned suspicion and, yes, firm suggestion as to what may be really going on beyond the many creative apologies thought up for defending Pope Francis, for silence may help to damn many souls to Hell.   A papal precision and rectitude of behavior and seemliness seems too often lacking beyond intrasubjective communicational efforts, which disregard a holy dependence upon transcendent intention for the highest meaning of Christian life, not transactional analysis.

And, an extremely excessive defense of a pontiff, set beyond proper and appropriate religious respect for his office and naturally cognate theological status, may lead to a form of idolatry.   Objections to what is going on are being made by many sincere and devoted Catholics, not just supposed nutwings or sedevacantists or Radi-Tradies (aka Radical Traditionalists), as is too often alleged; bitter recriminations and the anti-Christian casting of aspersions, furthermore, will add much heat, not light.   Scurrility and perfidy, however, are not exactly subtle substitutes for applying properly calm discussion, informed valid criticism, and cogent analysis.

Once again, it is snobbishly assumed that if certain people get “labeled,” they do not have to be debated with nor are worthy of any genuine continued discourse or desired discussions.   Those who detest the modernization of dogmas and doctrines are, thus, casually dismissed as mere freaky Catholics filled with petulant aspirations, repugnant mental gestures, and sore loser attitudes; a bunch of supposed sour cranks and vile nonconformists proverbially “whistling Dixie in the dark.”

For the (orthodox) traditionalists, this fierce verbal combat, as should be here intelligently recognized, necessarily helps to so continue the intended vicious marginalization and, of course, cognate contempt; Voris mentioned the traditionalists in a rather snide context with Eastern Orthodoxy that suggests, by innuendo, that they are like these, in effect, first Protestants or, perhaps, proto-Protestants of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church.   But, ever regardless, such mere nasty polemics or invectives are still no truly viable substitute for substantive and rational, considerable and objective, argumentation and disquisition.

Of course, many prayers for the Pope are needed in the hope that God may mightily dissuade him from committing grave moral errors founded upon his own idolatry and its attendant superstition in the odd endeavor to favor an ecclesiastical revolution similar, in many respects, to Protestantism; the faithful can, therefore, positively send up their many prayerful supplications to Heaven in attempting to help destroy such very ill-founded papal intentions that do quite necessarily conflict with the appropriate understanding of the nature of Catholicism, of the will of Jesus Christ for the Church He founded.

On the other hand, in fairness, one can note that some observers do think that he is still very much a mystery man or enigma, which then adds, of course, to his growing personal (read: cultic) aura. 2

But, much valid criticism yet exists.   Equally, there ought to be a definite end to the spiritually unhealthy modern phenomenon of papal cults, as has been said, that began with John Paul II whose more pedantic sycophants, e. g., do still publicly call him John Paul II the Great.   Moreover, the ugly heretical fads and fashions being put forth by this Bishop of Rome should be appropriately found simply intolerable in the proper theological and moral context of orthodox religious teachings concerned with the dogmas and doctrines of the Holy Faith.   His attempt at a papal revolution through internal subversion is, however, much more disturbing. 3

The fads and fashions, in thought, evidenced by the Holy Pontiff do not correctly fit in with the proper understanding of man as made in the image of God, rather, humans get reduced into just being seen as rather clever (though somewhat irrational) beasts from the anthropocentric point of view, as favored by the Spirit of VC II.   The spiritualization of advanced beasts, through an accommodationist Church, is not what the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension was about, though, unfortunately, this needs to be explicitly said today.  Why?

The secularization of Pelagianism, since about the late 15th century, was brought about by the ideologies of modernity, which, in turn, had created the neo-Pelagianism of a decadent and degenerate secular society and culture within modernity; this then favors the spread of neopaganism, 4 the broad apostasy of the West, as pure or unadulterated secularism gets rejected by the masses, though not by most of the cognoscenti, the intellectuals, within the now dawning postmodernity.   There are, moreover, certain rather definite implications.

Consequently, the still valuable Platonic critique of sophism must, thus, be revived for this unfortunate era.   This situation is, in essence, a moral problem in that a basic spiritual alienation has occurred that existentially separates morals from ontology due to intellectual hubris.   But, usually praised rationalist autonomy, as intelligo ut credam gets fully rejected, is simply a form of this (often unrecognized) alienation, as it needs to be understood. To all this, the resounding Catholic battle cry must, of course, logically be: Athanasius contra mundum!

The Revival of Catholicism Needed

An authentic Christian anthropology, as enunciated by, e. g., Pope Benedict XVI, starts first with the desire for maintaining an ever proper Christocentric attitude that ought consciously to fill all requisite discussions and considerations of human nature as being fixed, not plastic.   Why is this to be always adamantly said?

If human nature is not, by definition, a true nature, then it cannot be discussed as something innate to conscious, cognizant, sentient biped beings.   Any supposed protean or changeable nature is an oxymoron, which sheer logic demands recognition of as being true, though a fully false understanding of man’s humanity, for there must be a restoration of authority, prescription, tradition, order, value, purpose, and belief; these are all, moreover, to be rightly held as being intimately within and defined by the Catholic cosmos represented, in truth, by the Holy Faith.

But, the behaviorists, materialists, positivists, pragmatists, and others, all surely dedicated nominalists, absurdly insist that there is no truly fixed human reality pertaining to the human species, meaning no defined and knowable human nature as such.   Unsurprisingly, both the soulless cadres of modernist subjectivists and the postmodernist deconstructionists agree absolutely on that demonic point.

They share a truly grave contempt for the idea of the desired sanctification of human lives for the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, not service toward those earthly ideals that aid the malicious efforts of the Prince of this world (aka Satan); man’s inherent humanity, moreover, becomes optional and oriented toward ideological preferences; the personal has become political and vice versa as with, e. g., cultic preferences that are denounced in this article.

By them, it is said to be mainly polymorphous, more or less, to greater or lesser degrees of definition; some would go so far as to say that it is unknown; thus, e. g., sodomites are, more and more, popularly said to be normal, not obvious perverts.   By being in needed defense of classical Natural Law teachings and what used to be called right reason, Catholicism, in its orthodox-traditionalist interpretation, openly understands and affirms the rational existence of there always being a definite human nature logically applicable to all human beings qua human beings. Oddly enough, this seems a most “radical” statement today.

This had normally been backed by what had been once just called common sense, which, as Aristotle recognized many centuries ago, is not really common and, thus, the need for philosophy.   Both Catholic theology and classical philosophy, unsurprisingly, adheres to the positively directed upholding of the humanity of mankind, which is, of course, always fully consist with right reason, with self-evident truth; this is contrary to the attempted demonic subversion of the Holy Faith, especially since VC II.

Moreover, there is no supposed division of faith versus reason as is falsely contended by modernity, inclusive, of course, of Protestantism as one of the chief (nominalist) products of modernity in cognition.   False reasoning and rationalism parading as a form of rationality must then both be condemned as harming rational cognizance for religious and theological ends, not just for purposes of determining appropriate social discourse; there is to be, moreover, a teleological affirmation of the Faith counter to any nihilistic immanentism, and a religious basis must properly exist for ever directing people toward theological truth, regardless of the often popular preferences of modernity or postmodernity in thought.

All of this easily explains and elucidates why orthodox Catholicism’s revival, as with the traditional Latin Mass Community being socially organic in nature, is clearly needed, meaning that it appears, in bizarre contradistinction, to be a mostly quite foreign entity to the vast bulk of the Church’s hierarchy and its prelates, including the general clergy, which is, indeed, a rather sad admission of fact.

It must be remarked upon, however, that any kind of cultic papacy, a contemporaneous media-induced phenomenon, harms greatly the valuable transmission of Catholic teachings and is a hindrance to the advancement of orthodoxy; this is because, as it has been covered, the colorful and dramatic personality of a current pontiff, as it needs to be here said, can come to improperly cloud men’s minds with all the variable foibles, eccentricities, or idiosyncrasies that may, in fact, characterize greatly the quite colorful person holding, currently, the highest ecclesiastical office in this world, unfortunately.

What is truly required for genuine spiritual renewal, contrary to all the absurd papal shenanigans going on, is a traditional return to Catholic consciousness that must be opposed to the continuing neo-Catholic (read: nominalist-inspired) defense of the ugly “regime of novelty,” as it has been called, spawned by VC II, which has little regard for a sense of freedom raised to indefectible obedience in the beatific vision that is to be the salvific goal of all sincere and believing Christians.   There is to be no supposedly amnesic regard for what had been the historic teachings, the fundamental theological framework, of the Church, which righteously includes the desired sanctification of souls, not fashionable or flashy showmanship.

A true and developed Catholic conscience is, therefore, authentic, fully aware and cogently conscious of the theological fact that new-fangled heresies are still, when all is said and done, heretical, not at all newly normative or special spiritual revelations for the faithful. The rightful interpretation and integral consideration of proper Catholicism, moreover, has never and will never actually begin or end with any particular papacy with attempts at creating a merely ersatz religiosity, not the proper sensus Catholicus

Affirmation of such includes the notions of lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, as all these are valid aspects of integral authenticity and are to be within an integrated Catholic culture, for reason, against the vile heresies of Martin Luther, is not the enemy of faith.

Being a true papist Catholic does not mean having a myopic regard and affection for the quirkiness of any particular pontiff, ever ready with creative or elaborate argumentation on his behalf; profound respect given for the exalted Office of the Holy Father ought logically and theologically to mean and imply much more than that blatant and ludicrous kind of, in the end, reductio ad absurdum.

Any neo-Catholic apologia, done on the questionable behalf of the new orthodoxy stemming from VC II and its aftermath, and connected to continual reinterpreting of papal statements, puts verily into question the rationality, if not necessarily the sincerity, of the apologists.   Catholicism, furthermore, must never axiologically degenerate into becoming an adjunct feature of any cult, no matter how prestigious it may seem or be; in opposition, Christocentric orientation must stress genuinely holiness, sanctification, for it to ever be an authentic witness for the Christian life of living men, for the upholding of the usus antiquior of a still living spiritual tradition, meaning the nature of Catholicism.

No amount of publicity is to become a substitute for sincere religious devotion and studiously Christian behavior, for as long as the enemies of Christ and His Church so loudly praise Pope Francis, it will be morally and spiritually necessary to admonish, to denounce, him publicly; thus, he is not to be wrongly considered exempt from religious enlightenment, the pursuit of the light of Christ, not the fantasies of this fallen world.   Christianity is the true hope of this world, not any supposed humanism of the secular order of triumphant Man.

The Faith, moreover, is not to ever be an optional matter seemingly weighed against the variable dictates or subtle demands of cultic inspiration centered on the popularization of dramatic words or gestures; symbolism should not be confused with Catholic substance, regardless of the hip attitudes of pop culture and its odd devotees. Vital Catholic consciousness, instead, requires true devotion to the perennial dogmas and doctrines of Holy Mother Church, as they have been, appropriately, explicated and inculcated by the three main pillars of the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, with each always theologically and religiously reinforcing the other and none contradicting any of the three.

They adamantly, among other virtues, do support the Culture of Life.  This leads to a wanted orthodox renewal, contrary to the odd speculations of the neo-Catholics and their neo-orthodox supporters who insist on defending the dying regime of novelty, meaning as the Novus Ordo steadily depopulates the churches and parishes. A conscious Catholicism, known to orthodoxy, is so requisite to the glorious task of restoration and reaffirmation that cannot rest upon a simple piety, though in a profound sense there must be yet a proper piety toward the constitution of being and achieved truth found solemnly within the Church.

From all of this stems mightily, thus, the true origins or provenance of confirmed Papal Sovereignty, contrary to the too often post hoc, ergo propter hoc ratiocination found to be absurdly present in most neo-Catholic reasoning. It is the truth and dignity of the Faith, backed by an orthodox sensibility, that confers title and legitimacy, authority and power, to the papacy, not vice versa.


Therefore, no popular cult can, in truth, substitute for the legitimate authority, power, and prestige of the papacy, regardless of whom, in particular, holds the papal office itself; the exalted Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, is always equally the Holy Sovereign Pontiff of the entire Roman Catholic Church and, by logical extension, he is also the Pastor for all the people of this world.

Thus, it is so religiously and morally best that Pope Francis cease acting in such an unseemly manner, entirely inappropriate to what ought to be the proper demeanor and decorum, that should be normally expected of the Servant of the Servants of Christ; he is not, for instance, to be a public pop star to be constantly seeking the fawning, flattering, adulation of many crowds or, for that matter, of popular opinion. A papal cult is, therefore, surely an execrable, simply appalling, idea, contrary to the tenor and substance of the Holy Faith, of its dogmas, doctrines and traditions validly defining true Catholicism. 5

So, here is a prayer for the Pope:

Almighty and everlasting God, have mercy upon Thy servant, Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving-kindness, in the ways of eternal salvation; that, of Thy gift, he may ever desire that which is pleasing unto Thee and may accomplish it with all his might. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Fortunately, the traditional Latin Mass Community and those allied to its cause, therefore, offers the best practical antidote to the neo-Catholic/neo-orthodox poison that wishes to truly prevent the orthodox reassertion and revivification of the substantive conscious sense of the vital preconciliar Church versus the ever troubling, modernist, postconciliar, ecclesiastical establishment.

Athanasius contra mundum!



1. For instance, it is well known that he is thoroughly adored by Hans Küng, the major heresiarch prominent in the world today, who publicly demands absolute radicalization of the Church. See:
And, moreover, he is surely a great champion of the Left. Many Communists, e. g., were actively helped by him. He was/is a man that these avowed enemies of God trusted and confided in without worry. See:

Note: If any pope did for Nazis what he had done for Communists, it is extremely doubtful, however, that such a pontiff would expect to get effusively good press accounts, filled with enormous adulation, about that particular kind of activism.
Other open leftist support for Pope Francis:…;


3. See: Pope Francis: has his revolution even started? | World … › News › World news › Pope Francis

 4. See: M. Stanton Evans, The Theme Is Freedom, Chapter 7 The Rise of Neopaganism.

5. Many of the apologists for the Holy Father, of course, say that those leftists and others who are too intensely praising him are just using him for their own purposes and are not at all truly sincere in the widely vocal plaudits given. If so, this makes the situation much worse.   Either Pope Francis is extremely incredibly naïve beyond belief or else, if true, he is complicit, to whatever degree, with the evil involved.   The only resolution that denies both these alternatives is, perhaps, the thought that their interpretation(s) of him are, in fact, as truly sincere as the applause rendered is not subtle but, rather, overt and, thus, intentional.   But, what could that mean?

Still, it would seem that the bottom line of prudential logic and sagacious reasoning is that he ought to cease and desist, for the sake of the Holy Faith, with any ambiguous conduct or provocative speech that might lend certain credence to the beliefs of the Left.  The Pope ought, then, not to be such a source of severe scandal, which is not too much to expect or demand.

Forget the Daze of Pope Francis, Go Rebuild the Church

Forget the Daze of Pope Francis, Go Rebuild the Church

By     Joseph Andrew Settanni

Most Catholics today do not know, because of poor catechesis, that abortion, artificial contraception, infanticide, euthanasia, sodomy, divorce, and pornography are all intrinsically evil without any question; the majority simply pick and choose what they may or may not wish to believe as to various dogmas and doctrines, which is a horrible and disastrous situation in the nature of a monumental crisis.

This is truly a shocking and outrageous development of an extreme theological and religious magnitude that really ought, of course, to make the entire Catholic hierarchy feel overwhelmingly shameful and necessarily guilty; the fact that they evidently do not have such feelings is, again, quite shocking and very outrageous beyond measure, which is, of course, a profound poverty of the spirit.  Catholicism, at a minimum, is at a low point in its history, which can be easily seen in the doings of the current pontiff, who often gives an appearance of being “the lost man.”

Most Catholics, including the bulk of the clergy, feel neither any shame nor guilt, which means that the vast number of members of this rather too appalling “Church of nice” and its so spiritually vacuous emotionalism is necessarily leading its ignorant and lazy people, the parishioners, with its indifferent clergy, to certain damnation, to eternal perdition.   Feelings of “tolerance” are wrongly equated with a needed Christian love for one’s neighbor.

They, the uninformed majority, have no correct understanding of Catholicism; they have, in fact, no real idea of what it means to be a Roman Catholic.  To them, Catholicism is just one denomination among many, for most believe that all Christians, in general, eventually get to Heaven, not Hell.

The Horror of the Church of Nice

There is no plan or requisite effort to significantly instruct the Church hierarchy concerning the greatly important need to correct the detrimental and enormous failures of communication and instruction involved by revivifying and solidly strengthening Catholic catechesis.   How many Catholics really know about and can intelligently defend the existence of there being seven sacraments?

How many can successfully refute the multiple and severe errors of Protestantism, which consequently aid in damning millions of souls to fiery Hell because of such abominable heresy?   Do most of today’s Catholics, moreover, even understand what a heresy is?   The answers, in case of any doubt, are: few, few, and no.

Furthermore, the current holder of the Papal Office has no known or observed intention of correctly asserting and exercising papal power and authority to act as the Good Shepherd of the faithful flock.  It is, in the given above context of dire seriousness, a most grave dereliction of primal papal duty and is, moreover, a real sign of notable and grim failure on his part.   While, as Lord Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely, however, the heartbreaking lack of the holy desire to exercise warranted authority that validates a just power to be used in proper defense of Catholicism is clearly a severe vice, not a virtue.  And, this inimical vice is exhibited manifestly in the current Sovereign Pontiff almost beyond belief.

It should be really quite obvious, by now, that Pope Francis will never be the inspiring leader of any true reform movement that will destroy the paralyzing hold of the Conciliar Captivity, meaning the evil Spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which is much worse than the ambiguous and strange Letter of Vatican Council II.

The nonsense of the Spirit being in specious conflict with the Letter ought to be intelligently rejected, meaning that the supposed reform of the reform is spurious stuff unworthy of minds cognizant and fully aware of the serious destruction to the Roman Catholic Church, the dire consequences and aftermath, implications and ramifications, of the ill-fated Second Vatican Council (VC II).  It was and remains a dire plague to infect the Church, while the Pope goes looking elsewhere for his more interesting activities.

The Holy Pontiff prefers, instead, to be spiritually “moonlighting” by, e. g., sneaking out of the Vatican to personally help some poor people, forgetting conveniently the good words of Christ, uttered to the future traitor Judas, that “the poor they are always with you.”   The Hegelian-inspired dialectic of the supposed Spirit versus the Letter ought to be rejected as nominalist nonsense; the two were and are one; there ought to be no preconciliar Church versus postconciliar Church as if a Hegelian synthesis developed; but, the modernists have forced into being this dialectic attitude or, rather, superstition that demonstrates the ever integral falsity of the entirely tendentious debate.

Both the harmful Spirit and Letter of VC II must be equally rejected, not just one or the other, for there can be no such reform of the reform possible. This forcefully means that, contrary to modernism, the truly primal concern for religious orthodoxy of the pre-VC II era needs to be fully restored for better assuring the need for a greater abundance of sanctifying grace added to the wanted increase of holiness throughout the Church.   It is the explicit favoring of a Christocentric life, a life with Christian love.

The massive failure and internal corruption of the hierarchy has lead to creating a situation whereby literally hundreds of millions of Catholics are seemingly indifferent to mortal sin, dogmas, and much else; fornication itself, therefore, is now the accepted societal norm, not the exception. And, the clergy, in general, seem incapable of morally and spiritually combating moral error, in any forceful manner, as deluded members of the Church of nice who do not wish to offend people.

They are not exactly replicas of St. James and St. John, known as the Sons of Thunder who would never have been tolerant of the niceness pervading the postconciliar Church, which is far from the needed Church Militant.

Instead of properly and appropriately concentrating the vast majority of his mental and spiritual effort upon the mammoth subject of greatly rescuing and revitalizing the seriously harmed Church, Pope Francis is, of course, highly comfortable and openly favorable toward the postconciliar crisis or, rather, the non-crisis, in his mind, of the Conciliar Captivity; it, this introduced concept, is here a kind of fairly good historical parallel to the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Papacy, in general terms of the ethical, moral, and spiritual destructiveness involved by that particularly pernicious type of special mental and spiritual imprisonment.

This mightily peculiar bondage has, resultantly, perverted the orientations and energies of the Church toward many misguided efforts to, in effect, mimic or somehow mirror image what is perceived as the humanism of secularism (aka atheism), which actually produces merely a rationalization for favoring sinful behavior, for often accepting what had been normally once thought to be inherently objectionable conduct. It has lead to the inability to even uphold the basics of classical Natural Law teachings and what used to be called right reason.

The lack of virtuous sternness and resolve on the part of the hierarchy, as led by the postconciliar popes, has contributed substantially concerning how Western civilization has heinously yielded to what is now the results of postmodern thrusts toward that nihilistic humanism and naturalism that freely endorses the homosexualization of societal and cultural standards.

This is, also, along with the vilely contemptible sexualizaton of children and even infants, which then means that eventually, of course, pederasty will become a sanctioned civil right as has been, in fact, the empirical case of sodomy; but, no civilization, in all of recorded history, has ever survived massive homosexualization generationally applied.

Yet, none of this tremendously important concern, in any truly intensive manner yet detected, shows up upon the papal radar screen because of the moral and cognitive failure caused by the Conciliar Captivity, due to its ever seriously harmful influences upon Catholic theology and religion. It is empirically seen in how Pope Francis has celebrated the feted Dominican Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, the Marxist-liberation theology fanatic-heretic, who has significantly influenced the thinking of the current Holy Father. What are the likely terrible implications?

He eagerly wishes as the Vicar of Christ, as can be observed, to bring such objective evil very close to the heart of the Church, which so substantively confirms Limbaugh’s suspicions of Marxism cited earlier. Fr. Gutiérrez is being rehabilitated as now being a valid spokesman for how the ecclesial establishment ought to think about such subjects as capitalism, poverty, exploitation, oppression, etc.   Secularist criticism in the Marxian ideological sense is, thus, quite unfortunately and wrongly validated and many unsuspecting Catholics and Christians in general will see with what overt papal approval such evil is being so greeted with, quite enthusiastically.

Elements of the demonic, it can be added, do enter strongly into these disturbing matters, though this will, unequivocally, be adamantly denied always by the morally myopic defenders of Pope Francis, though no evil is ever being wished upon him.   Yet, those who dance with the devil should expect to get burned.

Bad Fruits of the Second Vatican Council

While one may, and for those who are faithful Catholics one ought, to pray for the Pope, the hope now, however, should be placed upon the next pontiff who may have the needed and so requisite realization that this profoundly terrible crisis is certainly real, that the truly spiritually grave and dramatic enormous apostasy of the Western world is surely real.

In that overwhelmingly significant historical context, Pope Francis is then deservedly relegated to the situational position of being a nonentity with his own marked indifference toward both traditionalist Catholicism and an informed foundational Catholicity, meaning his inability and unresponsiveness toward wanting to defend the Church Militant and the having of a Christocentric life for all believers.
He is, moreover, sadly lost in his own world that includes, for him, only the modernist conviviality and smug assuredness of VC II.   The easily observed repaganization of the Western world, especially Western Europe, due to its own prior secularization had so created, as was predicted, the fertile ground for the aforementioned massive apostasy.  One sees that, because of a major theological neglect by the majority of the hierarchy, the Catholic faithful become more and more faithless, meaning that this is not by accident but by design.

This situation was both substantively and substantially aided and abetted by the awful ethical, moral, and spiritual weakening of Holy Mother Church by both the results and modernist intentions of VC II.   The problems brought on, as a disastrous consequence of that malignant council, need not here detain the readers, for they have been repetitiously and thoroughly documented and confirmed many times over by now. 1 [See: Notes]

What concerns this hopeful present article is the willing need to rebuild the Church, regardless of the overtly vile and cognitively pusillanimous attitude manifested by Pope Francis who may not even have, in this regard, any consciousness of his own very serious failings.   There is, after all, something seriously wrong with any pontiff who is so perceptibly media obsessed such that, e. g., he obviously felt the great need to reply to a single radio talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, who had seriously accused him of Marxist sympathies. This is, no doubt, a quite publicity engrossed and media-conscious prelate at the helm of the Church who largely fiddles while Rome burns. [What planet does he live on?]

This reply was done, more to the point, only one day after the accusation, which comes to then gravely question the pope’s proper sense of proportion and priorities and should, thus, make the faithful flock and many others sadly wonder about him. But, a significant media star of this decadent era usually pays a rather high price for such publicity; as has been said, they who live by the media can get themselves destroyed by the media.

The various antics and frolics of this cleric, plagued by observed idiosyncrasies, seem to so indicate that he is in some sort of daze or stupor, due to this enormous amount of highly questionable attention, which is entirely inordinate when considering how much the secular culture truly detests (orthodox) Catholicism. 2

One assumes (or hopes) that he is not unaware of how many avowed enemies of the Church are actively praising him and, consequently, glorifying his pontificate. Representatives of the forces of the Culture of Death, with its hedonism and vice, do heap encomiums in abundance upon him. A good Catholic would be, needless to say, terribly embarrassed if he were the chosen object of such acclamation, if he were to effusively receive the open admiration, adulation, of so many dedicated adversaries, virulent foes, of Christ and His Church.

For they, these heinous swine, deny quite vehemently the salvific power of suffering and that the only chance of salvation is to follow the Way of the Cross. These are the ideological supporters of cultural Marxism with its affirmative action, multiculturalism, diversity, pluralism, etc. aimed at destroying the traditional family and promoting the erotic revolution.  Good related reading would include The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command by James Kalb and his insightful Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It.

Admittedly, liberalized divorce, a prominent feature of secularist society and positivist law, had also helped substantially to pave the evil way with allowing for both serial polygamy for men and serial polyandry for women. Christian love understands true charity as necessarily including a hatred of evil for the sake of the salvation of souls. While Western civilization is clearly on the evident road toward a collapse, the Bishop of Rome, with a mind fixated seemingly upon his cognizant oblivion, sets about greatly carrying for and, thus, cultivating his public image, though this may be denied, of course, by him; regardless, the quizzical days of Francis seem preposterous enough.

But, it is repeatedly said by the Pope’s ardent admirers that, e. g., he is genuinely humble and so proves it by dressing more simply and, therefore, deliberately setting a modest style; in so many ways, this Vicar of Christ is thought to be showing a tone genuinely geared toward upholding a sterling model of observed humility and true faithfulness for the whole ecclesial establishment.

How dare anyone ever seriously question this good man’s, this decent Pontiff’s, behavior or demeanor, especially whenever he lovingly embraces the poorest of the poor? This should all be, of course, plainly perceived as a sort of fundamentally substantial and legitimately phrased defense in his favor for, thus, dismissing unfair criticism.

On the other hand, he was, in fact, trained as a modern Jesuit; it is an order of priests no longer acting as the once reliable and old corps “shock troops” of the preconciliar papacy. Philosophical and theological nominalism rots the mind’s ability to reason correctly and logically. The believers in and practitioners of the VC II mindset, which includes almost all the Jesuits, are incapable, or nearly so, of being able to ever perceive the worldliness involved with it; they are in a form of bondage similar to Plato’s Cave and are incapable, basically, of independent and contrary thought on such a subject, for the Pope himself is immune to criticism of VC II (in his own mind).

It would be tremendously good if a “great lion” of the Church should valiantly come forth to properly and strongly admonish, to helpfully reprove, the Holy Father, in the tradition of a St. Catherine of Siena or St. Teresa of Ávila. The Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, moreover, even taught that such an action is both permissible and can be highly necessary when genuinely required, e. g., for the sake of the Faith and its integrity that remains in proper line with the authoritative sense of the Papal Office. 3  

Admittedly, such an approach, though needed, would not be easy to take.  Why may this be said?

Pope Francis is, of course, a committed devotee of VC II who never ever questions its assumed absolute legitimacy and rightness; all of VC II has become, for him and the bulk of the hierarchy, the manifestly unchallenged touchstone of what has been, in truth, correctly denominated as the “new orthodoxy” of the postconciliar Church.   It freely tolerates and, in a sense, seemingly mandates the worldliness, the secular sophistication of a form of “Christian” humanism, perceived within the activities and general climate of the Conciliar Captivity, which, also, cognately highlights its inherently laicist-paralleling nature and function.

The inactivity of the postconciliar popes, regarding their evident unawareness of the profound depths of the incredible destruction that has sorely afflicted the Church, seems thoroughly both inexplicable and unfathomable, except that there are the known consequences of the Conciliar Captivity. Of course, it will be immediately argued vociferously that various pontiffs have tried, in certain ways, to heal the many wounds; but, considering the enormous nature, reality, and extent of the extensive ongoing crisis, most of what was lightly done was only misconceived or misdirected nonsense; other things done were still, on the whole, too little and too late to make any real difference.   Few genuinely substantive actions were ever taken.

This insidious captivity, in reiteration, has created a self-sustaining form of nominalist blindness to the truly pervasive and many inroads of secularization that have undermined, increasingly, the ever much needed spirituality and sanctity of the Church. Pope Francis, as an associated consequence, is not able to critically see that the ongoing reality of fallen men in a fallen world was neither erased nor modified whatsoever by the anomalous doings of VC II or, certainly, its odd aftermath.   It did not ever cognitively manufacture, moreover, a religious-oriented form of supposed enlightenment with which to meet and greet the older secularist Enlightenment, as if on a common playing field as it were.

Arrogance, vanity and pride upholds most of the Church establishment’s firm support for VC II because too many (still) contemporary ecclesial reputations were made from the promotion of the teachings and outcomes involved; their prideful certainty and arrogant attitudes, therefore, cannot ever admit of error when sustained mightily by an overflow of obnoxious vanity that stinks to high Heaven and unto low Hell; it is integrally, as could be surmised cogently, an ugly part of the excessive worldliness present in the postconciliar Church and its many too ardent acolytes. Pope Francis, thus, represents the next generation that must pass away before true Christocentric reform can become more and more possible.

In this still sinful world, every excess, sooner or later, gets rightly punished because of its, by definition, excessiveness, of the immoderateness (unreasonableness) of its very existence as such. Because human beings, living with the human condition and its misery, are naturally prone to sin, even an excess of humility can be then sadly transmuted into a real vice, when the intrinsic worldliness of the possessed excessiveness does not, in fact, get rightly recognized to be a true vice, not a virtue.

This is the seeming conundrum, a quite morally vicious position, which the deluded supporters of the postconciliar Church are apparently (or otherwise) unaware of to the grave detriment of all concerned, inclusive of a highly questionable effort at self-effacement.

Thus, one ought to historically comprehend that Jansenist (heretical) priests and nuns, e. g., were not a glory for the Holy Faith; their practiced humility was, therefore, a heinous weapon set firmly against all sound and true Catholic orthodoxy. The worldly “humility” of Pope Francis, though not, perhaps, as devastating as is Jansenism’s, need not create such an extremely positive impression by which to judge him and his intentions; this is mainly because papal infallibility does not mean, among other things, that a pope is to be considered free from the ability to sin.

Needless to say, humility is not really enough; acting with misapplied humbleness done somewhat extravagantly, moreover, slides right readily into the realm of an often unrecognized and, thus, so pernicious form of (covert) vice. What is meant? Jesus righteously rebuked Judas the traitor who has the gall to remind the Lord about remembering the poor, as Christ knew Judas was stealing from the common purse, for poverty of the spirit, which the Church has now in such abundance, is ever much worse.

The people of God are being seriously underserved, pastorally abused, and terribly neglected in a misguided quest for achieving the supposed success, e. g., of the mincing minutiae of simplicity of behavior and dress.   He ought to stop the theatric inanities of seemingly doing some scenes from that novel, The Shoes of the Fisherman, written – significantly in an indicative sense — by a Marxist no less, Morris L. West.   But, apparently, Francis is in such a state of enthrallment to the Conciliar Captivity such that he seemingly remains forever in a daze of non-narcotic wonderment as he seeks the furtherance of the Spirit of VC II. 4

Thus, the Pope’s quite tremendous neglect, which includes deep sins of commission and omission, of dealing with the profound, fundamental, ongoing religious and theological crisis of the Church, due to VC II and its many malevolent results, is the set pivotal matter by which his papacy will be morally and historically judged an essential failure.    If he truly wants less publicity that ranges toward notoriety, he should cease his display of often vagrant eccentricities or peculiarities upon the public stage and deal more circumspectly, watchfully, as to needed propriety, decorum, and personal demeanor as, thus, befits a sober man of God, regarding all his openly observed deportment and behavior.   Is, therefore, something important still needed to be said?

He does not have to go out of his way to do or say things that make (outraged) people feel ashamed of him.  What is so plainly requisite to the holy task of a pontiff is contrary to the unctuous and enervating lack of properly exercising the valid authority and sacred power of the Supreme Pontiff to lovingly help rescue Holy Mother Church, meaning during this grave time of severe crisis and terrible anguish. 5

However, instead of wasting any very valuable time, effort, or energy in hating, reviling, (and, thereby, sinning) or getting frustrated with him by his clear unwillingness to act properly matched to his desire for expansive publicity, needed thoughts and activities are, therefore, much better aimed at rescuing and restoring, liberating and renovating, the requisite vitality of Roman Catholic orthodoxy as the proper bedrock of Holy Mother Church.   A “militant” kind of Catholicism is vitally necessary for promoting the Church Militant on earth.

It acts as ever the adamant affirmation of the basics, the fundamentals, of all right teachings necessarily contained within the three celebrated main pillars of the Holy Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. There needs to be, more to the point, the championing of the Eucharistic life as central to all proper Catholic aspirations; the worship of God, as noted here, comes closest to that which is heroic in man by opposing the decadent and degenerate mainstream culture and society that exists.

Today, overt sinfulness is considered a true virtue, the “new normal” as it gets called, as with, e.g., sodomy now existing as a legally protected civil right; sodomites, moreover, are surely now part of the new privileged aristocracy of the postmodern era. Thus, Catholicism, possessed of the true original mandate for the righteous spreading of Christianity, must seek to retake the moral high ground against such insanity.

Acts of Rebuilding and Reaffirming Catholicism

One can read, for the sake of gaining some background knowledge, such related and interesting books as John Senior’s The Restoration of Christian Culture and Diane Moczar’s Converts and Kingdoms: How the Church Converted the Pagan West and How We Can Do It Again. While the Faith remains, all hope on earth is never lost, for not even the gates of Hell can prevail against the Church, as is known. What are, therefore, the real signs of hope?

There is the useful promotion of the traditional Latin Mass done by such major organizations as Una Voce International and its separate chapters, in many countries around the world; Coalition Ecclesia Dei, Latin Mass societies throughout the world; and, the Society of St. Pius X, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, Institute of the Good Shepherd, Servants of Jesus and Mary (Servi Jesu et Mariae, SJM), Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius, Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, and Miles Christi.

There are as well multiple monastic communities, including Monastery of Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek, Monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia, and Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, and, of course, many other such Catholic congregations and institutions; in addition, there are, to cite only a few among many thousands, various illustrative internet presences such as:,, etc.

All are contributing, in various ways, toward the greater goal of a universal Christian culture prefaced upon a vibrant and active Catholicism, an actually practiced belief, along with the Eucharistic life and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the other saints, as with belief in the Communion of Saints. All such thinking affirms the important doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus within the wider context of a Christocentric focus upon the development of Christian culture with its related implications and cognate ramifications, of course.

A solid kind of arithmetic base is being steadily created by which, over time, the wondrously combined forces of demographics (large traditionalist families), money (they contribute at higher rates than most Catholics), and ordinations will, thus, decisively trump and surely defeat the well-oiled machine of the postconciliar Church that has spawned and helps to maintain numerous sedevacantist groups that, logically, do remain, at the very least, seriously in schism.

They insist upon the definitely heretical notion that Christ had abandoned his Church by supposedly leaving the seat of the Vicar of Christ vacant of any truly legitimate pope. Nonetheless, all those traditionalists who justly reject sedevacantism adhere to the best understanding of orthodoxy and, therefore, are much more intimately involved and in line with this correct Church renewal argued for, extensively, in this article.

How so? The accumulating “sand” of the aforementioned trifecta of demographic power, donations, and ordinations will eventually get into the gears of the machine to stop it forever and help burn away through friction the evils inherent; then, the preconciliar Church, through the much invoked inspiration of the Holy Ghost, will rise as a phoenix from the flames to rightly recapture the ecclesiastical structure away from the seeming and many real infidels, many of whom are, in fact, atheists.

Thus, there is real hope and not a shallow sort of strained optimism. Why? Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) congregations are substantially dying out, some faster than others, through normally quite lax teachings, sexual permissiveness, abortions, and artificial contraception. For a good tree will bear good fruit; an evil tree will yield bad fruit. The pandemic moral plague of neo-Pelagianism, the secularization through ideology of the terrible errors of Pelagianism (inclusive of denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin), must be constantly fought against because it powerfully represents the forces of Hell on earth.

But, when the tables are later turned against the liberal and modernist Catholics, there should be no attempt to take revenge; rather, mercy is required as all ought to hope for mercy from God. After the early Christianized Jews were persecuted by their fellow Jews, they had learned from this heritage of deadly suppression and, in turn, often committed acts of persecution against the Hebrews after the Christians became the majority population.

One hopes that this kind of situation will not be repeated when the traditional Latin Mass Community becomes the majority, for the traditionalist movement is constantly gaining strength. Persecution produces tougher Catholics among those who survive the test with yet greater faith, for those who have been faithful do wish to practice Christian love and forgiveness.

Demography, on average, constantly works against the decadent and diseased postconciliar Church, so that liberal-oriented ordinations, over time, must logically then become fewer and fewer, as to the basic tendency to be then observed. It has been well said, furthermore, that demography is destiny; the real future, undoubtedly, has always belonged to the fertile, not to the physiologically or, for that matter, religiously sterile.

Thus, the heartbreaking and terrible crisis in the Church has had and will have consequences, meaning as the postconciliar Church follows the degenerate and decadent, debased and debauched, secular order in the Western world toward a much richly deserved oblivion; that which is not truly with and for Christ is to be held, therefore, as being anathema.

In any event, those who are genuinely humble and pure in heart will see God, for they appropriately focus all things in Christ as with Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium upholding Catholicism.  All this, moreover, properly seeks the true fullness and allied authenticity of the genuinely superb Catholicity of the Faith against all heresies and, in fact, also athwart their secular equivalents, for there ought to be no doubts that Jesus is the Christ.

Large, religious, orthodox families, the true and healthy future of the Church, are clearly joyful rebellions against the evil Spirit of VC II.   Contrary to many ignorant or misinformed pessimists, therefore, there are many genuine reasons for viable hope, though the struggle will be long and quite hard and take, at least, several or more generations; but, time is manifestly on the good and advancing side of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, not the aberrant New Mass and its often wayward adherents.   The latter, on the whole, do not actively seek the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, which they might, at most, think of as being merely symbolic in nature.

The orthodox seminaries always have, year after year, many more enthusiastic candidates for the sacred priesthood than they can reasonably accommodate, which ought not to be unexpected; the Novus Ordo places, in marked contrast, rarely ever have enough eager young men (too many of whom are probably homosexuals) and, usually, have much less. It is then empirically clear that religious orthodoxy acts as a powerful magnet, therefore, for significantly attracting many who are sincerely interested in furthering the Holy Faith, not the sinful generation of hatred directed against human beings.

What is needed is to vigorously sidestep the ongoing worldliness of the postconciliar Papacy, the vanity of the Vatican. Why is this boldly asseverated? Beginning with John XXIII and even including Benedict XVI and, of course, especially Pope Francis, the sinful era of the Conciliar Captivity began, was continued, and as observed has not, unfortunately, ended. This heuristic point, of course, needs to be explained in the right context of what this article is about both defending and elucidating.

As the proper historical example, the Avignon/Renaissance Papacy had manifestly demonstrated its worldliness by aping or paralleling the ebullient, rationalist, and aggressive secular-humanist society that grew up in Europe starting in the late 13th century and after; such openly secular-minded popes, in tune with the humanist Renaissance, kept their own elaborated courts, courtiers, and such other rather overt accoutrements of noted earthly opulence and expense that often, in fact, seemed to rival equal and lesser secular rulers, during the (religiously sad) time of this Avignon Captivity in France.

The Conciliar Captivity, therefore, logically presents the same difference in that this other type of equal worldliness stresses how much the postconciliar Church wishes to eagerly embrace the secular society and culture by endeavoring to somehow parallel or ape what is going on by having a Church-sponsored humanism. But, no valid anthropocentricism can simultaneously embrace Christ qua Savior and God-Man supreme as well as the laicist contention of the Enlightenment that no Deity’s existence is required for the having of human dignity qua humanism; the integral contradiction cannot at all be so bridged.

Not surprisingly, the true or main business of a religious institution gets itself extremely and wrongly always neglected when such an ecclesial establishment pursues its very odd vision of (secular-paralleled) humanism, instead of rightly cultivating holiness for then better concentrating upon how to lovingly bring salvation to millions of people; the latter can only be done, appropriately, by stressing religious orthodoxy qua the truth, not modernism in belief, which is proven, many times over, by the destructive crisis that vilely afflicts the Church.

This is why, as was said above, Pope Francis, a truly pathetic figure, needs to be treated as a nonentity in terms of the important work that requisitely must be done for restoring the vitality of orthodoxy back into Holy Mother Church, not its weird postconciliar counterpart that ought to fade away as quickly as possible. Fortunately, the growing institutions of a healthy and resilient orthodoxy, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Society of St. Pius X, Una Voce International, etc., are working toward breaking the power and hold of the evil and often awkward worldliness of the Conciliar Captivity.

All the various and creative elements of the traditional Latin Mass Community (TLMC) can come to communicate with each other and, when practicable, do planning toward whatever common goals may help to better satisfy the needs of the TLMC, the new counterculture that is currently marginalized and largely despised by the modernists. Networks of various types can, also, be created whereby cognate activities can be better coordinated for creating a kind of wanted synergism.

This would be for helping then to better situationally or otherwise multiply the positive effects of the actions taken or, perhaps, decisions made, which should have, when requisite, worldwide consequences for Holy Mother Church. Besides prayers, novenas, recitations of the rosary, and devotions of various types, major efforts would naturally include furtherance of Mariolatry as one of the primary sources of religious strengthening for increased faith and the gaining of more spiritual rigor than is the typical case with the postconciliar Church.

A kind of clearinghouse website should exist for intelligently assisting all the aforementioned work, so as to keep the, admittedly, entire logistically embattled network of the TLMC informed on a 24/7 basis. Modern telecommunications and internet technologies, as to their enormous and continuing advances, do make this more and more easily possible and, as a direct result, not a mere dream. Spirituality in a Catholic sense does not exclude common sense regarding taking advantage of modern technologies for strengthening and advancing the Faith, in being as wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

The hopeful synergistic affects and effects would then, moreover, logically spread much more rapidly and concisely throughout the both intercommunicating and intracommunicating TLMC network; this is for the ever greater building up of a growing “fighting corps” for the Church Militant, as guided by the Holy Ghost, for also spiritually celebrating the ever Church Triumphant in Heaven, the true home of Christians.

If carried on successfully in such a fashion, over a fairly long enough period of time, there could then come into being a new Christendom with its Christian culture pervading the entire world, not just the Western world. There should be no lack of ambition, missionary or otherwise, when it comes to truly bringing the chance at salvation to the masses of people all over this planet.

An importantly renewed and revitalized missionary spirit would, indeed, be a rather good thing to have and, moreover, so justly essential for spreading the Gospel message continuously. People need to be reminded, in addition, of the four last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.  But, must this be an impossibility in an age dominated by too much hyper-emotionality as with, for instance, the multiplying numbers of groups demanding the ideologically coveted victim status?

What has been called the needed re-Evangelization is always possible because Catholicism remains the truth as to the highest realization of Gospel truth; nothing else comes close, for the ontology involved with its theological teachings supports the epistemology, firmly behind the consideration of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, and resultantly determines the cognate correctness of the axiology involved with affirming the integral value and basis of all of Christianity itself.

The world, thus, still has to be often rightly reminded that the Church vitally exists to help fight the many harmful effects of Original Sin and its malevolent consequences, for a single unrepented mortal sin destroys the life of grace in a human soul and earns a quite suitable place in Hell forever; universal salvation is, thus, a grave, evil, and delusional heresy of modernism in theology.  The glorious word of life must be counterpositioned to the societal nihilism that is so prevalent due to the dehumanization process of the Culture of Death, the word of nihilism.

One, thus, sees this understanding extrapolated quite explicitly, for instance, in the Gospel of St. John and his pointed discussion of the Word qua Jesus Christ.   How so?   The vital ontological, epistemological, and axiological basis, the Way, the Truth and the Life, of Catholicism, directly and indirectly, resides with the Son of the Father, the Messiah, the Liberator of this world.

Re-Evangelization can, therefore, be carried out on that aforementioned basis because neither the forces of strident secularization nor pervasive repaganization can withstand such a weight of truth whenever orthodoxy is the guide and standard of the how and why of defending the Word made flesh. If such an effort of zealous missionary activity were to be conducted, e. g., in contemporary Ireland, the current growth of demonology and witchcraft there would be not just halted but almost totally reversed within two to three generations.

Emotionalism and irrationality can be ultimately conquered by a religion, through orthodoxy, that truly combines faith and reason by never splitting one against the other, which is, of course, the traditional understanding of Catholicism.

Christianity qua orthodoxy has, as could be guessed, the liberating effect of dispelling the errors and terrors of mythological nonsense and sheer superstition that had been encouraged by the deleterious effects of a relativistic secularism-cum-humanism that created a vacuum of belief filled by a willingness to believe in almost anything. G. K. Chesterton had, as usual, said it well long ago. When people cease to believe in God, they do not then supposedly become just rational atheists, for the majority are so then easily disposed to believe in a wide variety of things, as with, as was noted, Ireland’s shocking repaganization. 6

And, what can be among the approaches toward building a new Christendom? Though now a much beleaguered and spat upon minority, the TLMC will be a growing Catholic force in adamant favor of forwarding living, organic, efforts in successfully securing more and more sources of sustainable religious orthodoxy and its appropriate practice.

The quite routine having of large families means that increasing numbers of vocations to holy orders, for both men and women, will be populated by those religious people raised to intensely respect and honor theological traditionalism as well as the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.  The interrelated effects of prayer, suffering offered to God, time, money, demographics, and vocations all combined will come to ultimately topple the evil Conciliar Captivity, the stake deliberately slammed into the heart of Holy Mother Church.

This invasive and eager religious cadre of the TLMC can only expand, over the years and decades and scores of years ahead, which will eventually tip the scale, as an incremental result, in strong favor of adhering to and promoting orthodoxy as the main effort for the success of the Faith.   Its contempt for the worldliness of those who had been the postconciliar pontiffs, including Pope Francis, would act as a much needed rebuke of such surely improper behavior that had struck at the heart of Catholicism and, thereby, rendered more difficult the useful overall promotion of Christianity in the society and culture.

What is needed?   The major direction of the popular culture must be changed significantly, especially when it is realized, through the critical thinking and writing of the historian Christopher Dawson, that religions are the bases of cultures; it is and must, logically speaking, be even more so for the appropriate building up and quite useful furtherance of Christian culture, as it was known to Dawson and others.   There must be, of course, an orientation toward the Eucharistic life as to the central point of any valid notion of Christianity, which is a superb part of the true spiritual richness of Catholicism, along with all the other sacraments, the saints, rituals, etc.

Many prayers, sacrifices of suffering, time, money, etc., and novenas, of course, are also needed for helping to ask God for a faster ending of the immoral Conciliar Captivity; all such actions can so help to build up quantities of sanctifying grace for the massive struggles ahead.   Masses can, of course, be offered for this also, besides resort to rosary crusades, nor should proper resort to any appropriate sacramentals be rejected for encouraging holiness.

Humble abstinences, fasts, and many acts of penitence will be needed, during this time of suffering, to better help secure the needed victory for orthodoxy in religion; no pain, no gain; this is versus the greatly diminished faith being observed by hundreds of millions of lackadaisical or indifferent Catholics having no true concern for profoundly repenting because their numerous sins.   Only the truly humble or pure in heart can expect to make it to Heaven, not the mostly prideful devotees to VC II.

It could be proposed, in addition, that there be organized an annual pro-TLMC Congress or Conference for better assisting with the overall coordination of all such morally good efforts to return the Church back to a blessed level of sanity fully consistent with religious orthodoxy, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Holy Faith, of the liberating light of Christ.

There must be, therefore, a Catholic combination of continuous prayer and work, ora et labora, involved in this noble undertaking for the necessary rebuilding of Catholicism more in the image of Christ. The evident lack of true concern for orthodoxy by Pope Francis must then be properly balanced by dedicated elements of the laity and clergy in requisite response; his terrible Conciliar Captivity worldliness is to be completely rejected, for there is no choice otherwise, for the light of Christ will come to illuminate the darkness.

All of these important efforts could be seen, therefore, as the righteous arithmetic base that, when intelligently applied and rightly multiplied in its many beneficial consequences, produces a favorable geometric result; this will then, one hopes, continually increase the so highly requisite and suitable, advantageous and strategic, pressures against the evil Conciliar Captivity and, moreover, for the better vindication of true Catholicism.

The traditional Latin Mass preserves an atmosphere of reverent worship, profound reverence for the Real Presence, fidelity to Catholic doctrine, a liturgy founded in great antiquity, theological stability, and the priest, the alter christus, as the true sacrificer at the altar.   Here is to be found thoughts related to penance, Purgatory and transubstantiation because salvation is by grace and works, not faith alone, regardless of what the heretics may say.   Every Catholic is, therefore, to be an Athanasian believer, for every day and age, as heroic warriors for Christ the King.

Considering that the rapid de-Christianization of America and the Western world continues apace, it will be even more important for all  truly dedicated traditionalists to stand firm in the Faith, as the morals and mores of the increasingly both oppressive and suppressive mainstream society and culture surround them and seek to crush them.   The Culture of Death is still very much regnant, as can be easily seen from internet stories, TV reports and news headlines.

For instance, the erotic revolution, unfortunately, has barely begun, which statement may shock uninformed or naïve observers pathetically unaware of the full extent of what is so occurring and, more to the point, what will predictably happen.   Informative reading would, thus, definitely include Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior by E. Michael Jones.

In America, Federal judges are in the totalitarian forefront of the ever crescive degrees of persecution aimed specifically at and against Christians who are being forced to violate their consciences in forms of involuntary servitude (read: slavery) contrary to the US Constitution itself.   Sodomites, thus, have now become a truly privileged aristocracy as a special class who do both expect and demand thoroughgoing obedience, deference, and respect concerning their literally perverse will.   Weimarization is occurring, within this county, at an ever more rapid pace primarily because of liberalism-leftism and its many evil consequences in the insane quest for Utopia (by whatever euphemism).

As could be notably guessed, moreover, this is truly an age for always vigorous and vital Catholic Action, not passivity, in the horrible face of this ongoing vile and real threat to traditional Catholicism, meaning with the latter’s puissant orthodox favoring of all the dogmas and doctrines, for their, then, improved upholding of definitive religious orthodoxy.   For every era should call forth the need to observe both the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual works of mercy for the building up of a Christian culture, for true mercy and charity need to be understood.

One ought to evoke the enlightening words of Pope St. Pius X, in his Our Apostolic Mandate (1910), where he wrote: “Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged.”

Over time, as was noted, the postconciliar hierarchy will eventually be replaced, through the attrition of their passing away, by those traditionalist-minded prelates dedicated to having the holiness restored of the preconciliar Church attitude and spirit versus the prevalent modernism of what largely currently exists for now, meaning the same errors that St. Pius X had, wisely, warned against long ago.

In any event, however, it is important to critically remember that, in the year 2007, Pope Benedict XVI, in his magnificent motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, had authoritatively declared that the right to what got defined as the Extraordinary Rite of the Latin Mass could not, in fact, be denied to the faithful by any of the bishops; the hierarchy was no longer simply permitted to interfere, which was, in truth, often the case.

Although Pope Francis, in February 2014, had so ignorantly characterized ardent worldwide devotion to the traditional Latin Mass as a mere fashion or fad that will, sooner or later, pass away, his greatly obtuse thinking is and will be disproven many times over, generation by generation, as support for it increases exponentially versus the obviously dying Novus Ordo, which, logically as the matter has been already analyzed, has fewer and fewer participants or celebrants over time.

The Pontiff is not a stupid man; he is, however, greatly misinformed and, thus, lacks knowledge, which is the definition of ignorance, not stupidity.   The Holy Father, locked into his emotional dream world, is surrounded by his dedicated sycophants, a decadent Curia, and the Velvet Mafia (activist sodomites) who all together have no actual interest whatsoever in helping the TLMC; just the opposite is the real case, of course.

Regardless of the inaction or torpor of the present Pontiff, and, of course, in set proper line with the hopeful thoughts oriented toward the continuing revival of traditionalist Catholicism centered around the immemorial Latin Mass, there should be organized some sort of a worldwide crusade for adamant orthodoxy as the vanguard effort that, therefore, gives yet greater life to the significant Catholic Action needed in its vital support, for exalting the sacred and putting the profane in its proper place.

This suggested crusade, literally, the taking up of the Cross, would be meant to build upon the annual pro-TLMC Conferences, the clearinghouse website, and many other related activities that will, thus, further empower and invigorate, enable and stimulate, the entire traditionalist Catholic movement worldwide, which includes, of course, the religious defense, e. g., of the orthodox doctrine of supersessionism against Judaism.

The above-cited dynamism, practical and spiritual, involved toward the glorious goal of rebuilding the Church would then become an ever enlarging and expanding movement wondrously encircling the entire globe, through the sanctifying process of giving this glory for Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.   What is certain is that the present mainly decadent and useless ecclesial hierarchy should be sidestepped in this basic process unless and until enough upcoming prelates, imbued with the urgency and spirit of proper orthodoxy, come forward to willingly assist with leading this great crusade until one of its members eventually becomes a pope.

This is not impossible as to a reasonable achievement of the movement.  During the Middle Ages, for instance, a number of popes were chosen out of the reformed orders and congregations for leading the Church. True reform has and can, in fact, occur if the decision is genuinely made, in a conscientious manner, with the sought guidance of the Holy Ghost for fighting against the ravages of mortal sin, for a Catholic life is meant to be entirely holistic and not absurdly compartmentalized as with the evil dictates of a secularized modernity; secularism is, in short, the victory of heresy, though often, these days, not recognized correctly as such.

Thus, a great lion of the Faith is needed to superbly counteract the numerous negative trends that, unfortunately, developed after VC II, especially due to the Spirit of it. This strongly orthodox crusader-pope would then so help to institutionalize requisite reforms geared to restoring the wanted quest for holiness by solemnly and righteously repudiating VC II as just a false turn that had greatly harmed, not helped, Holy Mother Church.   Here would be seen the honoring of the venerable Fathers and Doctors of the Church, along with calls for acts of corporal and spiritual works of mercy to be lovingly amplified for an orthodox renewal of faith.

Upon a very deep analysis and studied reflection, however, any truly positive results that did occur could then be partly accommodated, if and when kept solidly within the determined confines of the thrust of orthodoxy, not the to-be-condemned worldliness of the Conciliar Captivity.   The notably horrid attempt itself, therefore, to dumbly ape secular humanism with its false enlightenment would be, thus, correctly declared as being at an end, never to be revived.

Otherwise, anything and everything else involved must be consciously ripped out root and branch until it has been thoroughly disclaimed and dishonored, rightly renounced and vilified, without question, meaning as to its ever blasphemous Hegelian dialectics based upon its nominalism in cognition.   The current Catholic religious prospect is, of course, a daunting and monumental, though not impossible, challenge in that it presents a three-fold aspect as to the vigorous actions to be intelligently brought to fruition.

There must, simultaneously, be three main efforts undertaken: 1.) the “re-conversion” of the nominally Catholic majority that is enthralled to the Novus Ordo as a consequence of VC II, 2.) an appeal to the merely “cultural Catholics” who are not affiliated with any parishes or regular Church contact, and 3.) having a new Evangelization oriented to all non-Catholics in the spirit of St. Athanasius.

The first effort is made importantly necessary because, as the 2014 Catholic Opinion Poll had revealed, the majority of the allegedly faithful are clearly opposed to most major teachings such as concerning abortion, contraception, etc.; that poll had, in fact, only confirmed what had been truthfully reported, by secular polling agencies in such opinion surveys, taken over the past forty years.

The so-called cultural Catholics have to become rightly convinced that this plainly subjectivistic position is both meaningless and ludicrous because it is not consistent, logically, with the holiness demanded of a sacramental life truly required for achieving salvation.  Equally, the centrality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ought to be stressed as being central to what it means to be a Catholic, not simply a Christian.  This is why realism must be stressed, not any talk related to the always aberrant Church of nice.

The last matter, as to non-Catholics, is just obvious as to properly most revamping missionary activities and substantive outreach, while all three issues must, of course, be dealt with in terms of overtly stressing and communicating about the vital need for orthodoxy.  The ultimate goal is that all those professing to be Christians will want to lead a Eucharistic life for the sake of their souls’ salvation, for the repentance of mortal and venial sins, for the greater glory of God.  This is, also, for the mortification of body and soul.

Such an effort can, of course, be greatly aided by the recitation of the rosary added, for instance, to special devotions to the Mother of God.   All of this together will lead toward a much empowered Catholicism that is supposed to dominate the entire life of a good Catholic; religion, therefore, is not meant to be compartmentalized, as is the secularist practice wrongly demanded by modernity.   When the Conciliar Captivity falls largely through attrition, the TLMC will, by then, have created the necessary and viable infrastructure to assist with the effort to make sure that the religious and spiritual vacuum within the Church can be properly filled with faith, hope, and charity.

Thus, what is occurring now, throughout the world, is the slow congealing of the various parts of this requisite kind of future infrastructure, possessed of obvious importance, which will be vitally needed to carry on with the salvation of souls, as the still expected growth of (the atheism of) statism, tyranny, increases into the 21st century.

Orthodoxy, furthermore, gives to its dedicated religious adherents, during times of ongoing persecution, more inner spiritual strength than is ever true from the pallid results of belief in religious liberalism.  Credence will be tested, in a furnace of pain and suffering, as the State, Hobbes’ Mortal God, claims to become more and more omnipotent, as the profane seeks to triumph over and against the sacred.

This is why the traditional liturgy, found in the ancient Latin Mass, is absolutely essential to the hopes for the formation of an effort at creating a new Christendom.  There is, as truly ought to be known, the matter of lex orandi, for the believers pray the traditional Latin Mass and the associated rich sacred liturgy that has been handed down to them, through the ages, in the glorious life of the Church.  They are certain that proper and appropriate fidelity unquestioned to the usus antiquior is so surely vital for such an effort.

Equally, lex credendi is intimately involved in that they devoutly believe in the Holy Catholic Church as well as her venerable teachings and honored traditions, for this righteous belief has, at a minimum, been the highest source for the splendid enrichment of faith, piety, and culture in the entire history of mankind.   Needless to say, this logically leads to the spiritual consideration of lex vivendi because this surely great ongoing apostolate of faith, communal service, and devotion exists by which people can then the better endeavor toward holiness, in suitable forms, that parallel superbly the three great moral duties toward God: to know, love, and serve Him.


Through always seeking the added help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the TLMC and all those affiliated directly and indirectly with it will, increasingly, have a positive impact upon and, more specifically, against the Conciliar Captivity created by VC II. Orthodoxy and the noble quest for seeking, sustaining, and strengthening this religious virtue is the critical key to the continued success for all such requisite efforts directed toward properly rebuilding and appropriately revitalizing Holy Mother Church, for lex orandi, lex credendi, and lex vivendi are definitely interrelated realities stressing the required fullness of faith.

This should then contribute substantially and substantively, moreover, regarding the always proper orthodox interpretations of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium for ever forwarding the holy work of the Church by discrediting, over time, the formal basis of the increasingly eroticized repaganized society and culture of the contemporary era.   The emotionalism of the postmodern movements of thought and action, the rationalization of sin, is not reasonably sustainable over the long haul of time. Decadence becomes finally unsustainable.

The inherent and very evil immanentism of neo-Pelagianism must, therefore, become more and more effectively repudiated and unequivocally denounced as being so necessarily opposed to Christ and His Kingdom, besides offending greatly the Holy Mother of the Son of the Father.   Such must be among the central purposes of defending Catholicism now and into the future.

Progressively, step by step, the secularist façade is to be intelligently ripped away to reveal the inner workings of the various layers of unmitigated superstition and allied vice operating within both modern and postmodern cognition and, resultantly, the oppressive political, societal and cultural structure of contemporary civilization with its preference for statism.

However, nihilism is a dead end, the natural product of the Culture of Death, which explains why, e. g., C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man still remains interesting and pertinent reading today.  The accumulated sinfulness of modernity and, moreover, the sinful claims of an increasing postmodernity do not get recognized by either secularist or neopagan advocates who do commit their rationalizations for the predominance of evil, which gets pragmatically and positivistically ignored as a direct consequence.

In set contrast, Catholicism qua orthodoxy, as seen through the TLMC and all of its related forces and institutions, will come to properly restore and reestablish the fundamentals of what ought to be the right understanding and correct comprehension of the Roman Catholic Church and its glorious mission to sanctify the people of the world, through Christ the Lord, for the infinitely important purpose of supporting the salvation of souls.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1.)  See: Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God; Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church; John Senior, The Death of Christian Culture; Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church; Ralph M. McInerny, What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained; Kenneth Jones, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II; and, of course, the many informative books written by Michael Davies.   See also a much more recent summation of the terrible failures of VC II:

2.)  Secularization (read: atheism) condones almost any kinds of alternate lifestyles based upon the subjectivism of what gets often called pragmatism or positivism, which, in turn, progressively justifies all manner of decadent hedonism, relativism, materialism, and naturalism that leads, ultimately, to a nihilism often blindly called humanism.   All of this must be forever opposed, of course, by the directly contrary teachings of Catholicism.

Widespread sodomy, fornication, etc. creates moral chaos that, sooner or later, directly affects the political order by not calling forth some edenic Utopia or anarchy but, rather, evil statism with its always attendant injustice, oppression, and suppression.   The legalization, e. g., of abortion-on-demand in 1973 has had fatal consequences for both genuine morality and correctly understood social civil liberty, for one cannot exist effectively without the other.   The political-ruling class (a distinct minority) in America now lords it over the country class/majority as if by a divine right; oppression is becoming to seem a natural condition of the newly made serfs, the former citizens.

Unfortunately, few see that Communism and Capitalism are not antagonistic; they are, in fact, the two sides of the exactly same coin of modernity, meaning secularism, hedonism, materialism, pragmatism, and nihilism, favored by the political-ruling classes throughout the entire world.   In short, evil is said to be good and good gets condemned as being evil.

3.)  St. Paul rebuked St. Peter regarding the controversy of whether or not Gentiles had to first adopt Judaism as a halfway measure before conversion to Christianity; Peter ended up fully accepting Paul’s rejection of any need to Judaize people prior to becoming believers in Christ.   So, yes, it is a historical and religious fact that even the very first Vicar of Christ was made subject to a talking to by a prominent member of the Church.   Peter had learned from Paul that no one is beyond requisite rebuke in a Church filled with sinners and saints.

4.)  Pope Francis seems oblivious to the true nature and substance of his duties as the Vicar of Christ. See:

5.)  The Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, is apparently completely unaware of the utter saturation of modern Western society and culture with ideological concerns that has necessarily led to the rampant politicization of what are supposed to be mainstream societal and cultural norms.   His becoming a manifest pop icon of the mass media bespeaks this stark reality in that perception, in this day and age, normally trumps mere reality.   His presumed admirers can be found at Rolling Stone and the Weinstein Company, so the man’s clearly got, in the vernacular, what’s called “street cred.”

He is now then, of course, both existentially and phenomenologically coopted, in effect, as being an associated servant of the Culture of Death, meaning surely gross moral insanity.  His seeming naiveté is, consequently, as remarkable as it is undeniably disgusting to observe.   But, it may be fairly said, where is the overt proof of this accusation?   There is, thus, no great surprise concerning how much Pope Francis gets extravagantly praised out of all rational proportion to what, in contradiction, ought to be sincere devotion to the (Catholic) Culture of Life qua Catholicism.

The publicly announced enemies of Holy Mother Church, those who wish to destroy utterly the Catholic Faith, do perceive something in him that makes them greatly lionize this pope, even more so than was equally true, e. g., for John XXIII.   This is, to say the least, a demonically bizarre situation.   But, this is not judgment, of course, passed upon his interior motives, meaning within his soul, that can be known only by God.   See:

Recently, however, it can be noted here that there is now a magazine devoted solely to him:

6.)  See:   See also: ChurchMilitant.TV’s episode covering the mass apostasy in Ireland.

Christopher Dawson and the Catholic Cosmos

Christopher Dawson and the Catholic Cosmos

By    Joseph Andrew Settanni

Christopher Henry Dawson (1889-1970) is considered to be, by those who appreciate genius, the most tenaciously probing student of the noted relationship of religion and culture who had the occasion of a professional career to document carefully such a very salient transcendent fact of human reality.   His extraordinary historical achievement was in how he illumined those universal principles of religion and culture pertaining to man’s humanity that, if ignored with impunity, must then lead toward a definite societal, moral and, especially, spiritual catastrophe that always presages the manifest destruction of a civilization.

Dawson, a historian of ideas and a man who began ideologically on the Left, had, through his own deepening appreciation of Catholicism by conversion, come to see that Edward Gibbon (an early intellectual-historical hero) was only partly correct as to the set virtue of history.  But, as a Christian humanist in the finest sense of such a term, Dawson did not become any so-called reactionary by profoundly finding the true heart of cosmic Christianity, by gaining the universal perception of Christ.

Coming out of the Victorian-Edwardian era, Christopher was yet essentially dissatisfied with the self-serving complacency often noticed in the smug England of that age, living parasitically, as it did, off of the inherited spiritual capital of Christendom, while basically not replenishing that often hard-won capital. Great Britain and the other Protestant powers, for all their pride, could not stop Europe’s slide toward secularism nor the coming of the Great War that had made a mockery of modern Christianity.

Pope Benedict XV (pontificate: 1914 – 1922), the Vicar of Christ on earth, had pleaded for peace and was, in effect, merely laughed at as a nonentity; a divided Christendom had, thus, simply disrespected papal authority and treated him with contempt.   Europe and the world was punished, which should not have surprised keen observers, by yet another global conflict before the mid-20th century had arrived.   As ever, God is not mocked with impunity.

Dawson’s Universal/Catholic Vision

Dawson both intimately and insightfully knew without question that every culture, since it must be well rooted in a necessarily comprehensive human reality, needs vital openness toward true spiritual order, metaphysical order (aka God), because as with a plant lacking sunlight, such culture will always surely, inevitably, die, sooner or later. Europe, consequently, paid a high price for its continuing secularization.  But, such a basic truth is too often forgotten today.   What he saw as the totalitarian movement is the complete politicization of life (inclusive these days of the homosexual agenda), society, and culture for the sake of fulfilling the power lust of the Left for achieving absolute control over people.  Godlessness must be the ultimate goal of this unmitigated rationalization of all societal and cultural conduct for enjoining obedience to the State.

Modernity (and what generally passes for postmodernity) seeks to cut off, more and more, the ever ethically, morally, and spiritually requisite source of light forever.   Christianity is the final enemy of statism by whatever name; in the warped minds of the collectivists, it must be crushed.  But, if all that cannot be properly understood and thoroughly comprehended, then his writings and their meaning cannot be correctly grasped as to their great significance, as to his monumental accomplishment.  In opposition to Marxist utopianism, religion as the basis of culture is a perennial, not merely accidental or dismissible, matter concerning man’s integral humanity; it is not really capable of political reductionism, so it must be supposedly extirpated forever in an ideological manner.

For the truly best paradigm for creatively studying culture and its various and sundry relationships and interrelationships with religion, Dawson critically chose the intensive and heuristic study of Christian culture, which this Roman Catholic historian had thought to be highly essential to both the secularist and Christian alike. Why?  Christian culture, the Christocentric valuation of life, was absolutely held to forever be the critical master key to the best existential and experiential understanding of the important historical development and indispensable source of the comprehensive entirety of Western civilization, even, therefore, beyond Christendom as to a historical period.

Yet, perhaps illustrative of a curious gap in public knowledge, a recent Google search produced no link directly addressing the definition of Christian culture.   A definition, which follows below, would help to make clear what it is that is being affirmed and defended as such.

Christian culture is the totality of ethical, moral, religious, spiritual, social, cultural, and other behaviors and beliefs, paradigms and traditions, centered, either directly or indirectly, on the critical notion of Christianity, meaning as the supreme axiological basis for all of the highest virtues, thoughts, and proper emotions attainable by (mere) human beings, fallen creatures; regardless of imperfections, it is normally found privately and publicly expressed in such diverse fields as literature, art, science, and virtually all endeavors, important and trivial, entered into by sentient beings.

But, ironically, when this something enters solidly into consciousness, it begins to cease being a living tradition and gets classified, more and more, as an artifact, as sociology teaches to be the case.  The best way to achieve it is, therefore, to live the Christian life, with all of its joys and flaws, required for having the genuine reality, not the sociological-cultural archetype alone.   Dawson understood this to be true, as is attested to by his studies and writings, by the compassionate depth and range of his humane values.

Dawson’s brilliantly articulate, protreptic, and solidly coherent analysis of the various driving forces of world history, as well as his overt advocacy of the significant and undeniable contributions of the Christian faith to the notable achievements of European culture, properly earned for him, moreover, many ardent admirers, including such major names as T. S. Eliot and Arnold Toynbee.   Some of American conservatism, through Russell Kirk who became an enthusiast, was consequently influenced by him. Yet, none of this is any here supposed guarantee of terrene glory, or significance unto the ages. But, his impressive work is not unheralded nor, of course, a waste of time.

It is regrettable, however, that his name and writings are not, in fact, widely known either academically or popularly, certainly nothing much in the latter realm if at all.   (Incidentally, the exactly same is fully true of another prolific, though American, convert to Catholicism by the name of Orestes Augustus Brownson. How so typical it is that both came to a progressive obscurity in Protestant countries.)

After his death, there has increasingly arisen efforts to coopt his legacy and put it into the service of trying to help defend various causes, none of which is consistent with Dawsonian teachings or concepts.   His firm rejection of Marxism, early in his adult life, was not limited to dismissing just that one ideology alone; he sagaciously saw how all the ideologies of modernity were in conflict with not just religion and culture but, more importantly, with Catholicism, the Catholic cosmos.   And, what is here to be defined as the always expansive Catholic cosmos?

It goes well beyond only dogmas, doctrines, and customs, past Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.   This developing universe encompasses all that was, is, and will be.   Why?   The Incarnation of the Christ took all of past history, not just the Old Testament time, the then present of when He was the Man-God preaching salvation, and the fullness of the complete future (the New Testament) unto the end of the world, for the Lord is ever truly the Alpha and Omega, not an incidental personage during one historical period of time.   For as the eminent 19th century historian Leopold von Ranke keenly knew (in notably shocking his modernist colleagues), God, by definition, is forever equidistant to all ages simultaneously.

As the first Stillman Professor of Roman Catholic Studies at Harvard University, Dawson, moreover, was not a supposed reactionary who detested the modern age in preference for the stolidity of a medieval drama qua history, for its own retrograde sense of temporal glorification, due to spiritual needs or, perhaps, justifications. He was not a champion of nostalgia; Dawson was a Catholic intellectual in the best sense of the term and could not be described as any sort of sectarian bigot.

Contrary to some of his more nasty critics, he had never advocated the restoration of the Middle Ages nor thought it emblematic of perfection on earth as the only way of life for all time.   What he rightly had condemned was hubristic modernity, the anthropocentric celebration of MAN writ large upon the world stage because his Catholic principles, seen manifestly in his volumes, could not have it otherwise.   And, that is the truth, though, logically enough, he considered himself a political conservative who detested classical liberalism as well as its transformation into socialism; they were ideologies that sought, if the verity involved be told, to ultimately undermine and replace Christianity.   He morally objected to that effort.

This critical reflection upon and assertion of truth had covered the needed full rejection of subjectivism, pragmatism, materialism, positivism, hedonism, and, ultimately, nihilism, which all is truly founded upon philosophical nominalism, though he never ever pretended to be a philosopher or had any interest in pursuing systemic theology.   The both judicious and reflective writing he did, in defense of the idea that religions created cultures, including a Western Christian culture, was not in service to any ill-founded desire to pursue the course of nostalgia to its nth limit.   His venture was, rather, a bold challenge put into historical context.

Influenced by such thinkers as Ernst Troeltsch and Frédéric Le Play, he saw that Western Europe could not really rebuild itself fully, after two devastating world wars and much else, until it would seek its proper historical, social, cultural, and, especially, religious realization as a Christian Western Europe; all of that is essential to understand concerning Dawson’s thinking, though he did not share Hilaire Belloc’s absolute equating of Catholicism as being a European phenomenon per se.

But, this was not, after more than twenty books, spiritual insight, profound reflection, decades of teaching, and the writing of hundreds of supportive articles, just a mere guess.   It was because the beloved Catholic cosmos was and is real that he did not hesitate to soundly document, through quite extensive research, the honorable roots and the substantive reasoning in support of Christian culture, now and forever.

This Catholic writer and professor, one of the most distinguished Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century, had engaged in both a discovery and rediscovery of the elements of human order that ought never to become detached from metaphysical order, which is only the road to barbarism, whether ancient, medieval, modern, or postmodern in nature.   He wanted to discover those universal features of man’s humanity and match them to the highest universality of faith ever yet visited upon man by the birth of the Christ that interrupted what might have supposedly been the then more normal course of human history.

The profane was made to yield ground to the sacred.   Mundane reality was changed by the Incarnational Reality of Christianity that was meant to inform and infuse its high ideals into all aspects of human life forevermore. Politics, economics, society, culture, and anything and everything connected to man’s humanity is, in fact, to be thoroughly Christianized, as all things are to be seen illuminated in Christ.

His research had led him to the unalterable conclusion that there had to be a vital rediscovery of all those important matters that had become uncertain, dispersed, dismissed, or disfigured by the thrusts of modernity, the attacks of nominalism, set eagerly against Christianity in general and, of course, Catholicism in particular, the Catholic cosmos.   But, without such a mission of both discovery and cognate rediscovery, the vast and increasingly wild derangement and dislocation caused by modernity would become crescively unknown in terms of deciphering the meaning of the resultant wreckage.

How best to put the matter?   Malcolm Muggeridge knew that contemporary civilization was the very first, in all of recorded history, to just blithely assume that there can be a total denial of metaphysical order and, consequently, that all of human life can be lived that way.  The secularization and logically attendant progressive dehumanization of mortal life has, thus, progressed accordingly.   What seems more insane than that, however, is how many modernists and postmodernists are yet shocked by the discordant and dark consequences, degradation and statism, which appear inexplicable or nearly so to almost all of them.

What history has revealed, time and again, whether in the Nazi gas chambers, Soviet and Chinese gulags, the killing fields of Cambodia, or, of course, the ever prolific abortuaries of the Western world, man can be either seen as created in the image of God or merely a sort of “advanced” beast.   Ideologies, often as ersatz religions, are breeding grounds for barbarism in contemporary disguise, besides their inherent dehumanization.

Contrary, thus, to both modernist and postmodernist myth, there really is not and, therefore, has never been and will never really be any middle ground or via media available to human beings.   It is either hellish versions of Moloch or the Lord God, nothing in between actually exists as to what can be realistically expected. Only human vanity and its concomitant hubris insist, of course, otherwise.

Every vainglorious or ideologically inspired attempt to supposedly achieve some sort of perfection on earth, moreover, has invariably lead to, first, hundreds of thousands and then millions and tens of millions of exterminations, never a heaven on earth certainly.   And yet, because of the noted effects of Original Sin, people are not ever capable of really learning; the errors, through the course of time, get repeated, sin triumphs above and beyond dreams of any terrene paradise.   This has had consequences.

Dawson, informed by both theologico-historical considerations, how theology reflects upon history, and what can be described as historico-theological thoughts, wisely saw both sides of the equation to the neglect of neither. Reading his quite wondrous works leads the invited reader to both aforementioned worlds of discovery and recovery that, for many, would have seemed previously impossible, nay, formerly unthinkable.

Having an Augustinian sense of history as a moral inquiry, Dawson, as discoverer and recoverer, sought to boldly adventure through history by combining many disciplines and subdisciplines of learning, often simultaneously. He notably combined elements of cultural anthropology, historical sociology, social anthropology, cultural theology, social psychology, political theology, social history, philosophical sociology, historical philosophy, and much else.   The Dawsonian viewpoint was, as noted, holistic in conception.

Commentators upon Dawson have, as a result, usually split into two camps for trying to explain his tremendous relative neglect today.   Many assume, for instance, that his work was so vast and expansive such that few people, these days, have the requisite intellectual capacity to take in and digest so much demonstrated and complex erudition; others simply note that, well, he was just a traditionalist Roman Catholic whose work would, logically, have yet little appeal beyond a relatively tiny group of similarly inclined readers.

Some, of course, simply wish to split the difference by assigning these two above cited reasons for a discrete and, probably (to them), dwindling readership, in the many decades and scores of years to come.   Though, admittedly, many of his works are being reprinted and by at least several publishers so there must be, one suspects, a necessarily growing demand for this Dawsonian literature. 1

But, honestly, what really has come to contribute to the loss of interest in such writing, meaning on the part of those who ought most to be reading it, has much more to do with the apostasy of the Christian West, in its now valuing and cherishing greatly that which is plainly demonic over and against Christian culture.

Paganism generally prefers that which is abnormal, strange, perverse, or diabolic, which easily explains, for instance, the rapidly exploding interest in the favoring of sodomy with all of its ugly indelicacies and vile indecencies, its deliberate attack upon Natural Law.   What basically exists today, more or less, is a nihilistic pseudo-culture dedicated to what has been rightly denominated as the Culture of Death, which is, of course, to be seen as actually an anti-culture upon close examination.

Demographically, Western Europe, concerning its sterile native inhabitants, is notably depopulating itself due to abortion, artificial contraception, sodomy, and euthanasia to be replaced, if documented trends continue, with an immigrant Moslem population.   Moral and spiritual sterility, as Dawson would have recognized, produces its like, sooner or later, concerning an infertile populous with souls as dead as stone; Weimarization, in short, has no future, as sodomy remains ever the epitome of sterility.

Obviously, no new Christendom is there possible, much less conceivable, under such highly unfavorable circumstances, as this sinful death wish gets so played out, generation by dwindling generation.   Only a true return to the Christian (aka Catholic) roots of historic Europe, especially in the Western half of it, could help to restore the then viable basis of the Christian culture that Dawson wrote about; this is as to its many inherently life-giving principles, as to its righteous sense of a truly sanctified humanity made in the image of the loving Deity, the Lord God Almighty.   Otherwise, the predictable birth dearth can surely guarantee a notable demographic disaster, demographic winter, of epic proportions for the then once native peoples of that region.

One easily sees what happened.   Religion gives life to a culture; its absence, sooner or later, historically marks the necessary and inevitable direction of its observed death, not simply its assumed malfunction, as with sociological discourses upon such a subject; as Dawson critically knew so well, from his decades of intensive professional research, writing, and contemplation, no society or civilization, dependent as it is upon the vitality or lack thereof of the associated culture, can be vigorously renewed or successfully sustained by secularism indefinitely.   Man does not live by bread alone, as Holy Scripture teaches.

The vile grasping appeals of materialism, positivism, pragmatism, and hedonism eventually lead people, meaning the vast majority, down the road to annihilation, toward the nihilistic conclusion that death is preferable to a greatly disvalued life; as surely, e. g., drug addiction possess its own inherent death wish. Look at Western Europe for the empirical and existential truth of this fact, though America is not really that far behind.   Equally, an aggressively pro-sodomite “civilization” has reached toward the depths of what is, historically, guaranteed to be an utter societal obliteration.   Further argumentation would, thus, be simply superfluous.   Q. E. D.

The final “promise” of a gloriously triumphant modernity, or even its attempted raw apotheosis through variants of ideological postmodernism, is not really, after all is said and done, the ever sought after New Eden, only a version of a living hell.   The easily notable decay and decadence, decline and degeneration, of European society and culture was not accidental or merely coincidental; it was deliberately willed by how, literally, tens upon tens of millions had turned away from Christianity, the source of spiritual life.

It can be overtly seen in the repaganization that has retrogressively occurred as a logical consequence of this terribly massive apostasy, which shows no broad signs of abating, at a minimum, any time soon.   A secularized culture is, thus, a dead end, which ought to be obvious to any intelligent mind.   Living for bread alone (or whatever equivalent) has never attracted the sustained ambition and attention of any people; especially those who eventually seek out the lowest common denominators by calculating self-interest; through reductionism, the finitude of nihilism, therefore, awaits debased seekers after the always perilous Nietzschean abyss.

But, the kind of Christian culture defended and praised by Dawson should never be equated with any kind of a general Christianity or a, perhaps, Christian lite version of a diluted and laicist-approved type of quasi-Christianity for “safe” public consumption.   There is a risk to Christian culture. For instance, no variety or version of Protestantism would be enough because of degrees and styles of sectarianism and denominationalism that continue, as one reads this passing sentence, to see the ongoing and weary fragmentation of the so-called Reformed Religion having endless sects as the true legacy of the so-called Protestant Reformation; to many, of course, this is rationalized as being a sign of positive success.

Protestantism is inherently inadequate, theologically “thin” (aka Sola Scriptura), religiously deficient, and lends itself freely to degrees of nominalism, as to its odd teachings that can vary (and usually do) denomination by denomination, at least 40,000 sects according to a counting thereof. How so?

The so-called Reformed Religion has proved inadequate entirely to its original plan/intention to fully discredit and then replace Catholicism totally (thus, all the Reformed Theology had integrally failed); the above cited thinness has scandalously, as thoughts or passions may have it, allowed believers to both interpret and re-interpret an unending variety of pseudo-, quasi-, and partial or other Scripture surely convenient and/or acceptable to the often disparate devotees.

The religious deficiency is seen in how the (liberal) mainstream religious denominations continue to lose members, while the sects or denominations stressing authority usually are seen gaining members; a consistent inconsistency is the hallmark of a theological shambles in place, not a quest for a solidity of religious insight building toward a unified theological edifice surely; a house divided against itself cannot stand.   Lastly, who says Protestantism, says nominalism, for ideas have consequences.

It, moreover, began the steady pernicious process of the repaganization of the Western world as when, e. g., Martin Luther decided that marriage was really a State function, not a religious sacrament truly instituted by Jesus at the Wedding Feast of Cana.   This yielding of more and more ground to the secular order then continued wherever and whenever Protestants were dominant, while the individualist or private interpretation spirit lent itself to creating the conditions for Enlightenment and its broad goal of thorough secularization for State, society, and culture.   Eventually, the harmful and predominant laicist attitude had it that religion was to be thought of as a merely private matter having no place in the public square.

Admittedly, liberal Catholicism, favored by the Novus Ordo (New Mass) and its postconciliar results, is equally to be intelligently rejected, due to its philosophical subservience, again, to nominalism and its reductionist devotion to the “Church of nice” having copiously vast reservoirs of cognitive dissonance, often, among other epithets, called ecumenism.   Dawson himself, toward the end of his life, eventually turned against the questionable innovations and changes that he originally had great hopes for in terms of a renewal of Catholicism, which was expected by the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965).   Those hopes faded; the nightmare became real.

Nonetheless, it is boldly asserted here that the traditional Latin Mass Community, e. g., possesses the useful and lively elements of what he, seemingly, hoped for as to a genuine revival of Catholic spirit, the Catholic cosmos is seen in the lives and habits of those dedicated to upholding the Mass of the ages, along with devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Here is best seen the explicated revelation of the axiology, epistemology, and ontology of Catholicism, as it developed through the ages; for as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman had found it, it was virtually impossible to diligently read the writings of the Church Fathers and early Church histories without, thus, coming to realize that only Catholicism correctly highlighted the discovered and recovered meanings to be religiously noted, by such careful historical study.   Of course, to be fair to Dawsonian teachings, he did not limit the range of Christian culture to Catholics but allowed for many kinds of Christian adherents.

For Catholics, there is the Mystery of Good and the Mystery of Evil geared toward the four last things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell; for good or evil in particular, neither can be rationalized out of existence, contrary to modernism and its ideologies or the false hopes of modernity.  The Eucharistic life, mocked by the secularists as mere vain superstition, is congruent with the life of the Church; it is part of a necessarily sacramental life; this is the sacred distinctiveness of what should be the highest aspiration of a Christian way of life, which should include the sacraments, blessed sacramentals, and the praying of the rosary.  All are, finally, directed toward the glorious Communion of Saints through holiness for all.

The sacramentals are supremely useful for helping to properly minimize all unneeded worldliness that demands its attention nearly constantly versus the pursuit of holiness, through humility, repentance, and chastisement of one’s soul, demanded by solid and righteous adherence to the requirement of Christianity.   Metaphysics of this specific nature must then revivify and give meaning to any attempted metahistory.   This Christocentric spirit is, thus, contrary always to the secularists for whom worldliness is the supreme value and, to them, just plain common sense, not the Sacred Mass.

Furthermore, in all epochs, as Dawson knew, the Holy Sacrifice continued as to the pure essence of the Holy Faith, which includes the Church Militant (on earth), Suffering (in Purgatory), and Triumphant (in Heaven).

However, this should not be limited, in consideration, to just thinking that the “Tridentine Rite” is simply being upheld, rather, the entire Latin liturgical religious accomplishment that has existed for over 1500 years as the traditional Mass is being continued.   There can be no vital Christian culture, therefore, without the adamant effort and allied desire to properly maintain and nourish continuity, meaning inclusive of the dogmas, doctrines, and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, which encompasses that Mass and ongoing support for the Church Militant always versus the deformed “Church of nice.”

For Dawson, true unity, in its ultimate, is founded in healthy religious orthodoxy, not any expansive heterodoxy or a merely generalizing Christianity.   Among others, G. K. Chesterton, even prior to his conversion, had recognized this matter to be a supreme fact of Christian reality, as is, e. g., so forever brilliantly expressed in his impressive work entitled: Orthodoxy.   How was this expressed by the writings done by this English historian and convert?

Dawson correctly appreciated the serious consequences of his vitally knowing that religion and culture are quite intimately bound societal and civilizational concepts that, when (ever wrongly) separated, do unwanted violence of one against the other to the detriment of both.   A deracinated religion, thus, usually produces a reified culture that discloses all the expected faults and flaws of a very subjective transition from spiritual certainty to secular doubt by which a debased people experiences decadence.

As C. E. M. Joad had long ago expressed the issue, decadence is the loss of the object; when Christ is lost, all is lost; a society, a culture, misplaces truth and, rarely if ever, can find it again without much hardship, regret, and remorse.    Sin, in short, has its expected consequences. In all of recorded human history, no society, no civilization, has survived the obnoxious and deleterious, obscene and atrocious, onslaught of a rapidly spreading and militant homosexualization of its culture. Any such contaminated society or civilization is headed surely toward the dustbin (or cesspool) of history. So, what needs to be rather urgently elucidated?

The appropriate impression to be formed in one’s mind is that Christian culture, for Western Europe, nay, for Western civilization as a whole, is not to be ever thought of as being somewhat optional, as to any attempted and wanted restoration and revitalization of the civilization of the Western world.   The present anthropocentric point of view, dedicated to triumphal secularism, is to be replaced entirely by the fully theocentric or, better yet, Christocentric attitude, though never any call for establishing a theocracy.   The proper spirit in which this is meant can be properly seen, however, in Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

In terms of the long haul of the drama of the West and for all of its vicissitudes, this, in a philosophical version, was still rightly expressed by Plato who wisely rejected the assertion of Protagoras that man is the measure of all things.   Even the ancient pagan world was given the correct answer by one of the finest of the Greek philosophers.

For Dawson and all those other profound historical thinkers who sympathetically understand what is urgently needed, the cultural assent still goes fully to Plato who stated, as to appropriate philosophical epistemology, that God is the measure of all things. The truly best features of Western culture are not, therefore, antagonistic but contribute to Christian culture and its ongoing verification and substantiation as well, for Chesterton noted how the finest of the ancient Roman virtues were, in effect, Christianized.

But, in all events, this sincerely Catholic historian, imbued with the proper need to affirm the best of Christianity, ought not to ever be linked or associated with heresies or heretics, as is the sad case these days. 2   How so?   His name has, unfortunately, become intimately linked with that of Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, a documented heretic. 3

The works Dawson left to posterity ought then not to become so unnecessarily tainted with matters extraneous to the nature and thrust of what had been significantly accomplished, for he sought to rehabilitate, in a sense, both the history of salvation and religion in Europe through the reflection upon culture, which he consummated with superb literary grace.

Thereafter, no one could reasonably hold, with, e. g., the typical sneering Enlightenment-inspired attitude, that religion is just something ever extraneous, disposable, or nonessential to basic human culture, as it has been universally understood.   If religion gets overlooked, a tremendous gap or vacuum develops concerning the fullness of human enterprise encompassing society, ethics, and much else.   A deformed view of civilization occurs by which, sooner or later, a warped perspective is realized by which man gets existentially and experientially reduced to the oddly parlous level of an interesting but mainly spiritless beast merely occupying space and time. Evolutionism, for instance, quickly comes to mind.

This splendid historian of Western society was able to perceive, therefore, that if man is not seen in the image of God, then all sorts of reductionisms must eventually come about by which, as Edmund Burke phrased the matter, e. g., a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman and a woman but an animal.   However, concerning the celebratory context of this article, what is being indicatively meant?

Those historical figures and movements that have aligned themselves most consistently with orthodox Catholicism, the Catholic Faith, have been the most representative and genuinely productive of sincerely authentic Christian culture, not the opposite.   And, moreover, this is the true sense, the great insight, of what can be rightly gained from his voluminous writings.

Thus, for instance, trying to heap the Second Vatican Council and its horrendous and troubled aftermath upon the Dawsonian historical perspective and legacy is, in fact, illegitimate, especially since he himself had turned against the ill consequences of that council. 4    Other (ignorant) critics of Dawson would fault him for not composing a distinctive historical theology or for claiming really too much on behalf of either religion or culture, which only ends up creating unneeded misinterpretations that do so add too much heat, not much light.

After experiencing two world wars and their results, he wondered how it could be that the once valued worship of progress had contributed to the secularization that promised, upon sharp examination, mainly death, not life, to Europeans in particular and, of course, the rest of the world in general.

His fundamental answer was the requisite restoration of Christian culture in proper terms of the best that the Western world had to offer, especially, as could reasonably be guessed, Catholicism. But, the Occidental sphere of life had, increasingly, sought to cut off itself from its valuable Christian roots.   The sickening influence of nihilism, provoked heavily by a successful modernism in thought, spread its hate-filled acid across vast stretches of ethical, economic, social, cultural, and other central areas of human life.

Pragmatic, existential, naturalistic, and other excuses were given as to why secularization had to be the only direction chosen; this is since the presumed experts and intellectuals insisted that the proverbial clock of history could never be turned back, as if man himself had then become a mere mechanism of a device called history, bereft of any real free will. Secularization and its atheism, thus, became its own rationalization in becoming a then quite perverse tautology, not a substitute for genuine cognition, for profound thought, of any kind certainly.

Dawson came to keenly understand, more and more, how this gross and blatant nonsense had gained an ersatz authority and awful power by which to superciliously dictate to the Western cognoscenti and intelligentsia who, in turn, handed on this “wisdom” to the lesser breeds below the law.    Backed by his magisterial command of cultural history, he had the courage and insight, aided by a staunch adherence to his Catholic Faith, to seriously and thoroughly question such pernicious and errant nonsense.

The demonstration, through many impressive books and learned articles, was made that religion was not a merely atavistic relic that could be (carelessly) discarded as unimportant or irrelevant, rather, the theological basis of life and society is whatever comes to help cultures to grow, survive, and prosper as human and, fairly often, humane extensions of a fully lived life; these are, thus, of an uplifted humanity, meaning especially, though not exclusively, within what ought to be the beloved context of Christianity.

The truly and simply best of what Europe had to offer, concerning the heights of a valid moral wisdom, was superbly contained within Christian culture, not within any secular order of reality.   The steady weight of history is still, furthermore, decisively on Dawson’s side; this is versus the insanely vain and hubristic pleadings of the grasping ideologies of modernity that have, repeatedly, brought death and destruction to tens upon tens of millions of people, not the too often promised New Eden on earth.

The fate of Western and, in effect, all of contemporary civilization is dependent heavily upon whether or not a solidly mature attitude can be adopted, so that human beings can, once again, see themselves in the image of their Creator, not as just ideological extensions of the modern State.   The penetrating mind of Dawson acts as a beacon of light in a dark world, as is seen by his insightful recognition that the more radical ideologies of modernity, products of bourgeois intellects, were quite desperate efforts to find substitute religions.

As he easily saw, from the late 1910s into the 1930s, with the coming and then consolidations of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, the more that modern man drifted away from belief in God, the further statism, injustice, oppression, and tyranny had engulfed much of the world.   Through his dauntless research and writing efforts, there was, indeed, found a profitable way and means of revitalizing and restoring, stimulating and reinvigorating, those central motivating ideas that had inspired Christian people during similarly dark times.

He honestly felt that religion could, once again, come to restore Western culture, regardless of the horrendous devastations brought on by two world wars with all of their suffering and inhumanity.   For the blessed light of the living Christ can always overcome the blackest of nights, where men are willing to subordinate their selfish egos for yielding proper service to the King of Kings, when the roots of a Christian civilization could, in fact, be suitably refreshed.

And, how exactly did Dawson, who excelled Eric Voegelin in this regard, reach this kind of conclusion through his metahistorical approach to the impressive flow of history?   Dawson categorically excluded the laicist comprehensive assumption that the Middle Ages in Europe fundamentally failed to contribute any truly indispensable characteristics toward what ought to be rightly conceived of as the European enterprise; instead, he had forcefully contended, through his writing and advocacy of this point, that the medieval Catholic Church was the surely crucial factor in the impressive growth of European civilization, and without any serious question of such a confident asseveration. But, what has actually occurred?

A kind of massive, horrid cultural amnesia, on the part of literally millions of Europeans, has, however, contributed to the now pandemic apostasy that has diluted Christianity, such that there is now apparent a post-Christian age being observed. Neopaganization, as a result, has substantially occurred.   The mighty civilization that was Europe is now in the unfortunate process of gross disintegration through demographic changes, the depopulation of the native peoples, and for other important reasons.

But, the ever vital questions dealt with by him covered matters that universally concern human beings regarding what either enhances or degrades man’s humanity that, in turn, reflects upon spirituality in both a broad and narrow sense, even beyond Christianity.   It could not be otherwise. And, this is why those who would say that he was, in effect, only a medievalist do, of course, a grave injustice to the significant work produced that actually ranged far above and beyond the Middle Ages.

Dawson creatively sought to capture and illustrate the precise elements of what critically constitutes man’s humanity by carefully exploring how Catholicism, in particular, had added to the exemplification of that noted humanity, under many actual historical circumstances, and was, in fact, never supposedly a detraction from it.

This necessarily spoke against, contradicted, the various and sundry historical scenarios of Reformation, Enlightenment, Revolution, and post-Enlightenment fabrications of people, places, and events.   The truth had to superbly rise above querulous factions, ideologies, and sectarian interests and urgently, therefore, toward that eternal light that had vitally illumined mankind for, literally, many centuries.

History presented narrowly by either Protestant or secularist authorities, whether done deliberately or not, ended up wrongly distorting the facts that could be yet objectively researched, especially in terms of the short and long-range consequences of those compelling facts.   Classic illustrative volumes, such as Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History by Fr. Moorhouse F. X. Millar, and, much more recently, Philip Trower’s The Catholic Church and the Counter-Faith help to explain and illuminate the profound epistemological and philosophical meaning of these incredible distortions and, thus, their indicative implications.   Errors, therefore, should not be ever transmogrified into convenient pseudo-truths.

Ultimately, what so occurs, through Dawson’s metahistorical approach, is not just an exposition of Catholic history or Western chronology; it is, ultimately, the historical account of how human beings had and will respond to the ever greater metaphysical order of reality set ever above and beyond the mere course of events or circumstances.   What he valiantly proposed was not just his own isolated opinion but, rather, what he discovered to be and, more importantly, recovered as the universal understanding and comprehension of what it is that courageously affirms man’s humanity versus what detracts from it, not simply/only an affirmation of Catholicism done by one convert.

Thus, he, for instance, certainly surpassed Oswald Spengler, Douglas Northrop, or Arnold Toynbee by having a vigorously transcendent hold upon history, through his Christocentric approach, that had enlightened all the historical discussions and contentions, which, in particular, had made Western history important and, in that sense, special or extraordinary.   Though having its origins as a Semitic Oriental religion, Christianity sunk its glorious roots initially throughout most of the Western world of that era; this made the matter, therefore, not simply coincidental but, rather, highly providential that Jesus the Christ chose the time and place of the ancient Roman Empire for appearing on earth.

For Dawson, religion was perceived insightfully as the dynamic element of culture.   Though he shared the concept with Toynbee of the architectonic ideal of a universal spiritual society being the objective of history, he had rejected Toynbee’s decidedly syncretistic vision as an achievement through a consensus of the great world religions, both East and West; Dawson, instead, spoke of it as only truly coming from the continual development of the Catholic principle spiritually enlightening the entire human globe, of a religious spirit of transcendence putting into transactional human terms the hierophantic radiance of Christ.

For him, the Holy Faith did not ever rely upon any supposed “consensus of human wisdom” that might be thought of as the greatest or the latest and most spiritual position imaginable; rather, it is ever the significant case that the clearly divine revelation of Catholicism was given to mankind simultaneously as an act of creation, the eternal Word was made flesh and the gates of Heaven, by the Crucifixion and Resurrection, were then opened forever for all those who would so achieve salvation of their souls.

Thus, the Church was perceptively seen as being the true and vital koinos kosmos opposed, by strict definition, to every heretical, ideological or other (defective) idios kosmos as the great elemental force in history having the salvific role of remediating humanity’s disunity; this was by seeking to gather lovingly all the nations toward a spiritual oecumenical unity, with the living Christ at its center.

Consequently, all that came before, the BC of time, and all that came after, the AD of existence, would, then, forever be necessarily changed forever in its related theological-historical significance by that permanent monumental fact, which equally, of course, concerns salvation history. But, what might be critically said of current history and European history in particular?

Western Europe or the World qua Utopia?

There is no real doubt whatsoever that Dawson, who died in the year 1970, would have been absolutely appalled by what happened between the 1970s and into the 2010s, besides the ill-favored future of what must come about in this region.   Routinization, rationalization, and bureaucratization, which in the early thinking of Max Weber, were once highly commendatory terms eagerly promising an enlightened, modernized Europe and world had, of course, contributed toward massive dehumanization.

By the time of Weber’s death in 1918, he looked aghast at a frightening European nightmare not at all predicted by devotees of secularized Progress, which had often overlooked militarization and its results. Furthermore, the questionable outcomes, in general, of a once desired industrialization, modernization, and urbanization had, seemingly, run wild.    Dawson, of course, was not at all blind to such a reality. He had the insight to see how Nazism and Communism successfully exploited the totalitarian elements that were already sufficiently present in modern society by, thus, further developing and organizing them, not necessarily inventing all such features.

By the late 20th century and into the 21st, contemporary man, therefore, especially in the Western world, faced harsh variants of socialist, social-democratic, regimes promising versions of Utopia, the New Eden on earth, but delivering, more or less, variants of death.   A Godless, soulless world, valuing situation ethics, positivism, materialism, hedonism, and pragmatism, should have expected nothing less, besides the consequences.

Minus the immigrant, legal and illegal, populations, European nations, in effect, are willingly racing fast to see who can achieve ZPG (Zero Population Growth) first.   Through the results of bureaucratization, the contemporary welfare/social-democratic State has brought about, in effect, the rather widespread dehumanizing institutionalization of entire societies and peoples, such that modern society has been often popularly referred to, e. g., as the rat race.

The “successful” pursuit of Utopia has encouraged a Brave New World fostered hatefully by nihilism, the true end of the road for final secularization and its cohabitant reality known as collectivism/statism, by whatever euphemism.   Demography, as it has been said so many times, is destiny, regarding the birth dearth with its expected demographic disaster of monumental proportions; the future is best seen, however, not as quickly in Europe as it is, surely, in Japan with a both diminishing and rapidly aging population.

The United States of America, if it were not for its illegal immigrants, would not be able to barely sustain the 2.1 replacement ratio needed, for mere survival, so as to maintain a viable population for a country.   Even more so, Western Europe has deservedly suffered as religion has become further and further marginalized, as human life, not surprisingly, has then become cheaper and cheaper in its estimation.

The nation of Italy, which surrounds Vatican City, has basically ceased to be a Christian, much less a Catholic, country.    Abortion plagues Portugal and Spain, formerly strong Catholic nations, of course.   As of the year 2014, the suicide rate in post-Christian Spain has, not unexpectedly, risen to an eight year high.   The European Union’s prohibitions, e. g., made against the Scottish fisheries has sadly encouraged the Scots to abandon many traditional ways and, instead, become partly a pathetic nation of alcoholics and drug addicts.   A rather heavy price, in terms of human lives wasted and destroyed, has to be paid for journeying on the broad highway known as Utopia, by whatever euphemism.

Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, suicides in America are expected to very significantly increase due to the innumerable, ever increasing, and often predicted socialist perils and failures and crescive costs of Obamacare (aka the Affordable Care Act).    Predictably, a law that ostensibly was going to see to it that more people got healthcare insurance coverage will, as was predicted, take health insurance away from many times more people than it ever could have purportedly helped.

The analysis given above of a clearly triumphant modernity could go on and on, but the demonstrative point, one may hope, has been substantially enough made.    As Dawson would have heartily concurred, only the adoption of those ethical, moral, and spiritual attributes and virtues genuinely emblematic of a true and, in fact, substantive Christian culture could hope to turn the tide against the blatant forces of a prideful nihilism; this is now, one seriously suspects, groping toward a postmodern culture worshipping ZPG as one of its aggressive terrene gods, besides the overall death worship.

Of course, a deeply religious transformation and revitalization, on a massive scale of intense endeavor, is really requisite to the important task needed now for the sincerely authentic restoration of a culture worthy to be called Christian.   Nothing less will really do.    Nothing more could be hoped for given the predilection toward sin of fallen creatures living in a fallen world, meaning the continuing reality of what Pope Innocent III (pontificate: 1198 – 1216) had rightly called the misery of the human condition.

His De miseria humane conditionis was a document well known during the Middle Ages, though today’s postmodern man brutishly denies the intensely spiritual sense of the existential or phenomenological validity of any pain, suffering, or misery because sin itself gets dismissed, of course.    For those, however, who are intelligently perceptive and whose cognizance reaches deep within the soul, there comes the, thus, quite easy recognition that the writings and thoughts of Dawson are now more relevant and persuasive, coherent and cogent, than ever since more needed than when first written or thought.

The Culture of Life must, therefore, replace the evil nihilistic Culture of Death with its quite devastating sodomy, abortion, infanticide (aka partial-birth abortion), suicide, euthanasia, artificial contraception, divorce, pornography, etc.   The Satanic practice of human sacrifice with its blood offerings (abortion, etc.), in all its various contemporary modes, must be justly and righteously put to an end.   Any thoughts of the Church Militant ought, moreover, not to pleasantly abide with the, in effect, institutionalization of immorality on a massive scale of demonic endeavor.

In short, whatever there is that essentially or emphatically opposes Christian culture must be recognized as being, by definition, anti-life and, when all is said and done, also fundamentally pro-death, as is the morally vile liberal/leftist euphemism known as pro-choice.   It is, therefore, equally true that for any Catholic to accept any part of the Culture of Death is to then be exactly the same as a denial of the validity, the whole truth, of Catholicism; more to the point, even the denial, e. g., of just one dogma becomes the inherent rejection of them all, meaning, in effect, some sort of Protestantism.

Catholicism, as the height of Christianity, is to cover the absolute totality of one’s entire life; there is no compartmentalization, as with modernity and its nominalist belief.   Part-time Catholics are an anathema.    The dogmas, doctrines, and teachings of the Church are a coherent and indivisible unity as is the Trinity, as is the Trinitarian Dogma. Cafeteria Catholicism as it has been called is, thus, a mortal sin without question.

Being just a so-called cultural Catholic is moral nonsense, for it too, by definition, is a mortal sin, which is all, in fact, opposed to true Christian culture.   One can then easily see how the Holy Faith became the core inspiration for the accomplishment of Dawson that, in turn, had correspondingly radiated throughout his writings.

Furthermore, any endeavored reestablishment of genuine Christian culture will, logically, require the acceptance and practice of orthodox Catholicism; otherwise, any attempted, viable creation of a new Christendom would be essentially impossible to achieve.   Is there, however, a valid sign of hope?    From where can be gained the proper recruits for the continuous and valiant fight against secularism and, upon cogent analysis, its finally nihilistic outcomes?

The traditional Latin Mass Community, which does not adhere to the New Mass of Pope Paul VI, exists today as the truly needed nucleus for properly infusing a society with the still fundamental elements and essentials of Christian culture and its implications.   There is the deep desire, in this specific regard, to fill all of a Christian life with a very much wanted sense and spirit of holistic Catholicity, which would certainly have been easily understood by Dawson.

All aspects of human life, not just religion, are to be appropriately filled with the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith, which is, one may add, not meant to be existentially unitized or phenomenologically compartmentalized.   A Catholic life is meant to be a holistic as well as a holy life, for proper holiness is the valid means for obtaining future salvation in the life of the world to come.  This perspective is, of course, meant to be entirely against all the ideologies of either modernity or postmodernity, which are based, as ought to be known, upon neo-Pelagianism, meaning a secularized version of the Pelagian heresy (which includes, e. g., the total denial of the existence of Original Sin).

Nominalism as the ultimate basis of neo-Pelagianism, the spirit of modernity, is surely the spiritual and cognitive acid that has helped to destroy all of the supposedly finest aspirations, dreams, or hopes of mankind, century after century, because faith in God is increasingly diminished and, then, just denied completely.   Religion gets rationalized and diluted out of existence as pre-Enlightenment superstition, while gradations of individualism and collectivism, the two sides of the same coin of modernity, fight for control of the human mind.

The immoral and evil effects of nominalism work through degrees of hedonism, pragmatism, naturalism, materialism, empiricism, individualism, and positivism to then produce ideologies, such as Communism, Liberalism, Nazism, Feminism, Conservatism, Fascism, etc., that do celebrate modernity and, in turn, had laid the foundations down for what is now often called postmodernity.   As a result, the alternative of Christian culture, therefore, must include the always firm rejection of all ideologies, all means of earthly idolatry, for the proper sake of lovingly and dutifully affirming the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Ideologies have, as ought to be seen, derailed past and present efforts at the attainment of a truer and most needed adherence to Christianity. As Dawson would have so strongly agreed, there is no truth to political or ideological salvation on earth. Existential, phenomenological, or experiential immanentism is anti-Catholic, by definition.  In addition, as Jesus said, one cannot serve both God and mammon.   The perceived “new barbarism” of the post-Christian age must also, of course, be rejected.

The rational and logical demand of orthodox Catholicism, the Catholic Faith to its fullest degree, is that Catholics must purge themselves of all secularist heresies, regardless of how near or dear any of them may ever seem to be.   Neither Conservatism nor Feminism, Libertarianism nor Socialism, Capitalism nor Liberalism, is to have any place above Catholicism nor, moreover, any claim whatsoever upon one’s true allegiance.

Why is this always necessary?   In terms of the old Christendom, the Church in Europe had tried, through long and weary centuries, through barbarian invasion after invasion, to Christianize that portion of the globe, as best as it reasonably could, under various and quite often, it needs to be said, rather disconcerting circumstances.  Thus, the new barbarism of ideology must be crushed out of existence.

Modernity, increasingly because of the perverse “tutelage” of William of Occam and his disciples, had sought to do the opposite; this was, in general, through usually steady and often, at times, swift efforts at desacralization; at last, as is the case today, the secular side of life was held superior to the previously needed religious affirmation of human existence, such that contemporary Western society and culture is, of course, basically post-Christian.

The culture war against Christianity was, in truth, lost about two generations ago by the majority of the Christians; all that remains, on the whole, are disjointed rearguard actions having very little, if any, impact upon the mainly successful secularizing bulldozer, meaning the secularist civil society with its ever allied, dominating political apparatus (aka the modern State).

Thus, the European Union, in its still latest constitutional formulation, had stridently refused all and any valid requests by the Vatican to include any mention of the Christian heritage of Europe, which is highly indicative without question.   It is a Western phenomenon.    Most politicians in America are, e. g., afraid to say whether or not the USA is still a Christian country for fear of offending the mass media, upper classes, intelligentsia, and cultural elites.

The laicist point of view, a demonic product of modernity, is taken to be merely a commonsensical, routine, (even bland) attitude that just recognizes the set reality that exists in which the Church is to remain permanently both subordinate and subservient to the State.   What is being said, however, relative to the specific nature of this present article discussing the thinking of one Catholic historian?

Not surprisingly, Dawson had uncompromisingly denounced all of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism for making these same claims that the social-democratic State, now routinely, accepts as being simply a normal part of all sociopolitical and socioeconomic reality.   In effect, by now, all of humanity had lost World War I and II; the lauded victory over tyranny in that second world conflict has, in truth, proved to be largely an illusion or, perhaps, a merely sophisticated political game involving advanced semantics. Leviathan hath conquered at last through the Regulatory State, Administrative State or, perhaps, what better should be called the Nanny State.

The old creative and fruitful tension between Church and State that had moderated the dynamics that once insured the existence of social civil liberty and a free society, when each stayed within its proper sphere of authority and power, has been effectively dissolved.   Secularization, within the Western world, is the clearly predominant contemporary norm and pragmatic paradigm; so, Christianity is at best mainly tolerated for now, though not for long, which suggests so strongly why the requisite resistance uniquely afforded by the unapologetic affirmation of Christian culture is now so imperatively urgent, not supposedly optional.

Reading Dawson’s magnificent works, in the useful sense of wanting to subvert and overthrow the anti-Christian secularist agenda, becomes then a quite needed subversive activity; this is, surely, concerning the healthy opposition of Christian culture to the ever aggressive demands placed upon the increasingly debased subjects of the triumphant Hobbesian Leviathan.

As the prevalent and popular (Leftist) Culture of Death spreads by leaving its many victims throughout the decadent societies inhabited, his texts should no longer seem to be mere dusty books of interest only, perhaps, to a tiny group of elitist academics dedicated to obscurantist studies.  This viable kind of historically impressive, life-sustaining knowledge will be absolutely needed by which, one hopes, to creatively reconstruct a disintegrating and decaying civil social order, as was true after the fall of the Roman Empire; and, Dawson thought it could be done.

While the collapse of an entire empire was, of course, a grave material disaster in that region of the world, however, the horrid spiritual deterioration of Europe to its very core Dawson would have rightly perceived as a quite tremendously devastating occurrence of monumental proportions, no doubt, absolutely dwarfing ancient Rome’s eclipse; yet, he was not a pessimist as to the possibilities for renewing or reviving Christian culture.

Once again, the Church, for Europe (and the world), must spiritually step forward to deal with the shattered pieces of what had been the decadent mainstream culture and society that could not be realistically sustained by a constantly centralizing State that ideologically allows for the destruction of conventional social reality, especially at the peripheries.  Every form of statism, of tyranny, possesses an inevitable self-destructive principle: what can be called hyper-centralization.

Those still fairly sound parts of the Church, such as the Latin Mass Community, not contaminated by the heinous effects and affects of the Conciliar Captivity 5  will be able to help with the reconstitution and revitalization work necessary for the redevelopment of what needs to become the Christian culture, as it was known to Dawson and all those who truly value religious orthodoxy.   Why must this be?

Paradoxes and Wonderment: Dawsonian Legacy

It has never occurred, in the entire course of recorded human history that, e. g., a cadre of degenerate, pot smoking, fornicating sodomites and allies had ever created, much less sustained, a viable culture or civilization. And, this plainly cited substantive consideration, in the end, becomes the valid bottom line as to the confrontation of traditional reality versus Leftist/progressive ideological fantasies.   It could not be otherwise pertaining to the highest realities of the temporal orders, involving the upper limits of all societies and peoples, as to civilized life and its inherent requirements and so related responsibilities.   This is the nature of the human condition, and why good Catholics pray for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary during their lives.  It is, when seen as a whole reality, the moral quest for Christian culture.

That noble and compelling task, guided always by the light of Christ, can only be viably taken up by those clear headed enough and morally capable enough to struggle through with the many arduous demands and hardships fully requisite to such an effort; this is, of course, to substantially revive a society that, in turn, can then provide the living basis for a reasonable, sustainable, and healthy culture; nothing less will do.

Catholicism, especially in superb terms of religious orthodoxy, has both the unique internal and requisite resources to carry the mission on toward such a fulfillment, when the will to do so gets empowered for such needed action.   And, this is the reason Dawson had noted why the Medieval-spiritual Catholic synthesis could be, in truth, called to life as the ingredient necessary for the re-sanctification of human society and culture not just in Europe but for and throughout the entire Catholic cosmos.

What is here meant to be properly understood?   Not old wine absurdly forced into new bottles, not any supposed simple “return” to the (stereotyped) Middle Ages, rather, advancing adamantly the always Christocentric orientation, dedicated openly toward fostering holiness, that decisively, meaning without question, renews all things in Jesus the Christ, the Savior of the world.

A Dawsonian revival, moreover, gains strength as it gets appropriately directed toward the ever true source of the profound inspiration, the loving hope, that had called forth wondrously such dedicated writings and professorial lectures, namely, Catholicism.   For many, however, they will blankly read the available books but think not too heavily about what had necessarily inspired a man to deal with the inconsiderate discrimination directed against him, in England, for having chosen the ancient faith against Anglicanism.   How does this manifestly happen? Many choose to be blind to the truth; they may forfeit their salvation fully, as a result, if it is due to willful obstinacy.

There are the same kinds of the many who could be quite enormous admirers, indeed, of the memory of the impressive St. Francis of Assisi or, perhaps, Mother Teresa of India but who yet would actually never, in (the often said proverbial) thousand years, seriously contemplate becoming converts.   No, not that.   Therefore, the rather serious epistemological question must then be logically raised concerning if they really both correctly understood and knowledgeably comprehended exactly what Dawson had to say, if they cannot see the forest because of the trees.

The only realistic conclusion, sad to say, is that they do not and, probably, never will then respond to the offered promptings of supernatural grace in their lives, meaning as long as their heads and/or hearts are hardened stubbornly against what simply ought to be the proper religious response.   It is so possible, unfortunately, to become a dedicated Dawsonian reader all of one’s life without coming to the logical realization that there is the substantive reciprocal need to positively affirm the basis of what has been read, without doing what is, in truth, obvious by converting to Catholicism.   Those who are viscerally repulsed by the notion of conversion are temperamentally incapable of comprehending the implications and cognate ramification of what Dawson had relatedly written.

Nor would such people, probably, do as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wisely did by going back to the original writings of the Church Fathers and those at the origins of Christianity and discovering and recovering the truth about the Holy Faith.   What must be overtly said?    Those who remain Protestant readers, all their lives, of Dawson’s works must deliberately remain fundamentally ignorant, thoroughly unconscious, and spiritually oblivious to the nth degree of what they (supposedly) think that they are or have been reading.   No other conclusion is reasonably possible.   They are not the proverbial savages in the hinterland of North Borneo who suffer from a natural invincible ignorance; modern people, as ought to be known, really have no such excuse.

Admittedly, however, for those who are both non-Protestant and non-Catholic, they have more of a reasonable excuse for being quite so spiritually obtuse to such an extreme gradation, if they genuinely do not understand and are ignorant of the fact that their immortal salvation is a stake.   Ignoring or, especially, holding Catholicism in contempt, while ever warmly admiring the impressive accomplishment of this author, is seemingly indicative of cognitive dissonance, mental dyslexia, and, in the end, rabid nonsense.

But, this incredible depth of a distinct lack of needed consciousness does not only affect the minds of Protestants but does also, amazingly enough, afflict the souls of many liberal Catholics who may also be readers of Dawson. They do generally misinterpret him as being a literary product compatible with the postconciliar Church, which is not true.   He was, of course, interested in a kind of ecumenism, directed toward Catholic truth, which avoids anything like the varieties of indifferentism and latitudinarianism to be generally seen, since the ending of Vatican Council II.   Such nonsense often, of course, gets itself tendentiously called ecumenism.

It is astounding how a liberal Catholic can read such writings without fully appreciating the sensibilities, behind those scripted words, that ought to redirect substantive attention toward the requirement that there is the need to extend fidelity to orthodoxy, not heterodoxy, concerning the proper understanding of a sound Catholicism.   Furthermore, the eternal spirit of Medieval Christianity, as critically defined by Dawson and others, is not at all compatible with the (nominalist) thrust, the modernist orientation, of the Novus Ordo and its followers. 6

How may this be empirically known?   Anything that leads to the dissolution of the Sacred Faith would have been furthest from the thinking of this historian who had been dedicated to the proposition that the religion he chose for his own had, indeed, greatly inspired many generations before him and would, without a doubt, do so for unknown generations after him.   He was no enthusiast for heresy.

The affirmative touchstone of orthodoxy informs with clarity the practical and theoretical basis upon which this English writer had so trusted his cognizance, concerning these historical features that had contributed most toward the comprehension of the interaction of religion and culture that was carefully discerned, over many centuries of time; in fact, the catholicity of the Faith was not a lie.

In short, there was no room for modernism, regarding his interpretation of the essence and heart of the Christianity once extant in Western Europe, during the Middle Ages or, moreover, ever after that time. Catholicity and liberal Catholicism must, eventually, part their separate ways because the spirituality involved with the preconciliar Church is not of the same substance as that which purports to exist in the postconciliar Church, subject, as it is, to the unfortunate effects of the continuing Conciliar Captivity (aka the dark Spirit of Vatican II).   This allows for many aberrant practices and highly questionable attitudes that invite heretical and quasi-heretical notions freely into the Church with the excuse given of reform, or the reform of the reform.

Factually and theologically speaking, e. g., Catholic dogmas can never be reformed, they are, once defined officially, unchangeable assertions of the Faith; they are, moreover, to be always accepted unconditionally by Catholics as de fide.   As one of the major social thinkers of the 20th century, Dawson, obviously, would not have anything to do with liberal Catholicism, which term ought to be regarded as being a kind of oxymoron.  There have been vile consequences noted.

Sadly, the postconciliar Church slides toward postmodernism in its orientation because virtue, self-restraint, self-respect, holiness, and much else are antithetical values not congruent with the movement of postmodern society in its ideological mode; they, the degenerate values, now constitute, moreover, weird anti-cultural attitudes that reject the moral crucifixion of the self and, thus, praise a nihilistic concern for absolute freedom, the right to do wrong without shame or guilt, as with, e. g., the homosexualization of postmodern society.

Gone is the classical, premodern thought that true liberty actually consists in the freedom to do those things that one ought to do.   But, all those who do not love the Cross of Christ must end up hating Him, however, because such genuine love, if it truly exists, logically requires taking up the Cross every day of one’s life.   Christian culture, therefore, as to its glorious spiritual essence begins and ends with the Sign of the Cross, not merely pious intentions or, perhaps, impressive religious slogans or affectations as such.

Those superficial things are not sufficient for the salvation of souls; genuine practice of the Faith is not a generalized Christianity.   Mere religiosity is never enough nor is being spiritual.   Catholicism has and will demand much more, as can be attested to by those Catholic historians who write in the same spirit of Dawson. 7

He saw that disbelief has never created any avalanche of human devotion and creativity.   Atheism has and will never hold the imagination or belief of the vast majority of mankind; it is too vacuous and lacks substance, for the proclaimed faith in nothing, a supposedly empty metaphysical order, has and will have highly limited appeal; even neopaganism, though now totally minus the original pagan innocence, offers more than nothing.   Atheism has been rightly dismissed as an odd paradoxical solecism in history, for Dawson studied many cultures and did not find, on the part of a diverse lot of people through many ages, any enormous demand to believe in nothing.

This preposterous solipsism extraordinaire remains, one suspects, almost uniquely and fixedly a Western preoccupation found exclusively with integrally deformed cognition parading as profound philosophy, which finds its suitable home, sooner or later, nesting within a trivial, favorable and welcoming nihilism, predictably, a dead end.   It often feels, as a result, underappreciated, while fully lacking justification for the vapid thought.

Thus, a realization here easily occurs.   The de-Christianization of Western Europe, as well as the Western world in general, would have to be substantially reversed to an enormous degree through faith in Christ and His Church; the massive re-Evangelization effort urgently needed, moreover, could then have the beneficent result of at least reconstituting, initially rebuilding, the vital beginnings of a Christian culture; it alone, realistically speaking, could not simply guarantee it without adding a dynamically growing base of committed believers having the cognate social and religious skills, meaning to properly sustain such culture.

The vast odds against success would, one suspects, require a miracle for that much of an attainment, meaning given what sadly presently exists and, thus, into the harsh foreseeable future of a much too debased contemporary civilization.    For instance, a truly educated human being is becoming a relative rarity due to many influences, including the extensively documented and progressive dumbing down of culture and education, besides the harmful anti-literate effects of most pop culture; the MTV generation is lost in space.

Most people these days, being quite average types, are incapable, e. g., of reciting Natural Theology’s arguments in favor of the existence of God, which was properly demonstrated, of course, by Aristotle millenniums ago, much less Thomistic metaphysics.   Reality precludes the attempted significant success of educational efforts since (authentic) educational standards rarely rise and usually, on average, keep falling.   There would need to be an educated enough population of readers available to appropriately appreciate what had been written before wondering if, supposedly, many tens of thousands would be expected to converse knowledgeably upon, e. g., the various Dawson books and their contents.

No matter how seemingly “large,” therefore, the observed Dawsonian revival may be, it will still exist among a fairly discrete number of people almost all of whom, as could be easily guessed, are never going to be among the major movers and shakers of this world.   The typical Dawson reader is not going to be the president of any prestigious university anywhere in the world, the head of a major nation, the CEO of a dominating international conglomerate, the inventor of the simply latest and greatest software in existence, etc.

Such is not the general case.   The lordly worlds of power, economic, political or otherwise, and technical brilliance rarely, if ever, seek special historical wisdom, especially from any dedicatedly Christian, anti-materialistic and anti-secularistic metahistorians.   But, even pragmatism is yet a mundane and rather shallow god with feet of clay; flat histories are incapable of explaining away irruptions within time, such as St. Joan of Arc, who still, incredibly, had changed the course of Western history, against all positivist, pragmatic, and naturalist reasoning imaginable on such a subject.   What, however, is critically meant?

Faith can and has, quite repeatedly, trumped the mere secular order of reality, much to the very harsh chagrin of those who think themselves to be oh-so-superbly enlightened.   The Catholic worldview, which Dawson was so definitely steeped within, can explain such rather remarkable things, not a too arrogant modernity nor an ultra-sophisticated (read: nihilistic) postmodernity. 

Secularism, in short, has never proven itself capable of supposedly pulling itself up by its own bootstraps, in all of the recorded history of civilization.   In definite contrast, it can be noted that Christianity, of course, has/will inspire such impressive efforts at massively effective societal and cultural coherence, which can be accomplished in a humane manner, that rightly corresponds to a Christian culture.


Therefore, the depth, range of knowledge, and rare insight, enriched by powerfully humane values, exhibited by Christopher Henry Dawson has rarely, if ever been equaled; only Lord Acton, among a few others, comes close. While Acton, however, merely dreamed, e. g., of writing a full scale history of the idea of liberty, Dawson had, basically, achieved the intensive exposition and extrapolation concerning and of the expansive Catholic cosmos of history and, therefore, mankind’s cognate adventures with religion and culture.   He demonstrated the viability of either sustaining or, as needed, recreating Christian culture.

He is, moreover, the foremost historian of Catholic religious culture who has yet to be surpassed, as to the elegance of expression and expression of elegance, regarding whatever matters most supremely pertain to mankind’s slow rise up from barbarism, to man’s humanity when assisted by grace.   What is, however, finally meant within the loving context of the Catholic cosmos?   With an Augustinian sense of charity, he came to an ideal vision of Christ living in and through the history of Western culture and civilization seen at its best, while yet maturely, realistically, recognizing that vast human imperfection, continuing sinfulness, often exhibited terrible features at its worst.

In the end, Dawson would have agreed that a Christocentric life is the only life worth living, not the demonic-nihilistic lust for ZPG, rather, that all may be renewed forever in and for Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!

1.) Ironically, this website states that, “Most of his works are now in print or are scheduled for re-publication in English, with versions in several foreign languages such as Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and Korean.”    One could, also, relatedly consult what is said at:   The priest-author there says, “For almost a generation now [written in 2014] Christopher Dawson has been steadily growing into an heroic figure in the firmament of Catholic world scholarship.”

2.)  Works such as: Eternity in Time: Christopher Dawson and the Catholic Idea of History edited by Stratford Caldecott and John Morrill. Certain authors there insist that Dawson can only be properly understood, e. g., in light of the Second Vatican Council (VCII), which is doubtful.

3.)  See: Alyssa Lyra Pitstick, Light in Darkness: Hans Urs von Balthasar and the Catholic Doctrine of Christ’s Descent into Hell.   Also, six articles by Atila S. Guimaraes refuting Balthasar’s book Casta Meretrix in Catholic Family News, January to June 2000.   At the least, there must be the suspicion that much and, perhaps, most of Balthasar’s writings do fairly border on or are quite near heresy. See also:

4.)  Joseph Pearce, Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief.   Dawson and many others among the converts were mightily displeased by the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council and, especially, its horrid aftermath.   Too many changes seemed, e. g., just like the Protestantism that they had left behind as inadequate or imperfect, concerning the wanted fullness of Christianity.

5.)   It is no secret that Pope Francis considers himself a completely convinced disciple of VCII and that he has many warm admirers among the open enemies of the Church, including, of course, various hardened Marxists and atheists, which is, at the least, a most curious situation.   Could they know or, perhaps, suspect something about him?

6.)  See: Dawson’s Medieval Religion and Other Essays and his Medieval Essays; see also: Étienne Gilson’s The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, and his Medieval Essays; see also: issues of the magazine entitled: The Latin Mass and Rodney Stark’s God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades.

Most people hold ignorant ideas about the stereotyped Middle Ages; they see only the “Dark Ages” filled with ignorance, violence, injustice, cruelty, and rampant superstition.  This is versus the contemporary era so filled with ignorance, violence, injustice, cruelty, and, yes, rampant superstition such as, e. g., manmade-global-warming-climate-change beliefs or other such PC thinking.   To illustratively quote from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, … in short, the period was so far like the present period …” One could, also, read: Those Terrible Middle Ages! authored by Regine Pernoud.

7.) Diane Moczar, Seven Lies About Catholic History: Infamous Myths about the Church’s Past and How to Answer Them; also, her other volumes: The Church Under Attack; Ten Dates Every Catholic Should Know: The Divine Surprises and Chastisements That Shaped the Church and Changed the World; Converts and Kingdoms: How the Church Converted the Pagan West and How We Can Do It Again; and her What Every Catholic Wants to Know: Catholic History: From the Catacombs to the Reformation. Moczar carries on the fight for truth and, moreover, the thorough vindication of the Faith, which Dawson would have appreciated.

Primary Sources: Dawson – Historical Bibliography of Books

The Age of Gods, 1928
Progress and Religion, 1929
Christianity and the New Age, 1931
The Making of Europe, 1932
The Spirit of the Oxford Movement, 1933
Medieval Religion and Other Essays, 1934
Religion and the Modern State, 1936
Beyond Politics, 1939
The Judgment of the Nations, 1942
Religion and Culture, 1948
Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, 1950
Understanding Europe, 1952
Medieval Essays, 1954
Dynamics of World History, 1957
The Movement of World Revolution, 1959
The Historic Reality of Christian Culture, 1960
The Crisis of Western Education, 1961
The Dividing of Christendom, 1967
Mission to Asia, 1966
The Formation of Christendom, 1967
The Gods of Revolution, 1972 (posthumous)
Religion and World History, 1975 (posthumous)

Archival Resources

Secondary Works

Jaime Antúnez Aldunate, Filosofía de la historia en Christopher Dawson (Philosophy of History in Christopher Dawson).

Bradley J. Birzer, Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson.
Stratford Caldecott and John Morrill, eds., Eternity in Time: Christopher Dawson and the Catholic Idea of History.
Peter J. Cataldo, ed., The Dynamic Character of Christian Culture: Essays on Dawsonian Themes
Joseph Pearce, Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief.
Gerald J. Russello, ed., Christianity and European Culture: Selections from the Work of Christopher Dawson.
Christina Scott, A Historian and His World: A Life of Christopher Dawson.
Wethersfield Institute, Christianity and Western Civilization: Christopher Dawson’s Insight– Can a Culture Survive the Loss of Its Roots?

Revealed: The Blatant Nihilism of the Second Vatican Council

Revealed: The Blatant Nihilism of the Second Vatican Council
An Evil Consequence of the Conciliar Captivity: Co-Celebration of the Protestant Reformation

By    Joseph Andrew Settanni

Orwellian (a term created from Orwell’s frightening 1984) has come to mean, among other things, the public substitution of lies for truth and the force or ability necessary to make people believe that such lies are really true. Modern or, rather, modernist religious thinking and related theological speculation possesses definite Orwellian qualities. How so? It has become, more and more, so easily possible to make people believe that what ought to be, logically, factually, or empirically speaking, necessarily false is, however, actually true. Such truly awesome power should, thus, be regarded as literally frightening.

In line with this hideous power, the inane superstitions of the secularist modern intelligentsia are always significantly much worse than those of the proverbially ignorant peasantry or common folk. The latter have an excuse, the former do not. In a day and age, because of the progressive intelligentsia, when the ever tremendously heinous butchery of abortion and infanticide (aka partial-birth abortion) has become rather routine horrors, they do delight in ever supposing that mankind has “matured” in not seeking to have any agonizing disputes about, e. g., Christian truth. Hence, many contemporary fallacies and myths, falsities and fantasies, do greatly abound within a congenial therapeutic culture, which has its strange consequences, along with the denial of sin.

Standards of contemporary “truth” have been too often reduced to mere niceness, of being nice toward people. Also, ethical or moral deformations and distortions of Christianity known as humanitarianism and altruism have, through the vile influence of “imperialistic” secularism, become the now modern assumed standards of measuring niceness or goodness. This is, nonetheless, the greatest superstition of them all in assuming that one’s own age is totally free of superstitions. The worldly minded, thus, see many pragmatic dividends from the wanted dissolution, gradual crumbling, of religion and the cognate increased lack of theological rigor in the thought being exercised.

As was clearly known to Malcolm Muggeridge (who escaped from the laicist prison), secular valuations and means of judgment have, then, substantially replaced right Christian regard for moral and spiritual conduct and reflection as well as spiritual integrity. As Jesus Christ is the standard of actual truth qua the Truth for any truly believing Christian, therefore, there must be ever the solidly enormous concern for defending appropriate veracity; this is since it is completely equivalent to the ever requisite and honorable defense of Christianity itself, of solid religious truth; so, the Orwellian butchering of veracity ought to be morally and, moreover, spiritually repugnant to the followers of the true Messiah.

How so? No one filled with authentically good will would seek to ever heartily praise Satan’s kingdom, meaning knowing that the Devil is the father of all lies. Thus, it is for love of one’s fellow human beings as to their precious souls that heresy (a contempt for truth) is hated mightily, not for the simple sake of just hating people, as is so falsely and often alleged by the modernists or pragmatists. How shall the matter in question be approached? Veracity, in its unvarnished purity, is ever the best standard.

And, hence, pure, genuine Christianity for its own noble sake celebrates the authentic Word of God in adamant defense of all sure Christian verisimilitude, which properly excludes the secularist desire for supposedly attaining plain “niceness” or wholesome “goodness” as well as contemptuous lying, of course.

The Loving Embrace of Damnation

Principles of thought can be given rightly here. As all truth is eventually as univocal as is God Himself, there can be only one true Faith, all others must be, by definition, necessarily false. It is ever incumbent upon all sincerely committed Christians, as is taught by religion and theology, to then ardently desire to very much want the genuine truth for their own salvation toward the life of the world to come. The dire consequences of rejecting religious and theological truth can be and, finally, will be spiritually fatal.

Ultimately speaking, as ought to be known, the four last things for Christians to gravely consider are Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. However, it is not simply nice to believe such things; for authentic Christians, it is absolutely essential for salvation. For all true Catholics, moreover, it is never optional; and, worldly goodness or niceness will never really be accounted as having been good enough.

Being a genuine Christian, therefore, does not consist of supposed niceness, of convenient kindness or just pleasant goodness. Salvation, moreover, is wanted not only for one’s self but for all those who are open to God’s mercy. The dedicated followers of Christ are, as could be suspected, to hold to proper beliefs extremely above and beyond any ever merely altruistic/humanitarian affections or orientations as such. Christianity as a valid belief requires an internal commitment, not just lip service.

Among other reasons, there is no such thing as universal salvation, regarding of modernist sensibilities to the contrary denying that few or, perhaps, nobody is really in Hell or is ever going to get there. So, Catholicism qua theological orthodoxy is inconsistent with notions of any universal salvation, which thought leads finally toward perdition. Ideas have consequences, as Richard M. Weaver had observed.

It is, therefore, morally wrong and spiritually dangerous to accept error or falsity as being true whenever there is the known probability, not just simple possibility, that people may be actually damned to Hell eternally, as a direct consequence of not recognizing such error. This situation, as will be articulated in this article, is tightly related to the important consideration of heresy, with Protestantism here being the prime example of such.

Being a mere Christian is, therefore, really not enough; being a heretic is much worse. Catholicism qua orthodoxy, moreover, cannot morally abide with heresy, which very important point ought to be quite obvious to anyone having more than just a passing acquaintance with the rich fullness of the dogmas, doctrines, and teachings of the Church.

But, sometimes, things must occur to shock people into recognition of the truth. Nihilism, often related to reductionism, can often disguise itself, especially when there are enough people willing to be fooled. The proclaimed or believed in glories of the Second Vatican Council have, therefore, created their own obnoxious mythology, a vile pool of lies, that has sadly obscured the critical need to come to the right realization of what, simply, Christ taught. His everlasting words are true, not the rarified pratings of theologasters, court jesters, and others who were gathered at that damnable mid-1960s fiasco. But, why is this rather harsh pronouncement made?

A good tree will bear good fruit; a bad tree will yield forth bad fruit. And, major heresy, the great evil under discussion here, has the known effect of trying, so to speak, to crucify Jesus a second time. What is, however, the malevolent matter at hand? What is the grave danger needing exposure to the truth?

The Vatican and mainstream Protestant sects, especially devotees of Lutheranism, are planning a co-celebration1 [see: Notes] of the so-called Protestant Reformation or, as others would better call it, the Protestant Revolt started by Martin Luther in 1517. This, this nihilism, so certainly exemplifies the true Spirit of the Second Vatican Council (VCII), which ought to give one pause. What are, however, the odd implications, ramifications, and consequences involved? Besides unfortunately giving more and more ammunition to the schismatic sedevacantists, why is, moreover, blatant nihilism said to obviously exist?

Insanity, craziness, would be a gross understatement as to the monumentally crass thinking involved, as G. K. Chesterton would have agreed. But, no superlatives could thoroughly cover here the profound irrationality and extremely major lack of just plain common sense, so gratuitously exhibited by such a tremendously bizarre decision, at deliberate co-celebration to be actually done by the Roman Catholic Church. Let the rather serious matter under critical discussion, therefore, be properly illustrated and extrapolated boldly and quickly here, as a surely requisite kind of grave warning, of strong admonition.

Analysis and Considerations

What is to so strangely occur, in the year 2017, is, thus, 1.) a full public admission by the Catholic Church that it was, of course, absolutely wrong in its complete and harsh condemnation of Protestantism and 2.) a congratulation of Protestantism in general (and Lutheranism in particular) for, then, succeeding in its existence as an open, continuing, and avowed opponent of Catholicism. In all honesty and upon solid reflection, nothing less is implied, though all that could possibly be said might not be made so explicit.

Only overt nihilism, therefore, clearly stemming from the philosophically nominalist developments and sad aftermath of VCII, could be so sophistically used as a “logical” justification for making such peculiar endorsements so plainly consistent, surely, with the evil reality and nature of the postconciliar Church’s substantially misdirected efforts at ecumenism. How, in true charity, has this basically occurred?

The mental and psychological acceptance of nominalism, over the course of time, eventually destroys the human mind’s ability to cogitate effectively, objectively and with basic, concrete reasoning abilities.2  Dissociative thinking, as direct consequence, becomes the norm, not the exception. There then comes the allied unfortunate inability to properly detect major philosophical or theological error. Thus, such a supposedly cozy co-celebration readily appears, therefore, to be just a rather nice or good idea to many Christians and others. Of course, the clear horror is unseen when such an untutored opinion is given.

In forever staunch and needed opposition, the preconciliar Church, as is today represented by the Latin Mass Community, frankly condemns both propositions 1 and 2 as then being absolutely, religiously, and theologically incommensurate, incompatible, and illogical to the nth degree. It rationally could not be otherwise. The open perversion and sure travesty ought to be readily manifest, meaning for all those people, Catholics and Protestants alike, who still can truly think with objective minds on this subject.

In addition, elements of indifferentism and latitudinarianism, at a minimum, cannot be far from the total evil reality confronted, by this insane co-celebration, with its certainly both implied and explicit niceness notwithstanding. But, for goodness’ sake at least, let not evil be called good.

Even, moreover, those Lutherans and other Protestants still having sound enough minds would both clearly and immediately recognize the absolute incongruity and integral absurdity of 1 and 2, as long as such a thing as traditionalist, orthodox Roman Catholicism exists as a continuing coherent opposition, religiously and theologically speaking. This future joint celebration of the Protestant Revolt is, without question, a vilely and contemptuously nihilistic act that necessarily must logically spit upon and revile Catholicism as it, thus, simultaneously praises and commends the positive existence of Protestantism. As William F. Buckley, Jr. was “fond” of quoting Leon Trotsky, who says A must say B.

And yet, if legitimate reflective powers of the mind are adequately or better exercised, Protestantism, in the process, is necessarily itself mocked, belittled, and contemptuously handled, as if it were a mere semantic derivation of just a quasi-Catholic internecine dispute that really, in the end, had no notable consequences, for either Protestants or Catholics.

It seems to celebrate a type of generic Christianity having, thus, become, over the centuries, a kind of syncretistic religion open to all Christian believers of whatever derivational opinions or persuasions (aka denominations/sects) whatsoever they may be. Concretely, one sees this in the supposedly amiable presence of, e. g., Christian bookstores, which do not today call themselves Protestant bookstores, of course.

The blatant nihilism inherent in the aftermath of VCII has, moreover, greatly come to easily facilitate planning for this horrid co-celebration of the permanent fracturing and disarray, sorrowful breakup and disembodiment, of what had once been gloriously called Christendom, the Kingdom of Christ, where there had been only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for believing Christians. It used to known, of course, that heresy is a grave moral evil that has terrible consequences, not just social or cultural repercussions.

But, today, there is ignorantly assumed to be variational multitudes upon multitudes of just happily undifferentiated and, perhaps, multidimensional Christians with mainly quite porous denominational structuralizations as such. The “pragmatic” move beyond dogmas or doctrines as such is done in open preference for goodness or niceness. Or, as Whittaker Chambers put it politically, liberalism is Christ without the Cross, a blasphemous parody at best.

The incredible scope and depth of this unconscionable and reprehensible matter needs, nonetheless, seriously to be put into some sort of appropriate perspective by giving an analogy as to what is being proposed by these erstwhile contemporary Christians. There needs to be the proper understanding that the, in effect, decided glorification of heresy is morally obnoxious, not just intellectually objectionable or, perhaps, subjectively problematic as to its, by definition, invidious nature. An attempted analogy may help, though knowing, admittedly, that all analogies are imperfect, of course.

This coming together of Catholics and Protestants (no matter how supposedly well meaning) would be equivalent to having both Jews and Nazis pleasantly celebrating, say, the Centennial of Kristallnacht or Reichskristallnacht as a joyous occasion, which was a cruel pogrom against Jews throughout Germany and parts of Austria on 9–10 November 1938; it would be, of course, a happy time for the Nazis, not for any of the Jews (or, at least, one would not assume so).

Mostly likely, any exultant prospective Jewish celebrants would be accounted as being insane, except, perhaps, by the possible minority of truly self-hating Jews. (In life, moral perversion yet remains a possibility.) What of Protestantism?

In that such a major heresy condemns millions of souls to Hell, the heinous, by definition, results of the Protestant Revolt had been once abhorred, publicly and unreservedly, by the fully contrary religious and theological teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But, this is only true, in the proper strict sense of meaning, for the preconciliar Church, which now resides, for all practical purposes, with the Latin Mass Community. The postconciliar ecclesial establishment is guided by the Spirit of VCII [read: nominalism], which raises a problematic kind of relative or flexible adherence to particularly Catholic dogmas and doctrines now thought just to be hoary artifacts or, perhaps, dusty relics of a bygone era, of a rejected past.

Modernity in religion, championed by enlightened secularism, now stridently claims to have risen above and beyond mere childish or reactionary concerns (read: dogmas) for any religious correctness. Most postconciliar prelates, on average, generally try to avoid being too harshly judgmental; this is regarding firm points of any apparent or seeming disagreement, while, thus, seeking out any limits or welcomed degrees of supposed basic agreement, even with those people who (probably or definitely) are heretics.

There are, as one could image, notable problems involved that logically do or ought to impinge severely upon serious and critical religious and theological distinctions and considerations. At a simple minimum, the enduring truths of (orthodox) Catholicism are still mightily involved, as one could guess.

The preconciliar Church, knowing full well the contrary teachings of the Council of Trent, would have easily thought this obnoxious future action to be highly inconceivable, plainly unthinkable, beyond any true rational question; it would not have had any doubt whatsoever that such a morally and spiritually prohibited meeting, under such bizarre circumstances, would be simply axiomatically impossible to so square with the always opposed tenets of (orthodox) Catholicism.

Weirdness is a word requisite to this situation that ought to shock knowledgeable observers having at least a modicum of basic theological training and knowledge, meaning as to why any proper Catholicism must, in fact, fundamentally reject Protestantism and vice versa. Prosaically speaking, oil and water don’t mix.

Of an institution boasting more than two thousand years of existence, meaning the Roman Catholic Church, even a mere one hundred years ago this intolerable, insufferable, consideration would have never ever been thought of, much less allowed to come to any real future fruition. One can come to perceive how nominalism in cognition, in reiteration, ends up detrimentally fracturing and fragmenting the human mind, such that what ought to be only a clear case of insanity becomes seen as a “normal” Christian expression of assumed brotherhood, presumed niceness, to many people.

Craziness and idiocy, however, become now accepted as normalcy itself, when fundamental logic and religious orthodoxy itself is set aside, in the unreal spirit of a debased and warped ecumenism. Did, e. g., many tens of thousands of martyrs, from both sides, finally die in vain? Was staunch fidelity of belief a mere form of unneeded superstition among so many deluded or, perhaps, misguided souls? Was the entire Catholic Reformation or Counter Reformation inherently, by definition, misdirected somehow or other? Then, is Catholicism itself a false faith?

These and many other important and probing questions could be asked, therefore, in some valid attempt, significant effort, at better understanding and comprehending the truly profound gravity of what is being proposed, as to this future Orwellian co-celebration event or events. Ultimately, what is being demanded, whether known or not by the participants, is the overt refutation and denial of the basics underlining both Catholic and Protestant attitudes and orientations, as to what ought to be divergent social, cultural, religious, and theological directions of necessarily indicative thought.

But, the revealed reality involved is actually quite different than what ought to be the true case here. A much watered-down Catholicism, fleeing long ago from the ever practical dictates of sound and solid orthodoxy, now mildly and blithely meets up with an often equally insouciant or, rather, spiritually diminished Protestantism in this regard. Any joint “festival” would be done or held under the rather vile auspices of a manifestly debased Christianity, many debatable beliefs relegated to the level of mere general religiosity deemed to be, perhaps, piously somehow at least “Christian” in spirit. What might some say, nonetheless?

Whoring after Righteousness

Neither any self-respecting Catholics nor Protestants should have anything to do whatsoever with such a religious and theological fiasco of an obviously immense magnitude. It is an absurdity right on the face of it, as has been repeatedly indicated with reasoning and logic. Not even the use of such words as parody and mockery, caricature and burlesque, can come to adequately express what will, necessarily, occur upon such an odd occasion, when insanity parades itself as being normality so put upon display.

There will be, however construed, a combination of thoughtless senselessness and intense stupidity manifested by the spiritually deranged participants heedless of all reason, logic, and plain common sense, besides intelligent appeals that ought to be made to applied doxology and dogmatic theology.

At a minimum, deliberately commemorating and celebrating what ought to be rightly regarded, from the (orthodox) Catholic point of view, as a tremendously hellish tragedy of monumental proportions would seem to be something that could only be thought of as an instance of displayed wretched nihilism exhibited to an excessive degree. It is, by definition, so greatly immoral and, at the least, spiritually degenerate. Words, however, would seem to then utterly fail in trying to adequately describe why such a commemorative quincentenary event, for Catholics, ought then never to occur or even be considered, moreover, an odd possibility in any way whatsoever.

While it may be logically conceded that Protestants, being religious radicals, would wish to take note of and celebrate what they would consider the birth of the Reformed Theology Movement, etc., however, even many of them should appropriately question the propriety of jointly memorializing the beginnings of what provoked great hatreds, recriminations, and tribulations.  The so-called Wars of Religion Era (which was not really about religion)was not exactly a truly happy time for Christians. What may be, therefore, significantly meant by any outlandish desire to go whoring after righteousness?

At the least, it is highly problematic, besides being, one suspects, so very unwholesomely strange. This matter, as to religious, theological, and spiritual implications, requires much thought and reflection as to the inherently undisputed gravity of what really is, without rational question, so terribly involved when, e. g., raising the important cognate issue of the eternal damnation of millions of souls, past, present and future. Nothing less is involved.

The Wittenberg Protest Quincentennial Celebration, for all those who do seriously adhere to the tenets of Catholic orthodoxy, becomes then a means of joyously greeting such an evil occasion when the forces of Hell had achieved yet another triumph on earth. No morally and spiritually sane Catholic ought to participate, much less members of the Church hierarchy. Of course, as an avowed champion of VCII, Pope Francis, in 2017, can be expected to send a letter of congratulations, thus, to the Lutherans in his enthusiastic concession that Luther was, after all, right about certain matters. But, this would be how, analogously, even a broken clock gives the right time twice per day, not for all the hours of each day.

In that the postconciliar Church, being a product of VCII, will come to actively and willingly embrace such a demonic revelry, there should be no real doubt that VCII had contained elements that do so define the nature of the nihilism involved with such aberrant beliefs; they are, in fact, not at all consistent with true Catholicism nor with orthodoxy, as ought to be plainly revealed. Furthermore, what exists as, in effect, the undiluted praise of heresy, regarding the upcoming Wittenberg Protest Quincentennial, is always reprehensible and repugnant to Catholic truth and its righteous defense.

What is being incredibly witnessed relates to the malevolent triumph, in the minds of ignorant and, perhaps, certain well-meaning but entirely misinformed Christians, that they are, in fact, attesting to, as regards rationalism, materialism, positivism, pragmatism, and, above all, secularism, in having definitely diminished, in the 21st century, the basic meaning of religion and theology to the final point of sheer absurdity and meaninglessness.

No Christian in his right mind, whether Catholic or Protestant, ought to want to believe that a manifestly damnable and insane lie must now be taken to be just the wholesome truth. Such is a consequence of cognitive reductionism.

No right-believing Catholic ought to congratulate the Protestants for having damned, and the willingness to further damn in the present and future, millions of souls to Hell; conversely, no genuinely committed Protestant, having any substantial awareness of the teachings of Protestantism, could join in with the recalcitrant infidels (aka Catholics) in commemorating what the (formerly hated) Papists had once so unconditionally and vehemently condemned as absolutely, unquestionably, evil during its beginnings, meaning, of course, the entire Reformation.

Such insanity is still not, ought not to be supinely thought of as, normality. As was wisely and rightly pronounced by the Council of Trent, Protestantism, meaning any such form of religious radicalism, is forever anathema; it is, by definition, an abomination before God.

Recently, in one of the grand homelands of Protestantism, Christianity in Britain has been said to be a “generation away from extinction” unless the Church of England figures out how to appeal to young people to get them back to its increasingly empty pews, a former Archbishop of Canterbury has declared, according to Fox News. “We ought to be ashamed of ourselves,” Lord Carey stated, according to the Religious News Service, and “if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future.” Protestant triumphalism, as one can see, had ended long ago.

Modern reliance upon the many immoral sophistries of pragmatism, positivism, and overall secularism has deluded Christians into believing that religious/theological belief need not really have any logical consequences, whenever the earthly and corruptive god of ecumenism demands to be worshipped. Reconciliation with grave moral error is then made to seem entirely normal and praiseworthy. But, nonetheless, something needs to be importantly made clear.

This is not meant as a (renewed) call for hatred directed against any people; it is not, as will be shallowly charged, the revival of an old internecine “feud” among Christians. The odd modernist/liberal view of ecumenism often wrongly crushes any support for the missionary spirit of Catholicism. The liberal logic is plain. If Protestantism is held to be valid, then no one really needs to convert to the Catholic Faith, even in all those places where Protestantism3, as in England, has so utterly and deservedly failed.

Likewise, ardent Protestants can, thus, now totally give up the idea of converting any Catholics because all are now simply Christians, for the decreasing numbers that still care to believe, of course. It is easily perceived, nonetheless, how the corruption of ecumenism, started by VCII and fostered significantly by its very horrid aftermath, leads necessarily to such base reductionism. But, what is the underlying cause for this mental and allied moral confusion and disarray?

Because of the great influence of philosophical nominalism, the secular modern culture has, in effect, substantially triumphed against Christianity. Secularism has, therefore, aggressively come to bigotedly define the accepted terms of Christianity itself for both Catholicism and Protestantism. In that neither many/most Catholics nor Protestants seem too unduly affronted (as they ought to rather vigorously be) attests to the enormous success and vigorous pandemic nature of secular humanism, as Muggeridge had interestingly noted.

This is especially as to its notable defining of the predominant intellectual, societal, and cultural norms for religion and theology that do seem quite popularly acceptable. When clearly understood and rightly comprehended as such, this evil of prescriptive secularism, which too often goes very unrecognized and, thus, totally unchallenged, is now the epistemological means and basis of correctly interpreting both religion and theology. Is this aforementioned thought, however, just much too farfetched?

On the contrary, one can properly recall that, in the just recently past 20th century, Mircea Eliade, an avowed atheist, had, thus, become widely accepted and celebrated as being a prominent theologian! The contentions made in this article may, then, have been slightly minimized, not ever terribly exaggerated.

But, for all sincerely believing Christians, this really ought to be, moreover, absolutely anathema and without any question. Such wild aberrations and nihilistic fits, for the viewing of sincere Catholics, will not really end, however, until what may be called the Conciliar Captivity of VCII is rightly ended.

It is, so to speak, a kind of analogous historical parallel to the Avignon Captivity when the popes were not at Rome and, instead, made the headquarters of the Avignon Renaissance papacy in France. The Conciliar Captivity is rather a bizarre mindset, not a matter of physical location, by which the intellectual, psychological, and emotional Spirit of VCII keeps enthralled the predominant majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to its and the world’s tremendous detriment. The Church Militant, its existence or time on earth, has gone decidedly wimpish and, one suspects, is in hiding regarding this serious issue of known Orwellian proportions.

Thus, the postconciliar Church remains in a dysfunctional state of sorrowful anguish and ever ongoing institutional, religious, and theological crisis yet unresolved. Nor is there the observed spiritual will to deal with the crisis. This is mainly why the Western world has, unfortunately, undergone substantial de-Christianization and neopaganization.4 In the meanwhile, truth is being bastardized and Christianity inverted upon and against itself in the worthless effort to please the capricious secular world and its relativistic sensibilities, instead of attempting to please Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, the Son of the Father.

Nonetheless, it is plainly not for the bland sake of niceness, as was discussed earlier, that good Catholics would want Protestants to convert; it is, however, for the loving sake of the perpetual salvation of their precious souls, which is of the height of true Christian charity, not the having of mere altruistic or nice thoughts. What is to then occur, in a few years, at the birthplace of Protestantism is, therefore, not simply intellectually absurd, it is extremely morally obnoxious and obtuse beyond belief.

Of course, within the oh-too-sophisticated realm of the secularized culture, Christians are to display good fellowship because particular beliefs and doctrines are to be logically just subordinated to nice expressions of good will; thus, Catholics ought to benevolently and kindly look upon the upcoming celebration, in a plainly benign and gracious manner, as just a pleasant time of historical and other commemoration and inconsequential reminiscence; this is by which all Christians, professing to be lovers of Christ, can simply lay aside absolutely unimportant or trivial differences (read: dogmas) and join in the happy festivities.

This fits in, so pleasingly well, with the tendentious sort of rationalism, pragmatism, and relativism that paves the way toward the good intentions that do, proverbially, lead to Hell, not Heaven certainly. The secularist viewpoint put on display here is, upon truly cogent examination and analysis, quite demonic in its set orientation. By all means, it might be so said, why not be altruistic or, perhaps, have a decent humanitarian regard for being nice. But, what is wrong? Satan, the Great Deceiver, is well known to specialize in trying to make evil look like something that could be good to believe or to do.

However, the secular regard, in terms of modernism, for a supposed Christian fellowship/brotherhood for the taking of a positive view of the Reformation, which is a heartbreaking sadness, is merely the bizarre convenience of choosing an easier path toward the Infernal Regions. Sin and damnation, the vile ultimate fruits of heresy, are always supposed to be those terrible things to be quite rightly abhorred and avoided, not usefully embraced and found truly enjoyable.

Any division of Christianity, any grave religious and theological scandal, therefore, against the fullness of requisite catholicity pleases Satan enormously, not Jesus Christ, which may or may not be the same opinion of Pope Francis.5


Therefore, let the case be made here perfectly clear. The preconciliar Church would have, logically, found it to be simply totally inconceivable, unimaginable, to ever join in with cheering on the historical beginnings of Protestantism, the Protestant Revolt, against Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ.

Furthermore, it is historically accurate to say that 16th and 17th century Protestants would have been aghast at the ridiculous notion that loyal and truly believing Catholics would be highly favorable toward a positive co-celebration of the Reformation’s origins. Prior to such nihilistic modernity of thought, plain insanity would have been logically assumed.

What is to sadly occur in 2017 should, as a consequence, be the proverbial last straw to break the old camel’s back in terms of thoroughly invalidating and discrediting VCII and revealing it, finally, for the integral horror that it was, for the nihilism that it deliberately and intentionally had spawned.

Contrary to the often perverse attitudes of the postconciliar Church, a half-millennium, no less, of the certainly harmful existence of significant heresy is not something to be truly joyous about, in any way whatsoever, concerning what had happened at Wittenberg. There is, therefore, something that must be still made known as to religious and theological certitude, contrary to the Orwellian attitude concerning needed Christian truth.

Catholicism and Protestantism are not, contrary to the evil obfuscations of the modernists, just mere variations of Christianity; they are always, as to their ultimate beliefs and doctrines, mortal enemies. Only one, as traditional or classic logic would always indicate, can contain the exact fullness of the Truth, the other must be the known container of heresy. There can be, therefore, no real or viable middle ground to choose on this titanic issue of literally salvific importance.

There is, thus, solely the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, none other exists. For example, the Lutheran Church, Lutheranism, was obviously founded by Martin Luther, not Jesus Christ. And, as a quite clear result, a Protestant is not, by definition, a Catholic. Those who attend such a now future celebration, therefore, ought to feel indescribably ashamed, for they do disgrace the name of Christian, they spit upon the face of Christ, knowingly or not.

Athanasius contra mundum!

1.) Lutherans and Catholics bury the hatchet for Reformation’s ……Lutherans and Catholics have pledged to celebrate together the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, with both sides agreeing to set aside…VATICAN CITY (RNS) Lutherans and Catholics have pledged to celebrate together the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, with both sides agreeing…Jun 17, 2013 • Senior Roman Catholic and Lutheran officials announced they would mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017 as a shared event rather than


2.) For over 1900 years and definitely prior to VCII, the Roman Catholic Church had consistently held and taught that there is only one true Faith; it is to be found exclusively within the Catholic Church. There is the dogma of “outside of the church there is no salvation,” Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which has not yet been officially repealed, though often ignored by modernists.

Thus, all of the Protestant churches/faiths must be, by definition, totally false because they offer no basis for the proper securing of the path toward the salvation of souls.  If this were not true, then the Catholic Church should have fully disbanded itself many centuries ago, even prior to the anti-Catholic Protestant Revolt, the movement toward and in favor of the so-called Reform Theology. The Reformation was, in at least its first hundred years, the effort to totally replace and supersede, as a complete and supposedly legitimate replacement, for the absolutely denounced and rejected Catholic Church, which was, of course, plainly logical from its Protestant point of view.

Instead, what historically had happened was that an ever growing and forever splintering and widening variety of churches, sects and a bewildering multiplicity of sub-sects had arisen as various Protestant denominations, along with the continuance of the Catholic Church. Protestantism inherently contained within it the vile flaws of a number of notably individualistic and greatly centripetal principles that causes the perpetuating monumental scandal of explicitly denying the forever sacred words of Jesus Christ.

There is not now one Shepherd and one Flock for all those who do, thus, call themselves (Protestant) Christians, meaning, of course, outside of the Catholic Church with its pope as the proclaimed one Vicar of Christ on earth.


3.) Regarding this matter, the brilliant analytical words of Blessed John Henry Newman are more true today than when he first had written them in his Development of Christian Doctrine: “Protestantism, viewed in its more Catholic aspect, is doctrine without active principle; viewed in its heretical, it is active principle without doctrine.”
Pope Pius IX, in his magnificent Syllabus of Errors, condemned the notion that the so-called Reformed Theology is the same true Christian religion.

Monsignor Robert H. Benson said, in his The Confessions of a Convert, that: “A soul cannot be eternally satisfied with kindness, and a soothing murmur, and the singing of hymns.”  Perhaps, Chesterton, in words taken from his Autobiography, had quite keenly spotted, early in the 20th century, the intriguing and unconquerable flaw in English religion when he, rather insightfully, said: “… it is far more terribly disturbed by any Protestant who still preserves Protestantism.”
But, what is really terribly wrong with all such unfortunate heretical thinking was stated critically by William E. Orchard in The Way of Simplicity: “Even the merely and the most militant Protestant Church would lose its raison d’ être if the Catholic Church ceased to exist.” Heresy, in the end, exists ever as only nihilistic negation. Nothing positive can actually sustain it, so it is a form of justice that it simply die off in England.


4.) Both de-Christianization and neopaganization would not have been increasingly possible without much prior secularization fundamentally, though not entirely, contributed to by the spreading rise and development of Protestantism, which had deliberately conceded more and more illegitimate power to the State. A vehicle for continuingly empowered secularization resulted. A major disturbing example of this was how the institution of marriage was wrongfully made a function of the modern State, as with, e. g., Lutheranism.

One can come to realistically see that the harmful collapse of Christendom had lead, among other negative consequences, to the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and two world wars in the 20th century. Protestantism’s once optimistically proclaimed effort, done at the height of its hubris, to totally replace Catholicism had failed miserably; and, this fallen world, filled with fallen men, has been paying the quite burdensome price ever since that demonic effort began. Thus, the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation is actually a sorrowful time for much profound mutual commiseration, not absurd or, perhaps, heavily self-congratulatory celebration.
Among other terrible results of the influence of progressive secularism, there are Christian clerics now officiating at sodomite “marriages” all across the Western world, which is experiencing increasing moral decay and necessarily cognate societal and cultural disintegration. The Weimarization of America, also, continues apace.


5. Admittedly, the thinking in this heavily pro-Catholic article is strongly contrary to much of Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium, which contains heretical and bizarre statements, e. g., suggestive of his socialistic preferences for tyrannous arrangements that would help to forever destroy free market economics in the world. Of course, the Pope, protected yet by the Holy Ghost according to Catholic dogmatic teachings, cannot issue any ex cathedra heretical statements; but, however, his personal opinions are clearly heretical when he seems to plainly indicate, e. g., that Mohammadans need not convert for the sake of their salvation.
In the preconciliar Church and the Latin Mass Community, such a thought is entirely unconscionable, which suggests why the postconciliar Church shares much in common with Lutheranism or, at least, with original Protestantism in its nominalist preferences and orientations. Pope Francis, in his siding with the heretical orientation of VCII, is publicly known, e. g., for incorrectly rejecting the Catholic doctrine of supersessionism, meaning that the New Testament had, thus, fully replaced/totally superseded the Old Testament of the Jews because of the fulfillment of Redemption by the crucifixion and resurrection of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ.
The denial of supersessionism by a Catholic is easily seen to be, by definition, obviously heretical.

Pope Francis as an Open Supporter of Tyranny

Pope Francis as an Open Supporter of Tyranny: His Ignorant Opposition to Free-Market Economics

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Human beings, according to traditional, classical Natural Law teachings, have the inalienable right to be free. God has not decreed that men are to live as slaves. Socialism, by whatever euphemism, seeks to enslave people to the State. The clearly charismatic Pope Francis, in his attack upon free-market economics, has firmly aligned himself openly with the massively evil forces of injustice, corruption, oppression, and tyranny. His extravagant praise, e. g., for the late Nelson Mandela who was a militant supporter of abortion and life-long communist, shows how morally warped the Holy Father’s thinking really is.1 [see: Notes]

He ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself but will never be. This prelate, moreover, is already being talked of publicly as the (neo-Marxist) Occupy Movement’s Pope, in a way that, e. g., John XXIII was called the Maoist Pope. And, the Holy Father has been called, one ought not to be surprised, the Barack Obama of the Catholic Church.2

Fortunately, his morally brutal ideological/political opinions that basically match Obama’s, in favor of Leftism/collectivism, are not to be confused or confounded with Roman Catholic doctrines or dogmas. But, is this current Vicar of Christ being wrongly, once again, misunderstood? Are all the liberals and leftists, as is often alleged, always forcefully just putting words into his mouth, directly and certainly contrary to his own more “moderate” beliefs and opinions?

A valid question may be properly raised here as to if this assertion is tenable, plausible, and likely given occurrences surrounding this extremely prominent leader of the Catholic world who had, e. g., enjoyed denouncing the memory of Ronald Reagan in terms of specific economic matters. Yet, is there any valid gage or, perhaps, test of the Holy Father’s thinking?   Do birds of a feather flock together?

A Theology of Liberation was a book written in 1971, by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian Marxist, priest and theologian. In September 2013, it is quite interesting to note that Pope Francis had held a friendly meeting with Fr. Gutiérrez, as was so reported by L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper. It is known, moreover, that the Pontiff has favorable views about the Marxist-oriented, so-called liberation theology, which is, one may guess, by no means a moderate point of view or, perhaps, a modest opinion.

At a minimum, he went, with aforethought, out of his way to deliberately engage in ideological debate and must, logically speaking, accept the largely predictable penalties thereof.  He has stated openly that he has come across many Marxists who are good people.

One seriously wonders, however, if he would be so easily willing to publicly say that he had ever met, e. g., Nazis who also are good people in his esteemed opinion?  This is as unlikely as it is fairly doubted. In any event, it is not absolutely necessary to be a fully “card-carrying communist” to still have certain sympathies in that direction, even regardless of not being a Marxist.

Capitalism versus Free-Market Economics

Of course, an important and critical epistemological distinction needs to be properly made, which he does not at all make, between capitalism and free-market economics, the latter which the Holy Father has openly condemned as being always wrong. Capitalism, known also as crony capitalism, statist capitalism, state capitalism, or neomercantilism, is supported by and, in turn, fully upholds statism and its consequences. The concentration of economic power supports the consolidation of political power for the sake of the political-ruling class, for all corporate-welfare oriented capitalism is, for instance, merely a legalized form of theft.

It affirms wanted domestic interventionism in economics, for oligarchical reasons, to help secure the corrupt ruling class in its unjust power exercised against the common people; it favors, logically, any degrees of suppression, repression, and oppression necessary for, thus, securing capitalist profits to be wrongly guaranteed, moreover, by State power. Crony capitalism, and its conduct, is the very definition of such absolutely anti-free-market activities by which the State determines the economic winners and losers. If this is what the Pope condemns, he would be completely and unquestionably correct to do so at all times.

Such obviously heinous corruption and injustice favors corporate welfare, subsidies, tariffs, quotas, and all such means of vilely ensuring that Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor, the Iron Triangle as it has been rightly called, makes sure that any free-market activities are either suppressed, severely limited, or, whenever necessary, eliminated entirely in the immoral service of capitalism; it is the corrupt economics of oligarchical supremacy necessarily favoring the ruling class, the power structure, the technocracy.

Thus, having the common satanic goal of subjecting all of the common people to tyranny, there is, therefore, seen to be absolutely no real antagonism or any assumed hostility between communism and capitalism. Force and fraud are then the true hallmarks of capitalism and communism; both necessarily rely upon statism, the demonic lust for all temporal power, for their evil success and allied corrupt achievements to advance a materialist-secularist society and culture dedicated toward nihilistic ends.

Capitalism, by factual definition, abhors all true entrepreneurship, competitive innovation, actual economic risk, and truly genuine competition; it seeks, moreover, to actually destroy or, at least, greatly inhibit or substantially reduce all four such aforementioned free-market forces from any economy. It prefers having actual monopolies and utilities existing rather than to permit free and fair competition for, thus, helping any consumers. Consumers, the common people, are held in contempt as mere sheep to be sheared at will.

Capitalism and communism, in fact, are merely the two sides of exactly the same coin of modernity; both do greatly support secularism, hedonism, positivism, pragmatism, materialism, and, most of all, temporal power to be used against the masses, the people. Communism began, moreover, as the ideological attempt to better rationalize capitalism in the better service of the fullest modernization, industrialization, and urbanization of life, society, and culture by producing a positivist civilization dedicated to materialist goals for achieving complete secularization and an allied nihilistic mindset.

Whether ignorantly done or not, Pope Francis in his Evangelii Gaudium, who ought to have at least some basic knowledge about authoritarianism and totalitarianism, has solidly aligned himself with the forces of evil on earth; and, may God have mercy on his blemished soul. As far as can be seen, he has blatantly sided with the forces of corruption and tyranny against all the poor, the working classes, and humanity in general by his seeming support for collectivism. He is, surely, a disgrace to Catholicism and, it ought to be said, his apparent attitude deserves mightily to be denounced as such.

Free-market economics or entrepreneurialism3 supports the right of people, without force or fraud, to peacefully engage in economic intercourse without the State determining the losers or winners. No mechanism, in all of previously recorded human history, had beforehand existed for raising hundreds upon hundreds of millions of the common people up out of poverty, squalor, and hopelessness, as to their economic circumstances and futures. No amount of private charity or government supplied funding conceivable, moreover, could have possibly ever done so or has ever done so.

For instance, since the 1960s War on Poverty in America, at least a minimum of $15 trillion dollars has been uselessly spent, for over 50 years, to forcefully and ideologically/politically fight poverty in, thus, seeking its total eradication; it has fundamentally failed; it will always fail and, one can here easily add, predictably so.

But, this extremely wasteful ideological-political effort, let it never be forgotten, was and is the greatest of its kind in the entire recorded history of humanity aimed at supposedly exterminating poverty in any one country. It remains a purely utopian project, a false dream, to ease the consciences of upper middle class and wealthy liberals and leftists. However, only productivity really produces; not statist fiat. What is then properly meant? Redistributionism, in fact, never at all works to really eliminate any substantial poverty, which is plainly an empirical fact of economic reality.

Today, the same rate or percentage of people living in poverty exists as it did in the 1960s, though the exact level at which such official poverty is declared, ironically, keeps being constantly raised, which, upon critical analysis, really does not make any sense. Why? This is because such forever relativistic “poverty” becomes, by definition, totally eradicable and, moreover, exists only as a mere statistical consideration; it is, in effect “idealized” as an abstraction. It is, thus, an absurdity to contemplate.

An America “poor person” these days, be it well noted, would have been appropriately called middle class in the 1960s! This obviously makes a total mockery out of any meaning attributed to what may or may not be characterized as so-called poverty, especially after the government has spent $15 trillion. Nonetheless, it is still an empirical fact that real progress has been yet made, meaning that significantly hardened poverty has been truly beaten down, not through supposed State interventionism but, rather, whenever a free-market economy has been allowed to function.

Free-market economics, especially as is rightly defended by the Austrian School of Economics, supports hopeful entrepreneurship, interesting innovation, creative risk, and, of course, many degrees of always useful competition. Consumers are, therefore, free to be the proper masters of economic decisions, not the State.

Thus, there truly needs to be, as may be guessed, a total political/ideological separation of Economy and State to allow a free people to live with a free economy and a liberated political order. Furthermore, there is no conflict between free-market economics, when rightly understood, and Catholicism, as is evidenced, continuously, by the Acton Institute headed by Fr. Robert A. Sirico.4

Admittedly, human beings are not perfect; no economic system ever works perfectly and can never do so because people are involved with it, besides many other related causes of error, difficulties, etc. The issue at stake concerns what does less harm. A State that tries to create a Utopia, in the name of an ideology, that delivers not Heaven but Hell on earth or the Welfare-Warfare State that gradually reduces most people toward a basic subsistence level the longer it operates are, therefore, both much worse than a free economy with a representative, constitutional republican order qua free government.

As long as both capitalism and communism/socialism are suppressed as cognate moral evils, then the poor, the working class, middle class, and others are then free to live without fear that the State can determine how they intimately ought to live, as with, e. g., Obamacare. Or, as with its horrid death panels, not live at all. Socialism, by its very materialistic nature, is ultimately nihilistic and tends toward the worship of death; it positively, moreover, celebrates the Culture of Death, which certainly makes all the more disturbing and downright shocking the Holy Pontiff’s strong and overt support for it.

Of course, as the State can only be the power sufficient or great enough to allow for the existence of successful monopolies by its support, therefore, no truly free-market activities would, thus, come to economically threaten consumers, the buying public, the general masses at large. But, what can further help to better make sure that possible corruption does not make a free-market institution become oriented toward capitalism and its many noted and known faults?

What is needed is correct adherence to the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity, which Pope Francis seems to publicly reject, by which appeal for the redress of grievances is made first to the lowest private levels within society and, later, on up, step by step, to the higher levels; if, however, the private attempts at remediation or arbitration are found not to be satisfactory or better, then public appeals can properly be made.

The same is to be civilly done by first going to the local political order(s) before, if needed, going on to the higher ones; the Holy Father, unfortunately, with his faith placed in statism, prefers direct massive action done at the highest level of the interventionist State or international interventionism, if thought necessary by him. Above all, his open favoring of tyranny, through a heartfelt devotion to socialism, is quite distressing, to say the least.

Of course, one may note that it has been repeatedly said, as always, that the present Pope has been mistranslated, according to his many dedicated spin-doctors. He may end up, no doubt, being then the most mistranslated and, consequently, highly misinterpreted popes in the entire history of the papacy, breaking all previous records. But, among many others, such notable Catholic websites as and do still seem to basically understand and comprehend his overall political liberalism and, at times, overt radicalism quite well. Only his sycophants definitively state that they (and they alone?) are correctly interpreting (or is it reinterpreting?) his [disturbing] words.

In any event, Pope Francis, filled with charisma, has made it abundantly clear, time and again, that he sincerely upholds and greatly respects the work of the Second Vatican Council, which, in his thinking, is a position much more congenial toward collectivism than was true for the preconciliar Church.

One can easily cite: Pius IX’s Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849; Leo XIII’s Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881; Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884; and Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878; also, St. Pius X’s Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, August 25, 1910; Benedict XV’s Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914; and, of course, others issued by later pontiffs.

But, Francis, a darling of the progressive media, also does not heed and, perhaps, studiously ignores the surely important and insightful considerations of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, when he wisely wrote, in his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, promulgated on December 25, 2005, that:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.”

Benedict XVI knows that with State socialism, having, by definition, coercion and force on its side, there is no genuine choice, no real chance to truly exercise free will; one is expected to obey or possibly get arrested and imprisoned, e. g., for not paying any confiscatory taxes necessarily demanded by the evil collectivist regime. In sharp contrast, a free market qua free-enterprise economy allows, by definition, free choices to then exist; there is consumer sovereignty, the opportunity to exercise self-government without coercion or force being applied to choices made. And, if a consumer feels mistreated by a company or business, there can be the appeal made to government.

But, when the culprit is the State, as with Obamacare, there is no appeal, which points out just one of the many differences between a true market economy versus the command economy demanded by statism, meaning implemented by and for the needs of the Administrative State, the Bureaucratic State.

Obviously, free choice among consumer goods and services offends Pope Francis; he would rather, one supposes, that the common people, inclusive of the poor, are dictated to by the State. The State will, thus, determine what the needs and wants of the people supposedly are, again, as with Obamacare being a major example of its kind.

Nonetheless, it is not obligatory for all Catholics to accept the Pontiff’s apparent preference for tyranny. On the other hand, if he meant to condemn and thoroughly criticize capitalism as discussed in this article, then he is to be praised to high Heaven for opposing such evil; however, it is rather too clear that it is free-market economics which really draws his fire and hatred, not the kind of economics allied to statism. The noted compatibility and reciprocity, friendship and mutuality, of true capitalism and communism, therefore, seemingly does not greatly attract the keen attention of this particular pontiff.

The best economic hope, for the oppressed masses that Pope Francis says he is so very concerned about, resides in firm support for free-market economics, not State socialism or State capitalism as has been above indicated. But, instead, he seems to absurdly dream up collectivist [nightmares] visions as his version of Utopia. Consequently, it is not very unusual than Hans Küng, a contemporary heresiarch, has publicly expressed his truly ardent enthusiasm for Evangelii Gaudium; he contends that it validly expresses the thinking of the Pontiff.

If the Pontiff had a greater appreciation for truth and knew more about the real history of poverty, he would then logically reject the cause of tyranny, oppression, injustice, and corruption, instead of warmly embracing, by at least implication, all those essentially evil features of communist/collectivist regimes with their harsh and malevolent command economies.

Historically speaking, meaning as to the documented facts, prior to free-market economics sustaining a market economy for the masses of people, there was no socioeconomic vehicle whatsoever by which literally millions of people over many years or, sometimes, a few years could raise themselves up or be moved up out of poverty. It is, thus, the most tremendous poverty destroying mechanism that has ever existed.

In ancient and medieval times, for instance, and given even a maximum, e. g., of great concerted effort and good will unparalleled in all of human history, there was simply no way of achieving this kind of absolutely incredible and extremely impressive success, as to the eradication of deadening poverty, meaning on a truly mass scale, for many millions of people. It needs to be said that the growth of income inequality, furthermore, resides with capitalism or collectivism; this is because the market economy qua entrepreneurial society tends greatly to spread wealth around because of increased social mobility, availability of capital in general, capitalization per worker, technological innovations, etc.

Economic prosperity for the masses, one of the main functions and results of free-market economics, a humane economy, since it naturally requires mass consumer prosperity, was made empirically possible, not theoretically conceivable. Substantial poverty, at a deadening level, was no longer the historical norm for those countries that would intelligently chose having a true market economy, a broad basis for prosperity and entrepreneurship, an opportunity society qua the good society.

Furthermore, the replacement of a premodern society of status for one of free contract relationships enabled human beings to take more personal responsibility for their lives and added to enlarged social mobility and widened freedom in the world. The Leftist totalitarians, with which he has, unwittingly one hopes, aligned himself, desire to re-create the premodern social status society in the false name of progress. They want, in fact, a ruling oligarchy on top ideologically and brutally dictating to the masses, which is not at all consistent with Catholic social teachings as ought to be known by the Pope.

The free-contract society of modern times, made possible by intelligently allowing the existence of free-market economics regarding the operation of economic order, usefully prevents the always scheming totalitarians from succeeding at their plans for totalist domination and oppression or, at the least, authoritarian repression/oppression of the people. If he, however, attributes economic, social and other evils to capitalism (meaning not to actual free-market economics), then he is completely accurate, of course, concerning such a proper condemnation, though this problematic interpretation, perhaps, may be yet doubtful. But, something is clear.

Doing away with needed free-market economics or entrepreneurship will not actually help the poor, just the opposite can be easily expected and predicted. Communism qua supposed collectivism, in fact, has not eradicated poverty anywhere that it has been ever tried, which significant fact ought to be known to Pope Francis. With his open attacks upon having a free economy for people, his concerns for the poor, when analyzed, are thus really utopian, not Catholic.5   One of the best means or ways of showing true solidarity with the poor is to render support for an economic system that actually offers them hope and a positive future, not the pessimistic and negative favoring of a form of zero-sum game qua collectivism.

It is doubtful that he could be so highly ignorant, especially about the past terrible doings of all the command economies of the 20th century. Of course, on the other hand, one does not suppose that any pope would come out with an endorsement of, e. g., the Austrian School of Economics; however, it might be hoped that any reasonable pontiff, knowing as he should about the documented suffering of poor people under Communist regimes, would still be somewhat skeptical to some degree about the ideologically alleged virtues of collectivism. This should be logically true, unless Pope Francis is devoted to aspects of liberation theology with its open and evil love for tyranny.

Collectivist utopianism, of which liberation theology is merely a variant, is related to neo-Pelagianism, the secularization through ideology, meaning Marxism, of the Pelagian heresy, which taught the idea that man can be perfected because the dogma of Original Sin is denied; in contrast, fallen creatures in a fallen world, acknowledged by the perennial teachings of Catholicism, are easily suitable participants within a free-market economy that does not, e. g., assume any supposed thoughts of perfectionism on earth, unlike collectivism with its necessarily allied utopianism.

The imperfect but always viable market economy, not the command economy seemingly preferred by Pope Francis, is then much more aligned with the defective realities of human life, inclusive of how Catholicism is completely compatible with the elements of entrepreneurship, not socialism by whatever euphemism. Man is not destined on earth to become, therefore, a perfected creature free of sin, regardless of how the optimistic secularist Enlightenment and then post-Enlightenment thought would so characterize human beings.

The horrific world wars and genocides of the 20th century, among other developments, had crushed forever the optimism of the 18th century Enlightenment and the hopeful 19th century with its vision of unending Progress (a God-term if there ever was one) of future peace and contentment. The nature of man, however, sides with free-market economics in terms of its acceptance of the reciprocal realities of this world of scarce resources matched with the need for applying the economic law of supply and demand.

The greed, inequality, suffering, injustice, cruelty, unfairness, and much else that the Holy Father surely objects to relates fundamentally to the actual conduct of either capitalist or communist oligarchies, the latter refers, of course, to when communist parties are running countries. None of the terrible things he mentions has anything substantially to do with the realities, not ideological stereotypes, of free-market economies if truly allowed, by the State, to function and operate as such.

Therefore, the massively pathetic ignorance of the Pontiff is obviously backed up by his manifestly uninformed bigotry and observed prejudices, not the truth. While his heart is charitably said to be in the right place, his mind remains ideologically elsewhere, meaning, apparently, somewhere on the political Left. For instance, the Social Darwinism of Manchesterian Liberalism, as depicted accurately by Charles Dickens in the character of Ebenezer Scrooge, had nothing whatsoever to do with, e. g., the then contemporary political conservatism in England.

Pope Francis, in wanting to be piously fashionable by attacking nasty things, has picked the wrong target. Equally, he ought to know that modern moral sentimentalism, applauded loudly by secularists and Leftists, is not ever to be correctly or appropriately equated with Catholicism. And, all so-called public charity ends up, sooner or later, being the disgusting immorality of merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. True social justice, furthermore, is accomplished privately by acts of compassion and good will, not through thievery/confiscatory taxation done under ideological cover of State benevolence.

The public or coercive sector, empowered ever by collectivist-inspired greed and injustice, engages in redistributionism and interventionism at the expense of the taxpayers who subsidize the taxtakers; it is, by definition, always a false/deceptive form of charity that usually, on average, makes the majority of the recipients ungrateful and, consequently, the plundered angry. The former are rarely ever fully satiated by the plunder that comes to then seem, over time, inadequate; and, the latter are typically assumed, by the Leftist ideologists and social engineers, not to be adequately taxed enough.

Only a zero-sum game, a command economy, results by which the economic pie necessarily gets smaller and smaller, generation by generation, which is, of course, always totally unlike the entrepreneurial, ever-expanding nature of a free-market economy. Thus, collectivism in the real world, eventually, must fail. In a sense, redistributionism is actually calculated to fail, as with the example of Obamacare.

It is designed to keep poor people poor for helping to maintain the powerful in their positions within a social status society. Pope Francis, on the other hand, may be suffering from some Don Quixote fever in his romantic desire to attack windmills. In any event, regardless of his intentions, the important cause of Catholicism is not truly served by the Holy Father’s seeming desire to be popular, to be a celebrated media star. He has obviously projected upon free enterprise his bad experiences with capitalism in his native Argentina and thinks that what he saw there simply, by definition, represents a universal reality.

If he is genuinely serious about helping the condition of poor people, with the basic assumption that he is honestly interested, then what is actually needed is to successfully provide increasing access and availability to more good and services for the poor; this is, of course, as to its basic accomplishment, simultaneously the increasing of the progressive and active reach of free-market economics, which, ironically, he adamantly opposes, even though a genuine market economy helps the disadvantaged.

It is the seeming and bizarre paradox that gets quickly resolved by understanding that his ideological opposition to truth is what is involved here, not the substantial ability of a true market economy to, thus, function when left free to do so by the State. The Holy Pontiff’s own absurd bigotry then creates the unfortunate economic blindness. He cannot ever see the truth that freedom is much better than economic slavery, however, because he is an ideological bigot. His public pleadings become self-serving rhetoric as he condemns a system necessarily based upon free cooperation that helps the common people versus collectivist nightmares built upon systemic fraud and force, deception and coercion.

The pontifical preference is to just slander and attack the only economic system for providing more and more goods and services to an increasing number of millions of people than has ever, in fact, been true prior to modern times, which thought, thus, substantiates his so totally invalid prejudgments on this important matter. What seems to be going, however, is how a media-star guided papacy comes to create in the mind of its holder the desire to expand the actually limited principle of papal infallibility from ethics and morals towards economics and anything else he may so have in mind.

And, this is how a cult begins to develop among his ardent admirers as a pope pontificates further and further afield. Someday, it is hoped, he will remember that he is the Holy Father, not a White House economist, and appropriately concentrate his needed critical efforts at the salvation of souls.

Ironically, Obama’s Amerika (as the Left spells it) still gets criticized by Pope Francis, a place where, from 2009 to 2011, basic income inequality had increased four times faster than under Obama’s predecessor. Those who, in positions of power, typically preach against income inequality are almost always the same ones who end up producing more of it. On the other hand, with a true free-market economy, the rapid increase in wealth that naturally occurs from crescive productivity and enterprise spreads more rapidly throughout a society, over the course of time, than has ever been true of any actual collectivist regimes in all of recorded human history, which significant fact, apparently, does not impress the Holy Father.

The substantial creation of wealth, its accumulation as a surplus that can then be spent privately, allows for an upper strata in society that can demand improved and new products that then eventually spread out over an entire population; as obvious examples, telephones, cars, televisions, refrigerators, gas ovens, etc. were once owned only by a very tiny minority of wealthy people; now, by the workings of free enterprise over time in terms of requisite wealth generation, they are amazingly possessed by many hundreds of millions upon millions of people throughout the entire world.

It is clearly demonstrated, empirically, that the highly useful generation of wealth, not the zero-sum redistribution of it, definitely raises, again and again, millions of poor people out of crushing poverty, not socialism. Productivity, the proper activation of capital, plant, equipment, and personnel, produces abundance.

The scarcity favored by collectivism and crony capitalism does not benefit poor people, the working class, or the middle class; only the political-ruling class oligarchy enjoys the always dubious benefits of supposed redistributionism done through the oddity of democratic despotism with its quite hellacious claim to populism. The bad things condemned rightly by Pope Francis are systemic to either capitalism or communism, not free-market economics when uncorrupted by State interventionism and its results.

Thus, Obama’s Amerika ought to be Pope Francis’ version of an earthly paradise, though it is known not to be. But, the ugly growth of the cult surrounding the Holy Father will insulate and isolate him, more and more, from criticism, so that he will believe strongly in the “truths” of his own pronouncements concerning free enterprise.

Papal Cults: A Modern Danger

Starting with John XXIII and as was vividly seen with the pontificate of John Paul II, there has arisen, in line with the new orthodoxy coming out of the Second Vatican Council that created the neo-Catholic movement, the rise of papal cults now plagues the Catholic and even much of the non-Catholic world. Part of the offered proof of this considered assertion concerns the dual canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II (remember, he is called by many “the Great”) scheduled for April 2014. What is the trouble here?

The purpose of the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Bishop of Rome, is not to seek to become, directly or indirectly, a solid media personality. Why may this be said? The fairly cultic aspects of such papacies, becoming truly international sensations, are then revealed to be a true danger to religion. Dynamic personalities, getting intense press coverage, tend to skew thinking away, in their pronouncements, from the particular and constant teachings of the Church and toward the idiosyncrasies and attitudes, opinions and preferences, of the then current pontiff. What may usually happen as a result?

Loyalty to the office of the papacy and its institutional reality and meaning, which ought to be expected from all Catholics, gets unfortunately confused and confounded with how one “feels” about the man who then currently holds the hierarchical office. This is not healthy, religiously or theologically speaking, regarding always the precise theological basis and cognate significance of what so needs to be properly understood and comprehended as such. If a particular pope in public, say, would wish to pray the Our Father with his hands raised up to the sky, then, e. g., numerous neo-Catholics get the “signal” that they also should adopt the same practice, as if it were, equivalently, a new found dogma or doctrine of the Faith.

The practices or beliefs of popular popes get transmuted into becoming somehow or other “dogmatic” enough to find a general assent among those who align themselves with the cult surrounding that Holy Father. A too-often media generated popularity leads to the desire to conflate individual idiosyncrasies with essential beliefs and practices of the Faith, especially in the minds of the neo-orthodox, meaning the neo-Catholics in tune with the radical attitudes and aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.

Thus, e. g., the cult status of John Paul II seemed, in effect, to axiomatically immunize him from a great deal of valid criticism from those who wished to defend the teachings of the preconciliar Church versus the postconciliar Church. A cult is now arising, as could be guessed, among the contemporary followers of Pope Francis who, again, seek to basically accept whatever he has to say, as if it is simply equivalent to Gospel truth. However, the true nature of the hierarchical-monarchical papacy, as a consequence, gets wrongly confused. He is the religious shepherd, chief pastor, of the entire flock of Christ, not just another “democratic” cleric, among many, within the Church.

Pope Francis’ preference for command economies, therefore, is not relegated, in isolation, to the mere status of an opinion but, rather, gets powerfully transformed, especially by a favorable mass media, into becoming the seemingly official attitude of the Catholic Church, meaning, thus, a blanket opposition to all of free-market economics and its cognate implications and ramifications entire. The neo-Catholic position, as a result, then seeks to conform itself to what overtly appears to be the known papal position against entrepreneurship or free enterprise economics. Conversely, for such papal cultists, if he came out as explicitly against socialism, they would adopt the same beliefs as being orthodox.

The significant point to properly cover here is that actual religious and theological orthodoxy ought to relate appropriately to the perennial teachings, doctrines, and dogmas of the Church, which the papacy is, of course, duty bound to accept and defend and promulgate as such. What is the modern danger?

Excessive and unwarranted loyalty to a pope, his separate cult during the contemporary era of his office, can get quite wrongly conflated with requisite loyalty to one’s Catholicism, which should never be case. Furthermore, no pope is to be thought of as being free of criticism, though, these days, most criticism is usually said, by the mass media, to validly come only from the religious left, not the right. And, this adds greatly to the various and sundry peculiarities that do exist as a consequence of such absurd thinking.

On the contrary, as correctly taught by the Common Doctor, the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, any Catholic, in orthodox defense of the Faith, is entitled and expected to respectfully admonish even a pope, as, e. g., St. Paul had spoken to St. Peter to rebuke him concerning the Gentiles Controversy. Furthermore, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Avila had admonished popes during their lives. The sacred office of the papacy does not at all fully exempt it from appropriate criticism, meaning when there is the genuine need to properly and firmly reprimand, reproof, a sitting pontiff.

However, the modern and entirely distressing papal cult status acts as a kind of protective device to supposedly shield the Holy Father from criticism, as if there were a papal version of the Divine Right of Kings, which is, of course, contrary to Catholic teachings. If Pope Francis uses official statements or encyclicals to push forth his political ideas and notions, as with such an obvious attack on free-market economics/human liberty, under the ever convenient guise of religious exhortation, he is asking for trouble, not just a sympathetic hearing for those beliefs.

Human liberty is indivisible. If mankind has ever learned at least one thing of absolutely permanent significance from the 20th century, with its terribly vicious world wars, barbaric genocides, horrendous death camps, etc., it ought to surely be that human liberty is indivisible. Thus, within such a prominent context, Pope Francis is then seen to be forever manifestly and irrefutably wrong. His then unfortunate position is, therefore, morally indefensible and untenable to the nth degree.

One ought to perceive so clearly, therefore, that if a man’s economic freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, etc. is robbed from him, there can be no real guarantees whatsoever that other freedoms are then to be kept truly secure either. As with genuine constitutional governments, it takes the existence of a reciprocal civil right to make a constitutional civil liberty operational and functional, e. g., a civil liberty allowing freedom of assembly is still empirically, practically, meaningless unless it is accompanied by a civil right of freedom of association.

Otherwise, disallowing freedom of association only makes freedom of assembly a theoretical, not actual, right, as was totally true, e. g., in the Soviet Union, which was said by positivists and others to have had a rights-giving constitution. But, supposed rights fully minus the practical means of reasonable actual exercise are obviously meaningless, within the context of their theoretical perfection, having no real-world application therefore; thus, in reiteration, human liberty is indivisible. Q. E. D.

If Pope Francis had followed the advice and thinking of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV and other pontiffs, there would be no need to admonish him concerning his rather unfortunate aberrant beliefs that are, sadly, more in line with liberation theology and not according to the teachings of the Church. Thus, pronouncements against free-market economics has nothing to do with promotion of the Catholic Faith in terms of what the papacy is supposed to be about, especially regarding the advancement of the cause of Catholicism qua true belief, not the Pope’s internet or media presence.

A Catholic Case for Free-Market Economics

Therefore, free-market economics, since it holds force and fraud to be illegal and contrary to a true market-based economy, is consistent with Catholicism as regards the economic realities of human life and existence; it is, of course, never to be absurdly thought of as some sort of odd rival or alternative theology.

Its concerns are with matters pertaining to this world, and it is only a neutral mechanism; human free will is, thus, required for its operation by which good can be chosen against evil, as to the economic decisions made; and, Catholicism, moreover, ought to be appropriately exercised for all decisions, economic and otherwise, which includes abundant appeals for the increase of private charity and ongoing concern and compassion for the poor.

Everything pertaining to this fallen world of fallen creatures ought, as the Church teaches, to be kept within its proper limits, which is, certainly, forever untrue of the forever demonic and expansionist aspirations of the blatant utopianism seen in collectivism. Entrepreneurship, when held true to its inclinations and operations free of oppressive State interventionism/regulationism, can never enslave people, unlike what is so evidently true of communism or its various substitutes.

When the economic pie is allowed to freely grow, everybody, not just government technocrats and bureaucrats as under a collectivist system of a command economy, benefits. Moreover, the standard of living of consumers, including the poor, improves more and more, unlike want systematically happens under all statist-dominated systems, as witness the massive power failures in communist Venezuela.

While capitalism and communism definitely have blood on their hands, the same can never be said of the mere practice of free-market economics when kept within legal, ethical and moral restraints, which are needed for its correct and sound operation and functioning. Capitalism and communism, however, know no true legal, ethical, or moral restraints, which ought, at a bare minimum, to suggest the many superiorities of a free-market economy for sustaining a free people in freedom versus tyranny, meaning in strong defense of the former with its general sense of reasonable hope, rational optimism, and open opportunity for many millions of people.

The noble and positive pursuits of private charity, benevolence, munificence, and magnanimity are, moreover, not to be ever held in any conflict with free-market economics; the same cannot be said, one can easily guess, of the evil goals of totalitarianism, of a thoroughgoing police state. A free people under God, if capitalism can be properly avoided, are much less likely to ever pursue the many known evils of collectivism that do axiomatically exist, by definition, within a command economy, as is favored by crony capitalism. In any event, it can, also, be added that Catholicism opposes tyranny, not just capitalism (meaning as it is defined in this article).

Good reading, attesting to these and cognate assertions, would surely include: Samuel Gregg’s Tea Party Catholic: The Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy, and Human Flourishing, Fr. Robert A. Sirico’s Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, which all do much further and significantly substantiate and extrapolate, demonstrate and expostulate, the forceful contentions that were made briefly in this present article.

While such a recent book as Christopher A. Ferrara’s The Church and the Libertarian correctly condemns libertarianism for the nihilistic ideology that it is, however, he commits the old error of wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.   Moreover, compared to the vast bulk of professional economists, only a relatively infinitesimal number are Austrian School economists; and, extremely few people, among the academic community and general public, even know of its existence. The Austrian School thinking is not a prescriptive code of morals or compilation of religious precepts.

Ferrara’s volume is the result of a personal vendetta or feud with Thomas E. Woods, Jr., which is an unseemly affair not worthy of this public exhibitionism. The support for a free economic system is not equivalent to the notion that people must think and act like good Manchesterian liberals of the 19th century. So-called cutthroat competition need not be endorsed as the moral standard of conduct. Equally, workers, in terms of rational morality, do not ever owe their lives, health, or safety to their employers; this is now, after all, the 21st century. No committed and believing Catholic advocates an economy of Social Darwinian proportions, a kind of economic jungle with creatures bloody in tooth and claw, contrary to Ferrara’s absurdities. Nor support for Manchesterian liberalism.

A truly humane economy, therefore, can exist today with rules, laws, and a sense of order that does not exclude, in any way whatsoever, notions of solidarity, subsidiarity, and social justice; none are, in short, incompatible with economic liberty within a free society, contrary to the negative, anti-free market beliefs of Ferrara. He sets up an argumentative straw man for knocking down and assumes, of course, that the putative argument gets fully proved as a result. Confiscatory taxation, however, has done much more to actually destroy private charitable impulses than has, for instance, the mere creation of wealth.


Collectivist or socialist systems have and do still, in fact, exist that have and will terrorize, oppress, butcher, and subjugate millions of human beings; the same, however, cannot be ever said about the Austrian School of Economics. Ferrara absurdly uses the proverbial sledge hammer for his effort to kill a flea; the argumentation, as could be guessed, is then entirely disproportionate to any conceivable threat within the real world, which makes his book essentially farcical in nature as an excessive diatribe against the Austrian School and free-market economics in general. Catholicism, it should be known, is not ever meant to become a fetish of intellectual dispute concerning economics or anything else.

The Catholic Faith, therefore, should have no real affinity whatsoever for any command economies where the people, especially the poorest, are exploited by the ruling oligarchy, whether capitalist or communist, meaning the corrupt political-ruling class. Thus, Catholicism, directly contrary to Pope Francis, can fairly coexist reasonably within a free-enterprise economy where the people, including the poor and working class, can both genuinely and substantially experience an improved standard of living, as well as needed political and economic freedom to live.

There can be no real economic perfection on earth, only the chance for allowing for the existence of a humane economy, which is to be completely denied to the poorest of the poor by the Holy Father, their assumed champion. He wrongly wants to deny to them the only economic system, historically speaking, that can genuinely help them and their children’s children as well.

Athanasius contra mundum!

2. 11/26/13. See also:
3. The Austrian School of Economics best defines and defends the thinking about and nature of free-market economics should the reader be interested in further research upon this matter.  In any event, the world will never ever be terrorized by the Austrian School of Economics, unlike collectivism and its results.
4. For easy confirmation of this fact, one can consult:
5. For instance, see: Thomas Molnar’s Utopia, the Perennial Heresy.


Alejandro Chafuen, Faith and Liberty: The Economics of the Late Scholastics, 2003.
Christopher A. Ferrara, The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Man, Economy, and State, 2010.
Samuel Gregg, Tea Party Catholic: The Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy, and Human Flourishing, 2013.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, 1982.
Fr. Robert A. Sirico, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, 2012.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, 2005.

Preconciliar versus Postconciliar Church

Preconciliar versus Postconciliar Church: Incommensurate and Asymmetric Realities
By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Pope Francis illustrates vividly that, today, some fifty or so years after the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), there are, in effect, two truly different and diametrically opposed Churches, to wit: the Preconciliar Church and the Postconciliar Church. This oddly results in a Janus-headed reality.

Their fundamental orientations and attitudes, seen in prayer, liturgy, Mass, and otherwise, are definitely incommensurate and fully asymmetric as to foundational purposes and meaning. Two ecclesiastic positions, therefore, exist with no substantive viable means of reconciliation available because their integral natures and realities, in overt terms of reference, are so radically different, totally incompatible.

This rather notable major schism, now informal and unofficial, will certainly, over time, become (more) distinctly formal and official, if no strongly countervailing events dictate otherwise. There is no real way, under the present practical and empirical circumstances, as is so evidently indicated by the thinking and conduct of Pope Francis, of ever correctly reconciling, unifying, or, perhaps, fundamentally adjusting the Preconciliar Church with what manifestly acts as the now Postconciliar Church establishment.

A Practical Schism Unnamed as Such

Only someone with what might be called a diarrhea of the mind can still supinely insist, after 50 years of ongoing and open destruction, that the Council was all or mainly/mostly later somehow misinterpreted. No. It was, in fact, deliberately oriented, especially so in its perniciously intended, heinous aftermath, to be, in most respects, a crypto-Protestant attack upon the fundamental depositum fidei of the Church set directly as a demonic stake fixed upon the heart of the institution itself. One can note, e. g., that John Vennari, William Marra, and many others have written about this important matter concerning its greatly vicious attack upon (orthodox) Catholicism.

What had unfortunately occurred, over these past forlorn decades, was, thus, neither coincidental nor accidental as to the malicious intentions plainly involved. It was the integrally corruptive achievement of that quite subversive modernism, prefaced upon nominalism, rightly denounced by Pope St. Pius X. Furthermore, those who today still persist and seek to disagree do so willfully by credulously ignoring the obvious truth; they become, in effect, the allies of the many enemies of the Church, of the Catholic Faith.

Of course, a schism is, admittedly, not assumed to exist at all and is supposed to be something clearly unwanted and very abhorred; but, after all, the old Latin Rite is, in fact, officially now marked off as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass, which is to be then forever, one supposes, extremely different and distinct, necessarily, from the obviously mainstream ecclesial presentation known as the Novus Ordo (New Mass). The latter was seen, by Pope Paul VI, as a rather suitable means for helping to celebrate the modern Church’s version of the Cult of Man on earth.

Much can be readily said about the many conditions and related cognitive conceptions under which the two situations, the two versions of “church,” seem to critically confront each other, to obviously split apart one from the other, which is, in effect, the central or fundamental consideration at hand.

There are, in fact, two popes existing at the same time, though one is, yes, officially retired. However, Benedict XVI was tending, in his sympathies, back toward the thinking of the Preconciliar Church as seen obviously in his Summorum Pontificum. Pope Francis, in evident opposition, quite ardently supports the affirmed exemplification of the evolutionary attitude of the predominantly existing reality, which may be called the Conciliar Captivity, meaning the sorry aftereffects of the Second Vatican Council. It could be said to analogously parallel, in many ways, the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Era Papacy.

The authoritative Preconciliar Church (PrC) faithfully resembles, by its own inherent definition, the older, traditional Roman Catholic Church of immemorial generations from the honored past, present, and into the future; on the other hand, the Postconciliar Church (PoC), seen as ever evolving, is basically reminiscent, as could be rightly suspected, of a main Episcopalian establishment, widely ranging from its decidedly High Church to Low Church alignments, meaning, as could be then fairly guessed, in its so many and quite variable religious and spiritual fixations or passions that do exist. This so includes, of course, the Charismatic Movement definitely considered as being solidly within the scope of the PoC.

Contrary to all that, the PrC, for instance, can then correctly be referred to, in an integral and clearly substantive manner, as to what was, is, and will be, similar to simply reciting the prayer known as the Glory Be. The important reality of what is meant exists as being manifestly self-evident, as is the overt nature of self-evident truth contained in, e. g., the US Declaration of Independence, when it says that certain truths are to be simply accepted as known by nature.

Prior to the certainly horrid advance of philosophical nominalism in America and elsewhere in the Western world, such clear substantial matters were just held to be, thus, logically and reasonably indisputable, knowingly incontrovertible as to epistemological doubt. If a truth really needs or must be associated with a proper demonstration of it, then, by definition, it is not actually self-evident.

In sharp and revealing contrast, since the Second Vatican Council (VCII), the PoC has been in a state of (wanted) evolution or fluctuation; it is generally best, therefore, to speak of it in broad terms of what will be or may be as to the future, much like the changing or variable present during which, from time to time, there is much still left in religious and theological dispute. Again, Pope Francis, therefore, superbly and rather accurately exemplifies and underscores discernably the relative and inconstant nature and fluid reality of the PoC, of the ongoing rebellion against and, in fact, logical rejection of the PrC.

He makes decidedly clear things, through words and actions, which could seem implicit but do become rather decisively explicit, meaning as to the many troubling differences and serious points of suggestive and inevitable conflict. Whenever looked at closely and carefully, moreover, the PrC and PoC are then really opposed, divergent and, ultimately speaking, different ecclesial entities that, moreover, seek to consciously address and affirm quite different religious, spiritual, and theological issues and concerns. Similarities, if they seem so, are actually superficial, not deep in their many conflicting sensitivities and referents.

Unfortunately, one can intelligently note that the vast bulk of the people of the Roman Catholic Church today, inclusive of the predominant majority of the hierarchy, do yet thoroughly refuse to honestly or openly accept what has been here so plainly asserted, as to what ought to be the obvious truth. The supporters of the New Mass, regarding the majority of them, and all that it implies would wish for the Traditional Latin Mass Community to just disappear, though that does not seem at all likely.

What will be dramatically interesting to see is how the apologists for Francis are going to handle the predictable time, probably next year or sooner, when he finally comes out with an outlandish statement having wildly winsome theological implications and even more extreme ramifications as to, perhaps, doxology. The myriad mental gymnastics and contorted convoluted exegeses, putting this mildly as an understatement, would then be quite wondrous to behold.

This has been made mandatory, in a sense, since the arrival of the “new orthodoxy” based upon full or basic acceptance of VCII by the neo-Catholics (such as, e. g., Jeff Mirus), as they have been indicatively denominated. They have, repeatedly, sought to purposely corrupt and deform the depositum fidei of Holy Mother Church for the evil sake of their ideological preferences, though the majority may be ignorant of the evil that they do.

There is to be no worship of or idolatry directed toward any pope; and, surely, no pontiff is ever to be a dictator. Each Holy Father is, moreover, duly bound to properly pass on undistorted the teachings and traditions, generation after generation, of the much honored Fathers and Doctors of the Church. In this noted regard, it is an appropriate defense of the religiously important institution of the papacy to say, in addition, that its monarchical and hierarchical structure cannot be renounced, any more than could a traditional king foreswear his royalty, in preference for a personal declaration favoring republicanism. But, Church politics seems to never cease in strident defense of the Conciliar Captivity.

The ideologically clever fast-tracking of the (now simply axiomatic) canonization of John Paul II added to that of John XXIII is meant to forever silence critics of VCII by, in effect, “canonizing” that odd council to make it, thus, seem forever sacrosanct in the too often ignorant minds of the faithful, by attaching such newly minted saints to its supposedly now hallowed reputation. There is even a movement to do the same for Paul VI, which is, in fact, no surprise at all. What, however, is really going on?

In the harsh realm of aggressive modernity, one perceives clearly that blatant ideology (read: secularist orientation) rudely enters into every corner of human life, including that of religion. These, in context, rather questionable, mean-spirited canonizations are certainly meant as in-your-face slaps against all the orthodox traditionalists who still righteously oppose the many obvious evils of that 1960s gathering, especially the majority of the known and, usually, sacrilegious features of its heinous aftermath.

The Church’s predominantly regnant liberals and leftists love the PoC, which suggests why traditionalist Catholics have more strangely in common with, e. g., today’s Protestant religious conservatives than they do with their liberal and leftist coreligionists. Again, one needs to see that this is an allied, ongoing cognitive function of the aforementioned pervasive ideology within the ever strange realm of blatant modernity. Catholicism is now, as a direct consequence of ideological divisions, split among orthodox, conservative, liberal, and leftist variations, which certainly goes against the notion of there being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is a horrific scandal, of course, that was substantially, though not entirely, brought about under the auspices of VCII and, moreover, its always cognate radicalizing developments and ramifications, not just simple implications. Few people, it is said, really learn from history. There may be the natural suspicion, in addition, that Pope Francis is in certain ways repeating the dumb mistakes of Pius IX when he earlier had befriended, e. g., the Italian Revolution, only later to become a tormented victim of it.

The current pontiff, it is wisely suspected, seeks somehow to make curious friends with radicals, leftists, freethinkers, and liberals and, perhaps, broadly assumes that they will just sort of stay with him during the full course of his pontificate or, at least, most of it. If so, he will eventually be in for a deserved rude awakening, as with what had happened to Pius IX. Meanwhile, the current Vicar of Christ, who seems to want to deal with a healthy secularism, is enjoying his (false) springtime, as truly did that other properly chastened, aforementioned pope. He thinks that some amiable, charming atheists1 [see: Notes] can be his bosom buddies, his handy pals.

The Church can, in truth, never actually make “friends” with its certainly dedicated enemies; they have necessarily adverse and actually incompatible agendas that cannot be ever really mixed or mingled with the divine mandate given to Catholicism. Of course, the always morally corrupt ideology of the Conciliar Captivity is hostile to any oppositionist thinking, thus, Pope Francis has denounced political ideologists, especially, of course, if they may be political conservatives; if only the neo-Catholics could eschew their own ideology, which is almost hoping for a miracle; it would set a good example.

In any event, Francis, seemingly enamored of the enemies of Christ, must eventually decide if he wishes to remain a much widely celebrated media figure of this age or, embracing Christ, do the difficult and responsible pontifical business of defending Christian truth vigorously; both are, in fact, not possible at the same time, given the heavily secularist prejudices and biases of the mass media; his many erstwhile companions of the current time.

He must then, at the close of the religious business day so to speak, ultimately choose between being a tremendously glorified, contemporary, pop-culture icon or Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church. If he is truly a holy man of God, he will definitely take up the Holy Cross for “communication” purposes, as to teaching of the Faith, not the taking up of a telephone or iPhone. Moreover, his so amiable chattiness with prominent God deniers affirms their overt sense of self-righteous normalcy during a substantially Godless age; he, thus, gratuitously offers serene comfort, not moral rebuke.

The unctuous and vilely dispiriting example of Holy Father Francis is, therefore, of an obviously quite diminished and nastily impoverished Catholicism, not exactly a demonstrably superb version of the Church Militant surely. This affirms, as one ought to see, the rather too sordid truth regarding the Postconciliar Church and its inherent nature as such.

The Ultimate Dividing Line: Holiness of God

Of course, in marked and pertinent reiteration here, the Roman Catholic Church is always defined as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. To be Catholic is to be called to holiness. But, what finally divides the two positively opposed conceptions of the Church relates ever to the proper understanding and correct comprehension of holiness, of sanctity; in particular, one can here note the inscrutable and, ultimately speaking, always absolutely ineffable holiness of the Lord God Almighty.

It is fundamentally this and not, moreover, simply differences in various approaches to theology, liturgy, etc. that definitely and critically separates the PrC and PoC positions. How is this interestingly meant?

The proto-emblematic and inherently obscene disobedience of Adam and Eve2 that sadly resulted in the expulsion from the Garden of Eden caused the consequent creation of Original Sin. But, why was there such a problem or fuss made as pertaining to the fundamental nature of metaphysical order? The Deity is so extremely sacred and hallowed, exceedingly holy beyond any mere human comprehension, such that this permanently terrible act of disobedience became an offense that could not be forgiven until the Son of God Himself was crucified in requisite atonement for it.

Although the Sacrament of Baptism completely removes the vile stain of it, every mortal sentient being born into this world, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, has consequently and logically suffered from what the First Parents wrongly and willfully did. Their direct disobedience was an act of unutterable, severe profanation set deliberately against the holiness of the Lord Almighty whose commands are not to be questioned or even doubted, for the Son of Man is the King of Kings.

Moreover, the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ means that all of man’s entire life, society, politics, and culture must be made subject to this fact, which was noted in 1925, when Pope Pius XI had courageously issued his important encyclical Quas Primas. As Western society has faded away from a Christocentric viewpoint, there have been many severe negative consequences; but, the rebellious failure to obey God had also lead to troubles in ancient times as well. One instance will suffice.

Moses, after seeing, many times, the literally many tremendous wonders, signs, and awesome powers of God, struck the rock twice, heedless of what he was told to do just once; thus, the great Prophet, subsequently, was not permitted to cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Moses, however, was very lucky not to have been immediately blasted off the entire face of the earth for such a major transgression. The punishment of Adam and Eve, becoming fallen creatures, was even more severe in that the wages of sin is death. Bodily death is, of course, due to the result of having had the curse of Original Sin.

Heaven, by their actions, was previously closed to all souls no matter how virtuous their lives might have been in this fallen world, according to Catholic teachings. That then must, among other major reasons, certainly show just how much the evil of Original Sin and the titanic offense it greatly represents against God needed a very suitable and most apposite means for its atonement, which could not, however, be accomplished by any mere human being(s).

It is ever exceedingly hard for human creatures, being imperfect specimens, to really know about the gigantic magnitude, universally vast enormousness, of the truly magnificent quality, the surely ethereal essence, known as the tremendously immense holiness of the Lord, the Supreme Being Himself. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, says that about such metaphysical matters people can actually only think in analogous terms of reference, meaning as to even the furthest human limits of such related possible cognition.

Only the angels and the Communion of Saints are said to be appropriately capable of withstanding being in the divine presence of such literally awesome holiness set forever beyond the ever meager mental grasp of poor mortals on earth. This eternally quintessential attribute of the Exalted Divinity exceeds all proposed human claims to whatever degrees of supposed perfection that might, perhaps, be assumed by all mortal creatures, past, present, and future. All and any earthly superlatives imaginable describing this forever remarkable matter cannot ever grasp the true importance and, literally, persistently cosmic magnitude of it, which absolutely extends beyond the entire universe forever.

The incredible greatness and incomparable grandeur of the hyper-superb holiness of God is, finally, beyond the mortal mind’s feeble imagination to adequately express; the furthest heights of human comprehension remain still inadequate. This inherent and definitional quality of the Unsurpassed Deity is naturally limitless and, therefore, comprehensively exhibits infinite limitlessness. In short, He only is independently, infinitely, and immutably holy without qualifications.

It is an axiomatic attribute of permanently indefectible moral perfection to the endless greatest extent. And, there are real consequences, implications, and ramifications to the integral existence of such a forever nth degree of undiluted and simply unparalleled, totally unmatched, holiness.

When, as is cited in the Old Testament in the Book of Exodus, that man Uzzah sought to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling, he was still struck dead; this was completely regardless of his plainly good intentions because his hands were considered to be so terribly defiled, when easily compared to the always comprehensive reality and, thus, unquestionably sacred contents of the Ark. No profanation or sacrilege, even if totally inadvertent, was to be ever permitted and, moreover, no matter whatsoever the overtly benign nature of the positive intentions involved. One of the important religious lessons to be learned is that good intentions are really not enough whenever compared to the truly incomparable sacredness of the Holy One.

It is this irresistible theological fact of such ultimately unspeakable holiness that allows for unbaptized babies to be sent to Hell, which shows vividly why abortion is a great moral and spiritual horror. (The thought here is that they are merely sent only to the far outer fringes of the Infernal Regions since no active, meaning deliberate, transgression was made by those poor souls. They do not experience any physical torment as punishment for sin, though they probably know there that they will never experience the Beatific Vision.)

As is surely expected, the modern mind, heavily influenced by secularist enlightenment3 (the Cult of Man) through many poisonous doses of pragmatism, positivism, materialism, subjectivism, rationalism, etc., is just repelled violently from this seemingly harsh thought and liberally or progressively insists, of course, that an all-loving and sweet, kindly Deity could not be so insanely and irrationally cruel, vicious, and vindictive. In addition, existentialism and phenomenology, heavily involved with the deliberations of VCII, cannot ever accept any contrary intelligent reasoning that is not fully consonant with humanist predilections and orientations in modern, enlightened thought.

It would, thus, be so extremely unliberal and unenlightened of God to ever unreasonably act in such a menacingly miscreant and mean manner. This is the solipsistic, terrene, anthropocentric point of view put on egoistic display, though, of course, often unrecognized as such; it then necessarily contradicts forever, therefore, the theocentric viewpoint always appropriate concerning any theological ultimates under intense discussion.

Again, what ought to be overpoweringly obvious, manifestly then known to be simply true, is totally lost upon all theological liberals, modernists, and progressives. Original Sin (the first mortal sin), on the part of the first humans, had grievously offended the Supreme Being who is, by definition, truly supreme for a good reason. The First Parents, in vilely rejecting all that the Lord freely gave them, wanted instead to have knowledge equivalent to God, the Holy One, and be, to some extent, Godlike; it was an insane and unjust quest for an ersatz equality with, by definition, the Infinite.

Without the requisite removal of Original Sin from the person’s soul, that soul remains permanently in absolute rebellion against the Almighty, the venerable source of all justice and right in and beyond the entire universe. If that so salient point is not correctly understood, nothing else really can be, for the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ ought not to be blasphemously reduced, as with the PoC, to a merely symbolic (read: unsubstantial) idea having absolutely no real-world consequences.

Resistance to God, especially what is known as the horror of Original Sin, necessarily forever carries fully with it the ultimate penalty of eternal damnation, without any question. Furthermore, all merely human and non-Deity related holiness, as of all the angels and saints together, still amounts to almost nothing whenever compared to the true and original foundation of it, meaning within and through the very definition of God.

Because, as really ought to be importantly known, the Lord is, by definition, eternally supremely holy without any real qualifications whatsoever; and, no opposition, no obstruction, to this theologically indisputable fact is or can be logically permitted. To admit of any exception, diminishes and, finally, eliminates the notion of the Deity toward meaninglessness. For further useful extrapolations and expostulations, one can, of course, read such pertinent volumes as Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.

Based upon the above review and analysis, it should be clear that the final dividing line that will forever separate the Preconciliar Church from the Postconciliar Church is the highly significant epistemological conception of God’s holiness and its integral nature because it has critical ontological implications of the profoundest nature and meaning for any serious Catholics.

Nuances concerning, e. g., such matters as liturgy, Mariology, Christology, or doxology could be made rightly subject to certain intensive speculation and many endless disputations or disquisitions upon an interminably wide variety of points, both subtle and plain.

However, the particular issue here regarding the major fact of truly divine holiness sincerely focuses requisite attention to something that cannot be fashionably avoided or just supinely ignored, meaning as to what can be known about the magnificent sacredness and supreme purity of the Godhead and its simply necessary nature as such. For instance, the fully unquestionable holiness of the Lord refutes thoroughly the blasphemous heresy, gaining much strength in the Postconciliar Church, of a supposed universal salvation.

This warped thinking has been made possible because the Deity, in the minds of many, has been much reduced to that of an old, doting, Santa Claus-like, grandfatherly figure who is, thus, infinitely indulgent and easily forgiving (beyond reason), not the fearsome righteous Judge of all the living and the dead. Whether intentional or not, the high holiness of God gets absurdly and unjustly diminished into being some sort of a joke. It is not surprising, for instance, that the vile heresy of universal salvation keeps spreading among too many neo-Catholics. Such would never be the case, in any way whatsoever, within the context of the Preconciliar Church.

VCII unleashed the effort of a presumed spiritual enlightenment to catch up to and match a secular enlightenment by which the two streams of thought could pursue parallel lines of discourse in terms of having an expressive “openness” toward the world. This is the ideologically praised aggiornamento (“a bringing up to date”) concept of that terribly wayward council by which the then wanted Hegelian dialectic qua idealistic paradigm could then successfully take effect. Paul VI had taken the opportunity to speak about the Church now having its own “Cult of Man,” though he, also, smelled the “smoke of Satan” enter.

The Hegelian dialectic is thus seen: The Letter of VCII (thesis), the actual documents produced, was meant to struggle with the Spirit of VCII (antithesis) to help liberally and enlightenedly arrive at a new synthesis in an assumed continual dialectical progression set into the future; a deliberate kind of “Trotskyite” permanent revolution was, therefore, to be coldly, progressively inflicted upon Holy Mother Church; and, it has, no doubt, tremendously succeeded, as is seen obviously by the ongoing grave crisis earnestly afflicting the troubled ecclesial body. What, nonetheless, needs to be better understood?

More to the immediate point, the seriously critical realization should exist that the nominalist existential and phenomenological ontology, relating to Hegelian idealism, freely accepted by the adherents of VCII is forever at odds with and, logically, opposed to the firmly Aristotelian-Thomistic ontology behind the epistemological-realist viewpoint of the Preconciliar Church. How so? This is fully shown, moreover, by the two significantly conflicting conceptions of the holiness of God that are held, which is, indeed, no small or simply trifling matter presented here for candid consideration.

Support given for the PoC is the playing out of a mere masquerade because it is the ingenious façade for cleverly disguising the base desire to hide adherence to an immanentist eschatology that reifies faith as it deifies Man. The, as a direct effect, implicitly questioned sacredness of the true salvific Deity is, thus, conveniently made to take second place to these many often barely hidden secular-humanist aspirations toward a perfectionist neo-theology that just uses religion as a rather vile ideological vehicle or weapon for worldly dominance, influence, and power.

Either the Lord God Almighty is infinitely holy or He is not; there can be no compromise or equivocation. The Preconciliar Church, as one could reasonably guess, never had any religious or theological doubts whatsoever in either its epistemology or ontology, which illustrates best the integral character and true moral soundness of the adamant argumentation that, thus, has been made and advanced in this present article defending it.


What now exists, as a result, is the anthropocentric attitude of the PoC aimed against the theocentric, specifically Christocentric, viewpoint of the PrC; these are ever, of course, two totally incommensurate, incompatible, and asymmetric realities incapable of any actual resolution within the same universe of discourse. Ultimately, this is because the superlative holiness of the Lord God Almighty, directly and indirectly, manifestly and obliquely, has been put into complete and endless dispute, due mainly to the terrible epistemological victory of nominalist philosophy. What is philosophically and religiously meant?

The rotting away of the modern mind, caused primarily by nominalism in cognition, then, in turn, necessarily destroys any proper appreciation of true theological ontology, including allied assertions concerning the (previously) undisputed holiness of God. In this significant regard, concerning the crisis in the Church and the disastrous ongoing predicament it represents, only the firm ending of the Conciliar Captivity will, therefore, bring about a major change of religious and theological direction back toward needed orthodoxy, the definition of Catholicism.

This may splendidly occur either when some saint(s) do the equivalent of what St. Teresa of Ávila did to help end the Avignon Captivity or a tremendously serious precipitating event (or scandal?) of some kind finally topples that truly ill-conceived monument to human vanity and demonic hubris known as VCII. Which suggests why prayers for Pope Francis, an admirer of Paul VI, are needed. Furthermore, it can be easily added, in a substantial statement, that any unwanted PoC ambiguity concerning Catholic religious and theological dogmas and doctrines could only be abhorred mightily by a truly Holy God.

The evil Conciliar Captivity and its ideology ought, therefore, to be righteously and logically condemned by all believing Catholics, by all of the faithful. One can, in conclusion, perceive it to be a nominalist-inspired attack directed at, and an unmitigated, unalloyed, offense of a great magnitude set deliberately against, the always unimpeachable holiness of the Lord.

Once this monumental and critical theological issue is clearly recognized as such, no loyal Catholic, therefore, ought to be sympathetic, in any way whatsoever, toward the doings and aftermath of the Second Vatican Council regarding its much needed condemnation and rejection. The ever unquestioned sacredness of God, aligned with the spirit of St. Athanasius, must be placed before and above all human ideological (read: secularist) fixations.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1. Except for those people, as an extremely tiny and insignificant minority, who are both pathetically ignorant and, also, necessarily stupid as well, almost no atheists actually disbelieve in God. Is this truth rather shocking to the rational mind? Consider: Only someone who is inherently irrational and mentally dysfunctional could ever possibly get so angry, annoyed, frustrated, agitated, or plain upset or, perhaps, object strenuously to the existence of nothing.

Atheism is, in fact, the total denial of the actual existence of metaphysical order qua reality. If it (aka God) does not exist, no one in his right mind, therefore, would care, reasonably speaking, to ever be truly disturbed, much less justly object to, something that does not at all exist. Few people are that insane, demented, or absurd. Thus, most atheists are not simple morons.

The vast majority of atheists, as can be logically deduced, know that metaphysical order exists, the Lord God is real, but obstinately yet choose to think and live otherwise, which makes them, axiomatically, all liars, hypocrites, and knaves. There are, in fact, too many militant atheists around for it to be otherwise, which serves easily, nay, abundantly, as empirical proof. Q. E. D.
Pope Francis, therefore, ought to really know better than to attempt any genuine dialogue with such inveterate liars, hypocrites, and knaves.

2. Adam and Eve, if one thinks about the matter, were the first humanists who, also, wanted the Cult of Man to exist, of course.

3. Many at the Vatican and outside of it have been so influenced by modernism and its laicist beliefs.

Pope Francis Exemplifies the Decay of Religion

Pope Francis Exemplifies the Decay of Religion: Observations upon the First Neo-Hippie Pontiff
By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Pope Francis came of age, as to his young adulthood, during the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965); he absorbed fully the (nominalist) “Spirit of Vatican II” as it was called. That Spirit, as to its inclination, had crushed the once traditional or classical understanding of (Western) religion in terms of Roman Catholicism in that the postconciliar Church was created opposed to and opposite from the preconciliar Roman Catholic Church. NOTE: If this fact is not accepted as being the truth, however, then nothing in this article will make any sense whatsoever.

The religious sense of vital and serious theology and profound theological speculation qua philosophy, decade by decade starting in the fateful 1960s, began its still unfortunate negating process of gradual degradation and decline, the disintegration of religion once properly understood as such. Of course, many outward appearances can be still maintained, while the inner rot and decay remains a growing and real problem.

How can this be easily and empirically proven to be a virtually indisputable fact? Only a tiny minority of Catholic theologians are today fully aware of Thomistic philosophy and theology, absolutely contrary, e. g., to the once publicly expressed wishes of Pope Leo XIII (1810 – 1903). It is well known, as to the particular matter under consideration, that he had founded the Institute of Thomistic Philosophy at the University of Louvain in his open favoring of a revival of Scholasticism.

He wisely foresaw the important necessity for strongly upholding the critical need for the ever proper teaching and inculcation of Catholic theology, of the ever righteous defense of the Faith. Why might this be needed?

The evil heresy of Modernism, vigorously condemned by Pope St. Pius X (1835 – 1914), his immediate successor, was rightly intended, moreover, to alert both laity and clergy as to the then latest assault being viciously perpetrated upon Holy Mother Church. Secularization, rationalization, and pragmatism were notably encroaching, more and more, into the main considerations of the clergy as they sought enlightenment rather than the fullness of religious inspiration from the three traditional pillars of the ancient and still living Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Religion Becomes a Form of Therapy

Modernism, in its main essence, substantially triumphed at the Second Vatican Council, though this fact is, of course, usually peremptorily denied by the avid supporters of what happened, back in the mid-1960s, at Rome. It had produced the Conciliar Captivity of the postconciliar Church, as an analogy of the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Papacy.

Since then (the era of the Second Vatican Council), one easily sees that it has become very intellectually fashionable to encourage the dreadful decay of orthodox religion, especially in its specifically Catholic manifestation as to the more precise matter set here in question. What is really going on would seem to benefit more from a study of contemporary demonology, not ancient or medieval Christian literature. This surely concerns, in particular, how any precision connected directly to the science of theology has been, in truth, gradually divorced from what really ought to be the very appropriate understanding, comprehension, and teaching of sacred religion for and to Catholics.

Pope Francis, seen as the first neo-hippie Pontiff, is a truly “superb” product of just such an environment basically inhospitable to the more rigorous and intense demands of systematic theology and its rather profound epistemological dictates. What does this mean? Religion has sadly decayed, over the course of time since the 1960s, into just becoming a mere affectational therapeutic mechanism for inducing emotional stances, oriented toward preferential attitudes of a benign nature, in that it seeks basic unity of public expression with overall spirituality, in a syncretistic mode of social and cultural acceptance of modern life experiences. The larger meaning of all this prior needed analysis can be vividly shown.

Thus, for instance, the Holy Pontiff explicitly wants to get away from depressingly overstressing any condemnations of abortion, sodomy, and artificial contraception that may interfere with the affective demonstration of Catholic religion as a form of social and cultural concern expressed in spiritual terms of reference.

This is put, interestingly, beyond what would be considered cold or indifferent theological formulations of moral right versus wrong to show much more (assumed) concern for actual human beings qua persons; this is made substantively congruent, furthermore, with the postconciliar rejected rigidity of rendering any old-fashioned or supposedly obsolete religious judgment(s), meaning any relational condemnation (aka judging the sinfulness involved).

This above noted affectational therapeutic mechanism (ATM) incorporates many diverse elements of secular thinking centered around the cognitive orientations to be found in psychology, sociology, and psychiatry; the proper Catholic and preconciliar idea that the vast majority or almost all social and moral problems can still be spiritually and coherently addressed in the confessional, through the sacrament of Penance, has thus been substantially rejected now in strong favor of mainly secular thought on these matters.

Sin, related to the status of a human soul, as to its nature and reality is to be diminished as a topic of conversation or, moreover, central religious concern on the Christian road toward holiness, which presumably is the spiritual nature of the main journey.

The ATM approach has, therefore, replaced the classical salvific paradigm once religiously cherished by Church traditionalists and, e. g., still advocated and practiced by the supporters of the traditional Latin Mass Community. Ultimately, the attitude involved is related to the conception of the Communion of Saints, now relegated to the status of a simply quaint notion.

What used to be condemned as (mere) worldly wisdom has gradually come to inform Church councils and associated policy regarding the main direction of progressive ecclesiastical efforts, which yet continue unabated, e. g., in spite of the quite massive de-Christianization and vast apostasy of the Western world; this is certainly, quite undeniably, a part of the true, horrific, ongoing crisis within the Church started by both the promulgation and then the vainglorious results of Vatican Council II.

It is freely allowable, nonetheless, for Pope Francis, for instance, to still use most of the same kinds of words and phraseology, standard rhetoric, that may sound fairly Catholic in formal terms of the old religious vocabulary and sensibility; however, there are still actually new meanings quite subtly involved more logically in positive tune with secular values and aspirations, not Catholicism certainly. He puts new wine in old bottles.

This is a critical part of the postconciliar Church’s endless openness, aggiornamento as it was lovingly called (a bringing up-to-date), toward the world, announced during Vatican Council II (VCII), by which, over time, clearly anthropocentric, humanistic, values would then mostly replace theocentric ones in line with Modernism and its then intended laicist effects and affects. The results have, obviously, been noticed as with Western de-Christianization and secularization in general.

Endlessly “talking tough” on such terribly disagreeable or hot topics as abortion, sodomy, and artificial contraception, thus, wrongly offends the very nominalist-inspired drive toward secularization inherently desired by Modernism and, in light of the ATM attitude, seemingly then cuts off the supposedly wanted effectiveness of the Church in trying to communicate with people. It is, of course, a self-fulfilling kind of basic circular logic, a biased tautology, which certainly must, sooner or later, succeed in its pragmatic mission to take the “Catholic,” in terms of theological meaningfulness, increasingly out of Catholicism.

For Pope Francis, the task or mission of converting people to Christianity is “solemn nonsense” as he had declared, and the supremely chief cleric of the Church, the Vicar of Christ no less, has ironically also pontificated that “clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.” And, some thoughtful cynic would be logically provoked to say, then just what the heck is he doing pretending to be some sort of a Supreme Pastor? But, perhaps, neither apologetics nor doxology is a strong suit for this priest, which suggests mightily that he is not yet ready for prime time appearances. What a major disaster has befallen the Church, indeed.

The supine way he gratuitously grants an interview with, e. g., a prominent Italian atheist shows that he has so little rigorous sense of the high responsibilities of his important office; he so lacks a fundamental sense of proper etiquette and appears boorish and vulgar; as the leader of the Church, he’s not just some sort of common parish priest improperly conducting an informal life at large. It is appropriately clear (or ought to be) that certain irregular things or actions are just not to be ever done, for the sake of basic propriety if for no other rational reason. Such writers as George Neumayr, Paul Kengor, and others do sustain the kind of criticisms, moreover, found in this present article.

The banal attitude can be seen perfectly exemplified, e. g., in Pope Francis also recently saying that: “A Catholic God does not exist…” Really? Is, therefore, the Catholic interpretation of the Deity simply too faulty? Such an intriguing and troubling thought, filled ever with at least an implied relativism, leads to the logical notion that Catholicism, in fact, is not that essential for salvation.

This is since, by implication, it does not at all thoroughly and correctly define the proper and true nature of the assumed Godhead qua Almighty Being, which, by definition, is of the precise nature of theological ontology qua requisite metaphysical beingness. In short, he has no right to play fast and loose with theology, as Neumayr and many others would totally agree. His liberal/leftist supporters put politics over God’s word, as with, e. g., the Communist Party USA’s publication, People’s World, so effusively praising Pope Francis’ ideologically PC positions.

One should not lightly dismiss this matter due to its many unfortunate implications and ramifications; some concerted profound thought and important reflection is appropriately merited. Many of the very same people who do look benignly upon such endorsements or are plainly dismissive of them would be justifiably horrified if, e. g., Klu Klux Klan, Nazi, or Fascist publications would remarkably sing the praises of any pope. Orthodox-traditionalist Catholics have a good reason to be worried, regardless of the many assurances of his liberal and conservative supporters (aka defenders).

Therefore, this admittedly charismatic Pope should greatly shudder, not be delighted certainly, that the publicly avowed and strident enemies of Christ think so highly of him, meaning if he were just a normal pope. It is, furthermore, completely inconceivable that any loving words would have ever come from ideologically dedicated Communists for a John Paul II or Pius XII. His growing army of far Left fans ought, at the least, to still be a tremendously troubling and disquieting, disturbing and unsettling, phenomenon.

It is yet admitted, however, that the vast majority of the dedicated perpetrators of this anti-theological subversion and devastation of Catholic religion would quickly deny the truth of what has been asserted. Nevertheless, if the overt results being here observed, regarding the ongoing monumental crisis in the Church, seem to effectively and efficiently parallel neatly what has been said in confidence of the truth, it is no mere assumed accident and, rather, lends much notable veracity and cognate credibility to the quite keen analysis and observation here cogently rendered upon the subject of papal misbehavior. Personal charisma cannot save anyone from going to Hell, including any worldly-popular pontiff.

And yet, proper qualification of what is meant may, however, need to be appropriately rendered for further requisite clarification and expostulation. Of course, as an allied consideration, it is usually quite difficult for any human beings to maintain an absolute consistency in terms of all thought or actions. This is simply a normal part of human nature and its own inherent imperfection or grace, depending upon one’s outlook on life, especially the spiritual life defined by an openness toward grace.

Pope Francis, for instance, will sometimes act or speak against the Spirit of Vatican II because there is still, as is known, the overall reality of Catholicism as a religion, which is regardless of many duplicitous efforts to now eviscerate it entirely within the general context of modern Church practice. Occasionally, therefore, the Holy Father will do something dramatic contrary to his essential orientation since even he, e. g., finds it very difficult for anyone to seem to oppose his papal authority. Appearances need to be maintained; the show, after all, must go on. And, the apologists for him will simply have to redouble their efforts at highly impressive mental gymnastics to presumably sanctify whatever comes out of his mouth, meaning his adopted role as the spiritual disciple of optimism.

With the unfortunate arrival of the postconciliar Church, however, a sort of weird switch occurred from axiological pessimism, rooted solidly within the fallen nature of sentient beings in a fallen world, to the odd celebration of axiological optimism; enlightened mankind is now thought, more and more, to be capable of degrees of ethical and moral perfection unknown to prior ages, for the “childhood” of man had ended some time ago.

What were thought of as supposedly superstitious formulations of spiritually dry doctrines and dogmas could be, therefore, intelligently replaced by variously innovative and creative orientational statements incorporating living and dynamic concerns for humanistic appeals; this is particularly regarding ethical and moral conduct evaluations as such set well beyond atavistic concerns about such “trite” matters as either venial or mortal sins. Such hoary notions have no valid moral place in this modern age.

Totally unlike the spiritual oppressiveness and backward-looking attitude of the preconciliar Church, the new or postconciliar establishment is always to be a liberating spiritual-experiential movement, a kind of permanent revolution, by which a progressive or enlightened Catholicism is to splendidly maintain its significant relevance in the ever contemporary world.

According to this point of view, there is no real crisis, only the needful birth pangs of the coming-to-be of a seeming new creation that will come to so wondrously engulf its critics with its loving embrace, meaning as the glorious Spirit of VCII seeks to find its appropriate ecclesial fulfillment. In set opposition, wise supporters of traditional, orthodox Catholicism qua the Roman Catholic Church reply that this contention is just utter nonsense, contrary to common sense, and bespeaks a naivety worthy of self-deluded fanatics off searching for their Utopia. For the progressives/liberals, Pope Francis becomes the Chief Therapist, not the Chief Vicar of the Church.

As there can be no rational compromise between truth and error, one side or the other must contain the truth directly pertaining to the means needed and requisite for the salvation of souls; both cannot be true. The crux of the matter, religious, theological, and otherwise, resides in the consideration of irresponsibility. Supporters of VCII are routinely said to be filled with good intentions and the proverbial road to the Infernal Regions is, of course, paved with such grand illusions. There is no sense of spiritual accountability involved when Utopia, by whatever euphemism, is the implicit but unnamed goal that is forever sought, never attained. The Spirit of VCII, thus, epitomizes irresponsibility on a grand scale.

Who Needs a Faithless Faith?

Catholicism, in this perspective, is then increasingly drained of its meaning as a vehicle for providing true salvation from this world as to the final dispositions of souls; it becomes, in effect, the gross oddity of a faithless faith, as the current Holy Pontiff seems to rather strongly show that the “regime” of his two predecessors has definitely ended. The organizational ecclesiastic structure of a church becomes, at some future point in time, virtually unneeded, as long as Pope Francis desires to seriously shake up the existing system of dogmas, doctrines, and traditions. But, could such an orientation, consistently tried to the limits, come up with a strange thing such as a faithless faith?

Thus, de-Christianization and its attendant apostasy are to be normally just dismissed as merely slight bumps in the road toward a supposed sort of attainable nirvana on earth, of the truly evil desire to achieve some esoteric version of spiritual immanentism, contrary completely to the always true nature of Catholicism as an incarnational and exoteric religion. Such heresy is as ugly as it sounds.

And, furthermore, this critically important point assists greatly in illustrating why irresponsibility and unaccountability are significant realities that must be apprehended as demonstrable consequences of the demonic desire to adopt an anthropocentric orientation, not a Christocentric one. It becomes, certainly, a highly personalistic viewpoint.

What needs to be properly understood, moreover, is that most of modern thought is plagued by what can be rightly seen as being neo-Pelagianism, the ideological belief, meaning set in a secularized form, of the older religious heresy thought up by that heresiarch Pelagius, so many centuries ago.

This now so directly relates to the absurd seeking of intramundane perfection through religious means by which sin, venial and mortal, is then pushed aside rudely in the then assumed liberating pursuit of humanism and cognate humanistic values and attitudes. As a direct result, the Church as a mediating structure is to be appealed to less and less, into the future, because mankind has left behind its stage of infancy and has advanced crescively toward a higher level of modern spiritual development.

When this assuredly grave matter is appropriately perceived, the often curious words and actions of Pope Francis can, thus, be better understood and comprehended within such a very revealing context when aimed, basically, at the implicitly wanted dissolution of all traditional religious beliefs. Is all the aforementioned thoughts pure speculative fantasy without any legitimate support or, rather, is there a definite substantial basis in fundamental truth? One quite interesting instance below, among many, can be keenly rendered, sagaciously presented, for manifesting what really ought to be perceived by all knowledgeable Catholics.

On September 27, 2013, Fr. Richard Cipolla, DPhil, wrote on the website: “The media is awash with positive fascination with Pope Francis. Secular blogs known for their hostility to the Catholic Church are effusive in their approval of Papa Bergoglio in whom they see as the man who will transform the Catholic Church into a religious version of liberal secularism. But whatever adjectives one applies to Pope Francis, the most apt is really “inevitable”. That the Church should have a Pope like Francis was inevitable, for he is the first Pope who is a product of the post-Vatican II Church.”

That he was simply inevitable in the correct sense of what was pointed out by Fr. Cipolla is, without any rational questioning of such an assertion, not really astonishing to any informed observer of such things. What is dramatically astounding, however, is that many tens of millions will be quite profoundly deluded into thinking that Pope Francis is truly capable of seeking a revival and reinvigoration of Catholicism in the contemporary world; the opposite opinion is, on the whole, much more nearly true. It is predicted, prefaced knowingly upon the cognition and analysis in this article, that he will preside, willingly, over an ongoing substantial destruction of the Church in continuing satanic pursuit of the harmful Spirit of VCII.

It cannot be otherwise. Why is this confidently said? Given the espoused predilections and outlook being entertained by the Holy Father, the ugly path of ruin and wreckage becomes fairly inevitable; in contrast, the further prediction can here be so easily asseverated that even the (normally historically despised) Renaissance Papacy will seem functionally sober and judicious versus the inopportune and unpropitious public ways and habits of this religious enthusiast from Argentina. Many, including Fr. Cipolla, are currently filled with papal-directed hope, which is freely admitted, that Pope Francis will go on to confound those liberals and leftists, in and outside the Church, who are among his present ardent supporters.

But, such mainly baseless hope is actually founded more upon wishful thinking, not the basic empirical circumstances of this contemporary papacy; there are, in fact, the practical realities of a mainly spoiled hierarchy more concerned with secular approbation than with the maintenance of intense spiritual piety and adherence unalterably to the Catholic dogmas and doctrines.

Rather than wasting their value time worrying about the poor condition of their immortal souls, they do try, quite mightily, to usually avoid getting bad press coverage; public image, above most sacramental duties and obligations, truly means a great deal to the largely jaded and, of course, oh-so-sophisticated Vatican establishment, not proper and religious concern for Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium for upholding the Faith.

As with a proverbial bottom line, the desire to not greatly offend the secular Western world holds the bulk of the hierarchy in thrall, certainly not spiritually pious thoughts about their preparation for the life of the world to come. This creates, on balance, a sense of freedom for the Holy Pontiff. Consequently, Pope Francis can, on average, be expected to usually choose paths and trails that would rarely, if ever, converge upon major traditionalist or orthodox highways of thought.

Francis has publicly spoken of “a more human Christianity, without the cross, without Jesus…” One wonders if he knows what kind of organization he heads right now; but, then again, maybe too much Jesus talk upsets him and the Cross offends him? He is savvy enough to properly know that, in this day and age, perception matters more than reality; what people perceive him to say matters significantly, not purportedly what he meant to say. Perhaps, a welcomed maturity of “faith” is being warmly desired that leaves all the old superstitions behind, inclusive of traditional orthodoxy qua the truth.

He is a spiritually lofty man, as many seem to allege, very solidly within the main postconciliar Church environment; and, he has no supposed time for ever uselessly considering any simply lifeless notions, more plainly suitable to the preconciliar Church, meaning with its made-up and terribly antiquated rules and regulations, antediluvian strictures and demands. The postconciliar Church, thus, has a wanted sense of assumed vitalism, of expressive liturgical dynamism, which can fruitfully evolve and change as may be needed. This has consequences.

Pope Francis’ quite obnoxious (in-your-face) fast-tracking of John Paul II’s hurried canonization and the related future sainthood of John XXIII is, of course, meant to forever silence all the critics of VCII; rather than to supposedly eliminate all valid opposition, however, this can then be so reasonably predicted to enormously enrage the persecuted opposition by such an unconscionable display of raw Church politics that will lend (what ought to be an unwanted) dignity to outright schism and solidify even further the adamant position of the sedevacantists, the total rejectionists.

This too obvious attempt, contrary to a vain hope, to simultaneously also “canonize” VCII is inevitably going to backfire; the many orthodox critics of this terrible heresy, some of whom may have tried to (wrongly) compromise with such blatant error, do clearly know now that all compromise is just forever impossible and futile; the always righteous fight for true orthodoxy must, instead, be greatly intensified unto death. Choice has been removed by the power Church politics put upon open display; these Vatican players are surely adept Machiavellians with pragmatic and positivist leanings.

Thus, the remarks given out by the current pontiff create uncertainty in the minds of many Catholics, especially due to the increasingly bad catechesis since VCII. Non-Catholics, moreover, are plainly and simply ignorant (which is not the same as being stupid) of the specific directive weight to be given because they certainly do have no sound knowledge at all with which to properly judge.

Since he knows, being that he is really neither stupid, naïve, nor ignorant, that the popular press will eagerly distort, manipulate, or twist his words to fit their ideologically progressive agenda, the outcomes cannot then truly be in any significant doubt. What is meant?

When the Holy Pontiff makes certain statements, therefore, it may give the formal appearance, whether intended or not, of playing fast and loose with various dogmas and doctrines held sacred by the Church. This ambiguity or vagueness is then not really psychologically or emotionally good for either Catholics or those non-Catholics who may try to pay attention to such pronouncements for the purpose of acquiring some sort of understanding.

For the latter, it is fairly logical and reasonable for them to think that he is, in fact, the main voice of the Catholic Church on earth, its legitimate religious and theological head or representative, since he is, of course, the Vicar of Christ in this world. The malevolent minions of malice are cheering him. Among others, Jon Stewart, Garrison Keillor, and even the would-be tyrant Barack Obama have freely expressed their heart-felt admiration. A good Catholic with normal sensibilities, however, would be thoroughly ashamed to ever be lauded by tyrants. What, however, is here the intrinsic difficulty involved?

Unfortunately, what seem to be the majority of his unclear or debatable statements are neither that profoundly prudent nor substantially circumspect, meaning as they rationally and theologically ought to be, of course; this inherent kind of ambiguity is part of the natural intellectual fallout of VCII and directly relates, most integrally, to its continuing horrid, despicable, aftermath. Such vile exercises of sustained irresponsibility aggravates and does not tend to actually silence the opponents of the Modernist heresy seen vigorously manifested in the often contemptible outcomes of that very spiritually deformed Church council of the 1960s.

The rather prominent and, moreover, dual canonizations of the originator of VCII and its greatest papal defender and expostulator will not, therefore, really come to mute the much needed ongoing and future criticism that ought to be expected, as just a normal part of a fundamental rejection of religious and theological error on a massive scale. The entire Latin Mass Community would have to be crushed out of existence to effectively stop the rejection of that past gathering and its results.

Meanwhile, it is known that the vast majority of the Novus Ordo (New Mass) Community is, however, basically contracepting and aborting itself out of existence. Demographics (typically large families), vocations and money, in sharp contrast, are on the side of the Latin Mass Community (LMC) filled with people who could be denounced, by their ecclesial enemies, as being mere theological narcissists.

Pope Francis choses quite absurdly, in terms of proper orthodoxy, to fight for a terrible cause that will, therefore, someday ultimately lose; the LMC is steadily going to be on the side that decisively will, as could be guessed, eventually win. He seems to support that well-known and crass oxymoron known as Christian existentialism (Hint: If it’s genuinely Christian, it cannot, by definition, be existentialist and vice versa). He has stated, however, that he wants to abandon “theological narcissism” for the sake of assisting “the Church to emerge from itself to arrive at the existential limits.”

In context, one can, therefore, naturally appreciate the solid major fact that the ATM approach toward religion and theology, which was previously talked about, has no real substantive religious future, fully regardless of any/all phenomenological efforts mounted on its behalf. Most people most of the time, meaning if they are honestly serious about wanting a truthful faith, chose the tested and traditional authority of orthodoxy, not scandalous variants of a religious-oriented therapy having its ultimate basis in an ersatz pragmatic theology, the spurious Spirit of VCII.

It is good to critically remember that the intellectually and religiously infamous interview, with the atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, ends by quite significantly saying: “If the Church becomes like him and becomes what he wants it to be, it will be an epochal change.” Truly, if that unwanted epic nightmare occurs, one could then supposedly bank on it, except that the Holy Ghost, according to Catholicism, always guards popes against making any ex cathedra heretical statements. The Church Triumphant, after all, only exists in Heaven, while the Church Militant resides on earth and the Church Suffering is in Purgatory.

But, as with the first scandal of St. Peter denying Christ three times, there is no guarantee whatsoever against scandal, including that of the current pontiff. The fallacious thinking of the sedevacantists, as an example, does not understand that scandal is an inherent feature to all great endeavors involving sinful creatures. And, from time to time, such notable saints as St. Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Ávila have openly admonished popes. Yes, there are those clerico-sophists who myopically insist that only saints may admonish popes, forgetting ever quite conveniently that Catherine and Teresa were not, of course, declared saints during their own lifetimes.

Equally, as ought to be better known, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, the Angelic Doctor, justly defended the important Catholic necessity of papal criticism for upholding the Faith, as when, e. g., the convert Saul of Tarsus, who became St. Paul, thought it rightly needful to correct (see: Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2) St. Peter concerning the matter of Gentile converts. Paul had, thus, rebuked the first pope of the Church, which is, indeed, quite an interesting historical and religious precedent that can be noted.

The admonition of popes, though to be done respectfully, is obviously perceived to be a rather ancient, venerable, and honorable tradition fully set within the Church, since no pontiff is to ever act as a mere dictatorial and unquestioned tyrant. True fidelity to the papacy is, therefore, not to be ignorantly founded upon absolutely blind obedience as if Catholics are supposed to be mindless slaves or mere robots of the Church Militant.

In any event, the Roman Catholic Church has historically survived the Arian Heresy, Albigensian Heresy, Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and much else; it will, no doubt, survive Pope Francis and the Conciliar Captivity. But, further than this, let true honesty prevail. There is the need to stop beating around the proverbial bush.

The field of discussion is simply too narrow if it concerns only abortion, artificial contraception, and sodomy; there is a late modernist preoccupation qua obsession with a certain bodily function; the real matter in dispute, one ought not to have to guess, is actually sex. New flash: the Catholic Church is not opposed to sex. Of course, it is to be only in the traditional context of real marriage, not, e. g., sodomite relationships (or others) so falsely, these days, called marriage.

Let’s get real! If Pope Francis has come up with a truly revolutionary concept of sex, then that, in fact, would be substantially newsworthy, not any of his flaky, flashy, or freaky chats with a God denier. It is to be expected that papal apologists are yet going to be working overtime and bending over backwards extremely so to perform the rather excessive mental gymnastics required; they make the unfortunate mistake of thinking that almost anything/everything that a pope says must be supported by Catholics, which is simply not true. One example of this error may suffice.

Gregory R. Erlandson, president of the Publishing Division for Our Sunday Visitor, one of the largest Catholic publishing companies in the United States, has greatly lauded Pope Francis concerning this new direction for the Church. Erlandson, about as mainstream a Catholic as one can get, is on the board of directors for the Association of Catholic Publishers and has served previously as president of the Catholic Press Association, and adviser on the U.S. Bishops’ Communications Committee; moreover, he is now a consultant to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

For Erlandson, it may need to be stated that the “holy” in the term Holy Father refers only to the formal nature of the holder of the office of the papacy; it does not, in any way whatsoever, axiomatically or otherwise, confer (spiritual) holiness upon a pontiff. If that were ever actually true, then, e. g., Pope Alexander VI (Borgia), would then be classified as having been holy, which is forever quite doubtful. Extremist papal apologists are, therefore, wrongly engaging in a form of idolatry, not true fidelity to the Faith. They are idolaters, not genuine papist Catholics loyal to the papacy.

It is being repeatedly said that, e. g., he is quoted out of context or misquoted. If there is to be any reasonable benefit of the doubt, however, let it appropriately be on the side of Catholic dogmas and doctrines, not the winsomely effusive and disjointed, hair-brained fixations of just any pope.


Within the now specific provided context of this present article severely questioning what has and is happening, it is not surprising that, generations ago, there were needed warnings written against all of liberal/progressive Catholicism, such as Dr. Don Felix Sarda y Salvany’s What is Liberalism? (1899) and Cardinal Désiré-Félicien-François-Joseph Mercier’s Modernism (1910). All this can be easily added to Pope St. Pius X’s ever magnificent Encyclical Against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

Good reading in proper support of requisite orthodoxy would include such works as Rev. Charles Alfred Martin’s The Catholic Religion, Fr. Heinrich Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Fr. Francis X. Doyle’s Defense of the Catholic Church, Rev. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology, and, of course, as ever, the Catechism of the Council of Trent. People can, therefore, still get at such significant sources of the truth versus religious error, though, admittedly, the postconciliar Church remains dominate.

Neither the Pope nor the hierarchy is, however, to finally win in this truly mighty contest for the proper salvation of souls, meaning as to their here condemned negative and negating efforts. Fortunately, one can yet invoke the ever lively spirit of St. Athanasius; he had to deal with the notable problem of such massive examples of adherence to heresy in his era; the eventual defeat of the evil Arian Heresy was the joyous outcome of such a titanic struggle. Athanasian Catholicism will, eventually, crush the power of the Conciliar Captivity.

This can be, moreover, easily proven by keenly knowing about a still rather significant historical fact: For centuries after the saint lived, Athanasianism then became a popular synonym for (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, though prayers for the soul of Pope Francis ought, of course, not to be ever excluded from needed consideration. The Holy Father could never get enough prayers said for him as he seeks, putting it mildly, to significantly reorient and revamp the Church. Perhaps, he shouldn’t place his faith in “Lesus” (whoever that might be named on that recent Vatican medal*) and, instead, keep true to belief in Jesus as the Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!

*To commemorate Pope Francis’ first papal year, the Vatican recently issued a medal engraved with a Latin phrase, except someone forgot to do a spell check. Six thousand were, in fact, manufactured and four were sold before anyone there had noticed the error, which might be rather frightening not knowing the correct spelling of the name of the Son of God, the Lord and Savior Himself.

Rabid Apotheosis of Nihilism: The Politicopathic 21st Century Revealed

Rabid Apotheosis of Nihilism: The Politicopathic 21st Century Revealed

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

“Civilization is a disease which is almost invariably fatal.” – Dean William Ralph Inge

The nihilistic Culture of Death, spoken of so eloquently by Pope Benedict XVI and others, has substantially triumphed in the 21st century. Increasing millions of people act as if they were mere lemmings that do rush toward the embrace of what used to be classically thought of, in religious terms, as Hell. An increase of atheism, thus, goes well with all this speculation as to fundamental moral disorder.

And, spiritual suicide normally precedes the civilizational kind whenever truth becomes a mere matter of interpretation, never a certainty; whenever patriotism is scorned by the educational, cultural, and political elites. What, however, is here critically meant to better elucidate and illuminate the topic?

More and more of contemporary human reality is and, moreover, seeks to be quite death-centered in its ultimate emotional, psychological, and mental orientation, meaning, finally, the lust manifested toward the warm embrace of nihilism with its much allied blessing of death as the chief, the concluding, aspiration involved. This is a major part of contemporary normality as it gets called, though once, years ago, recognized properly as being a manifestation of insanity or, at the least, a serious lack of respect for truth.

How a Nation Becomes Morally Diseased; How Faith is Debased

It is a gross situation truly amazing to behold and, furthermore, fully unprecedented in all of past human history. How has this situation qua living nightmare occurred? Various elements of pragmatism, hedonism, materialism, positivism, and secularism have all combined to lend a powerful speed to all interrelated developments and trends tending heavily toward economic, societal and cultural Weimarization, i. e., the rather bold pursuit of blatant nihilism so heavily concerned with the political-ideological order of human reality. Are there indications of this asseverated truth definitely encompassing, e. g., Cultural Marxism and its allied PC thinking?

There exist now many millions of people without any conscious feelings whatsoever of what used to be thought of as either shame or guilt for various things they’ve done or are still doing. If the course of America is not changed substantially as soon as possible, the dark future of this country can only be seen in the doings of the MTV generation and the failed city of Detroit. Moreover, the vast majority of such denizens are proud of their, e. g., fornication, sodomy, etc., which they do demand public, legal, full approval of, not simply just basic tolerance. Attitudes held and wrong decisions made do have consequences within the spiritual order.

What the Roman Catholic Church defines as and properly understands to be, for instance, mortal sin (that if left unrepented damns a soul to eternal Hell) is now positively celebrated and, moreover, formally legalized as well. Put simply, many millions of people around the entire world are willingly choosing, as fast as possible, to get to Hell, to actively seek out their own damnation. It is not an accident, therefore, that most of Detroit looks like a version of the Infernal Regions set within a modern urban context. What, however, is the larger picture?

The political regimes or orders that do exist, in the various contemporary nations in both the Western and Eastern hemispheres, are hardly equipped to be superb moral teachers or spiritual authorities regarding what people ought to do with their lives. The USA is a prime example of the illustrative disaster that evidently awaits a nation gone adrift from a needed devotion to metaphysical order, to the Lord of the universe and beyond.

America, for many, has become just a mere place to inhabit, not the beloved patria of bygone days and generations. What used to be known as a Christian nation is now filled with people discriminated against for professing such a religious belief; increasingly, moreover, more and more of these supposed believers refuse to fight for their faith; such timidity gets deservedly punished as aggressive secularization becomes plainly normalized in America and the Western world.

Not only does patriotism, in such a secularized political climate, get mocked; the important love and fear of God, thus, means little or nothing in such an awful context. And, as is or ought to be widely known, modern secularization, moreover, necessarily spurs on increasing degrees and efforts at such aggressive de-Christianization in America and the Western world, which has evident contempt for the Roman Catholic Culture of Life, the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis, the amazing leader of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth, feeds into the postmodern nihilism by trying so very hard to seem and to be nice by offering atheists religious hope of genuine salvation, though they seek, by definition, to still believe in nothing, of course. A heaven supposedly heavily populated by overt defiant atheists, however, conjures up a rather strange theological vision to behold, entirely contrary to the proper Catholic dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is, moreover, the salvific and primary mission of the Church, though that understanding seems to be, at a minimum, improperly neglected.

There will be those imprudent Catholics who, of course, will so perform mental gymnastics to defend Pope Francis, in a kind of misguided and misdirected sense of old piety. Assuming he is neither a stupid nor an ignorant man, he then ought to have easily known, therefore, that the mass media would run with his assertions and interpret what he had to say in a way suitable to their needs, meaning according the progressive-radical ideological agenda.

His informed cognizance ought to or should have encompassed this perspicuity of epistemic realization as to the broad impact of his words, meaning that he ought not to have let himself be toyed with as if he were a fool. He knows (or ought to) the saying that the truth barely gets its shoes on before a lie gets up quick and races into the world. Only an egotistic jester (or the assumed equivalent) would not profoundly weigh and estimate, measure and consider, his words quite carefully prior to making such statements. Later qualifications and emendations rarely, if ever, get into the public press and, if found, are only truncated, abbreviated, versions.

Popular perceptions, in this heavily media-dominant age, do trump just mere reality. Naively, ingenuously, saying that he was just misquoted or mostly misinterpreted simply fails to address properly the above reasonable and substantive contentions and observations. The Pontiff, being a serious man of mature years and suitably aware of his holy office, ought not to have ever played the game. At a minimum, he was acting irresponsibly; if done deliberately, he was, thus, crudely playing the role of a knave.

Either way, the Church suffers from his incompetence and, consequently, most inconsiderate behavior, while those Catholics trying to be loyal to the papacy must keep on coming up with finer and finer rationalizations, tergiversations, and just plain odd excuses for his so clearly spiritually deviant pronouncements. He is, when all is said and done, a genuine champion of the postconciliar Church that was unfortunately created by the Second Vatican Council.

In the popular mind, the older Catholic understanding of (the preconciliar Church) morality is, moreover, to be now conveniently replaced, according to what the Holy Pontiff has publicly said, by what gets commonly cited as Jiminy Cricket’s morality. And, God help the Pope, no one else really can. A certainly new day, once again, for modern Catholicism has now dawned. Moral subjectivity, no doubt, has just won more applause and approbation in the contemporary world; secularists, naturally, proclaim him as being enlightened since he does not ever wish to appear judgmental.

This directly comes from the Holy Pontiff’s awkward desire to act quite grandfatherly, instead of righteously defending Catholicism as the supreme Pastor, the Shepherd, of the flock of Christ on earth ought to do, instead of being and acting as a convinced man of God. Millions of young people, throughout the world, are to simplistically trust their own (defective) consciences and are not to receive moral guidance. It ought, however, to be properly known that one of the great spiritual purposes of the Church is to assist human beings, moreover, toward the needed goal of having an ethically and morally conversant conscience.

One of the little things, perhaps, just a minor matter of contention, that Pope Francis has so entirely forgotten, theologically speaking, is that very, very, very few people have the properly informed, appropriately knowledgeable, and spiritually introspective comprehension of what maintaining a good conscience is truly all about as had, e. g., St. Thomas Aquinas. This is, one prudently suspects, rather far from just giving “a little whistle” with Jiminy Cricket to cover any and all occasions or situations, including situation ethics.

What the opinionated Holy Father is talking about, as few non-Catholics would easily know, is only his personal (warped) opinions, not the teachings of Catholicism. This is notably because, e. g., Catholicism theologically teaches that a properly informed conscience is quite a rarity, indeed.

Lacking such an extremely important appreciation of profound religious and moral truth, Pope Francis will, thus, help lead many souls to Hell, as a related consequence of proclaiming Jiminy Cricket’s morality as a contemporary standard for the correct judgment of one’s conscience, meaning requisite discernment and needed perspicacity covering one’s thoughts, words, and deeds. If Christianity in America has become a joke, liberal Catholicism is itself not too far behind that quite realistic characterization, as to the various ethical and moral calculations and rationalizations of typical Americans who like to think of themselves as basically good people.

Possible, e. g., sins of commission and omission just might, somehow or other, get terribly lost in translation, within the perspective and cognizance of the average conscience or worse, which tends to reasonably cover, in general, the vast majority of human beings, i. e., all of the fallen sentient creatures in this fallen world.

Gratification of Civilizational Death Wish: Nihilist Paradise

Of course, the broadly-based Culture of Death, generally inclusive of abortion, infanticide (aka partial-birth abortion), euthanasia, sodomy (aka homosexual liberation, ”marriage,” etc.), divorce, artificial contraception, etc., is set in permanent and unalterable opposition to the Catholic Church’s Culture of Life, especially according to all orthodox, traditionalist Catholicism. In the 21st century, as could also be noticed by old-fashioned Christians, the human capacity for self-extermination and its allied sterility has never been better. How should this be appropriately understood?

With the great horror of abortion, physical and chemical, evilly added to infanticide and the advanced biochemical-technological reality of artificial contraception, the human race can now successfully eliminate itself, as can be seen in, e. g., Japan that has, in noted effect, adopted a conscious policy of racial self-extermination. Their birth replacement ratio has, some time ago, dropped below the absolute minimum of 2.1%. And, moreover, Europe and the USA are not too far behind (if illegal alien births are excluded), in this inherently nihilistic effort, with the here noted birth dearth effect, as demographics is truly destiny.

Nihilism, of all things, has become a highly spiritual philosophy qua postmodern religion of a sort in that, e. g., abortion has now become both a sacrament and religious experience in the degenerate and debased minds of these horrid nihilists, who even publicly insist that abortion is genuinely holy; there are, in fact, today many pro-abortion prayers; and, certain people, also, thinking themselves (demonic) Christians, do insist, moreover, upon the true holiness of this supremely vile form of murder, of bloody human sacrifice.

The equivalent kind of attitude is totally true for sodomite “marriages” (which glorify related sterility) as a now logical part of the so widely celebrated Culture of Death. How has this come about? One sees how when it is known that, directly contrary to Rush Limbaugh’s vacuous optimism, the Republican Party establishment will make certain that Obamacare is funded; as domestic history repeatedly shows, the Democrats create the element of Big Government, as with, e. g., Social Security, and the Republicans always find the ways and means of funding it. As Richard M. Weaver had, many decades ago, stated insightfully (in his book by the same name), ideas have consequences.

The extreme 19th century pessimist Arthur Schopenhauer and his “pupil” or disciple Friedrich Nietzsche are the two principal figures responsible for the substantive influence of this evil strain of thought seen in the contemporary world, though Diogenes the Cynic may be fairly considered an ancient Greek predecessor. He was, at least, a proto-nihilist. In the wider political-ideological realm, one properly encounters Sergei Nechayev, Michail Bakunin, Prince Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin, and others who sought to extend, through rationalization and reductionism, the frightening implications and cognate ramifications involved.

Of course, almost all nihilists, especially those who generally would think of themselves as just pragmatists, materialists, or positivists, would be outraged or, at a minimum, would so greatly reject the designation of being a nihilist. How so? Few people, in all of recorded history, have been able to be philosophically consistent enough to have the added requisite intelligence to actually realize the true foundation stone of their innermost beliefs. Ideologists, in particular, are easily equipped at the often subtle art of self-delusion, being that almost all of them are or, at least, think themselves to be intellectuals.

What, however, is nihilism purely defined? It is the total rejection of (all) social mores, as well as the general rejection of whatever is considered established social conventions and beliefs, especially of ethics, morality, and religion, meaning mainly in their particularity. Nonetheless, there is, usually, the much associated notion as the belief that nothing is really worthwhile; a particular belief, to be more definite, that life is, by definition, genuinely pointless and human values, consequently, are just worthless. As William F. Buckley, Jr. was fond of quoting Leon Trotsky, who says A must say B.

For those (tiny minority of) thinkers who are completely consistent (or may claim to be so), it involves an explicit disbelief, absolute incredulity, in all objective truth; it is, thus, the belief that there is, in critical point of fact, no real objective basis for truth itself. Of course, how someone could have the seemingly confident ability and verifiable knowledge to absolutely know that truth does not exist has always been, in terms of logic and reasoning, besides just common sense, a true puzzlement. But, this has never stopped dedicated nihilists from professing their great faith in an exalted meaninglessness, again, by simply ignoring the integral contradiction.

Equally, this noted nihilist attitude or opinion requires the true solipsistic rejection of classical Natural Law teachings (from Aristotle through St. Thomas Aquinas to Heinrich A. Rommen) as well as what used to be called right reason and common sense. Thus, sodomite “marriage” wars ever interminably against Natural Law, right reason, and common sense, though it is now legally enshrined in more and more degenerate countries, which is truly an instance of insanity, though not always properly recognized as such these days.

Of course, all of traditionalist, orthodox Catholicism equally and necessarily rejects any bizarre and illogical, ridiculous and disgusting, notion of what is, by classical definition, still forever unnatural and abnormal. Perversion, as is known, may get legalized but never rationally ceases being what it, in fact, is and forever remains as to a rationalization of a clear form of insanity prefaced upon an ethical and moral reductionism/relativism.

In a milder way, nihilism is a simple viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are merely unfounded and that existence, consequently, is so surely senseless and useless, meaning, in general, a philosophical doctrine then suggesting the bold posited negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of human life. Some more pointed comments may help to further refine the notion being advanced, which include the evisceration of truth itself.

Existential nihilism, if yet more precision may be zealously wanted, is the philosophical theory that all of life itself has no intrinsic meaning or integral value; the formal meaninglessness of existence is, therefore, affirmed as a positive value (without any analysis being done about the insanity involved). As far as is known, the term itself may have first been used, as to wide-scale dissemination, by the Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev, though derived from its probable earliest origin in the German Nihilismus coined in1817, which, in turn, came from the Latin word for nothing, meaning nihil.

For those who may like briefer views pertaining to this depressing subject, nihilism is either the full rejection of all established laws and institutions, outright anarchy, terrorism, or other such revolutionary activity; or total and absolute destructiveness just done for its own sake without ideological justifications or rationalizations. From a true nihilist point of view, morals are totally valueless, therefore, and only hold a suspect place in society as then necessarily false ideals. All of this is set well beyond any proper sense of (classical) normality that one might, perhaps, wish to possess against the sad arrival of the Nietzschean abyss, of the war upon truth itself.

The heuristic point of all of the aforementioned discussion and analysis is that the topic is well known and understood and, yes, profoundly comprehended here, as to its various implications and cognate ramifications. It is quite verifiably evident, therefore, that nihilism has certainly achieved its apotheosis and related reification, in the 21st century, to the true detriment of man’s humanity, besides, of course, giving immediate and necessarily enormous offense ever to the Lord God Almighty.

The latter consideration being mainly of little real concern, of course, to any truly dedicated modernists or postmodernists, especially those interested in ego satisfaction, inclusive, one guesses, of militant atheists.

In the now past 20th century, unfortunately, two horrific world wars, bloody genocides, and much else did not, apparently, get the ever needed attention of human beings, as to God’s deserved punishment for seeking out the secular attainment of anthropocentric values, not theocentric ones. One suspects, moreover, that a much harsher discipline must be now more severely applied to a recalcitrant people, namely, the human race as a whole.

The Supreme Being, in this regard, can always oblige; hint: that is why, e. g., the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel are still forever lost. There are notable consequences to gross disobedience. It is quite frightening (as an understatement) to consider, therefore, just what must be done on earth to get human beings to really take proper notice regarding the surely seething wrath of the Lord.

One stream of the grave offense against the Deity has become a raging river in basic terms of the reification of naturalism to now mean whatever someone may wish it to mean, inclusive of the demented thoughts of the Marquis de Sade held supposedly to be natural. Consequently, all the foregoing assembled efforts at, thus, properly achieving a substantive and substantial definition concerning nihilism should, moreover, remove any possible rational or reasonable doubt as to its revealed, so evident, success and advancement within the postmodern mind.

Since, the reductionism in logic goes, a person is a part of nature and the nature of a person is defined as human nature, then, therefore, anything in terms of human belief (aka lust) qualifies as being natural, as with, e. g., sodomy. This turns traditional Natural Law upside down and inside out concerning what gets properly defined as being, thus, thought to be simply natural.

Even though, in the vast majority of reproductive cases in the natural world, the normal condition is, by definition, that a male and female of a species produces offspring, this is no longer to be applied as normal if sodomite relationships are to be preferred as being the new normal, fully enshrined by law no less. It is aided and abetted, furthermore, by the evil of establishmentarian politics favoring Big Government, meaning the statism, tyranny, inherent within democratic despotism and the collectivism of domestic interventionism. Utopia is thought to be

In addition, the new naturalism, as it may be called, can be instituted and simply upheld by the artificiality of any man-made law in the raw service of such tyranny; nothing, within such an abnormal context, can be then truly defined as perversion, much less positive moral evil. Reductionism and rationalization are, therefore, to be combined for better insuring that the highly perverse logic applied will directively reach the certain predictive goal of justification.

This is surely intended for openly supporting the (quite bizarre) assertion, for instance, that homosexuality is today to be just reasonably or pragmatically accepted as being just another normal (read: natural) human orientation, not an entirely distorted sexual viewpoint, contrary to (what used to be appropriately defined as) normal human nature.

This is not, however, a civil-rights issue or question at all, as the liberals, progressives, and radicals do so often allege. While it has been documented and proven, many times over, that people can will themselves to cease being homosexuals, it is ever infinitely impossible for, e.g., Black Americans to so equally will themselves to become White. The two cases are totally incommensurate and, moreover, never rationally comparable or parallel as such.

What is set at work is then merely Cultural Marxism, the quest for Utopia, and its cognate PC thinking regarding the ideological dictates of homosexual liberation, which then superbly, of course, provides all of the aforementioned reductionism and rationalization involved for reaching an insane conclusion, for supporting that which is clearly, by definition, unnatural, abnormal; it is, therefore, clearly illustrated by illogical sodomite “marriage” of any kind and without question, as is completely demonstrated by the aforementioned argumentation.

Regarding utopianism, this civilizational development (that is actually dis-civilizational in effect) has had baleful consequences, as could be suspected. It is not enough that sociopathic and psychopathic characters have multiplied in this day and age; there has been the complementary or reciprocal reality of what could justly be called “politicopathic” political reality within the body politic of modern Western nations that allows, e. g., for the full legalization and legitimation of sociocultural and sociopolitical homosexual liberation.

All this is supremely in line with the freaky growth of degrees and kinds of insanity accepted as being quite normal that is manifested clearly, moreover, by the predominant elements of the ruling-political class, the triumphant oligarchy, unfortunately governing America and, of course, the other such regimes controlling the Western world in general.

A man who had an insightfully keen appreciation of reality and its associated consequences, G. K. Chesterton, early in the 20th century, had so critically remarked how that century was sadly determined to make that which is abnormal into becoming recognized as being normal. A degraded society and debased culture, a diseased civilizational structure, that truly seeks to be so completely anthropocentric in its most fundamental orientation must become, sooner or later, thanatocentric regarding its then necessarily related nihilistic desires and aspirations.

A Lost Country Set Adrift: the New Amerika

For instance, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among many, freely exhibit what needs to be perceived as being nihilistic politicopathic behavior; this is directed toward the pragmatic furtherance of the Weimarization of the USA by instituting and supporting, urging and favoring, numerous nihilistic policies and programs; these are both domestic and foreign in their major effects and implications that do range across socioeconomic, sociocultural, and politicocultural aspects of a truly declining society, culture, and civilization with a jocular regard for public virtue among the too often jaded citizenry. How may this be critically verified?

Obama’s absolutely and integrally incoherent and inchoate (current?) foreign policy position regarding Syria can be easily cited as an excellent case-in-point, so proving the highly certain validity and obvious reality of what is being above quite confidently asserted; it is an instance of remarkable political insanity, openly played out upon the world stage, for millions upon millions of people to now candidly see.

Fecklessness, unimpressive as to the proper statecraft of true statesmanship, is never a valid substitute for any mature and substantive foreign policy. A surrealistic theater of the absurd, in shocking contrast, exists for the sake of this odd crisis, for Obama’s arming, e. g., of Al Queda should, logically, be regarded as an overt, nihilistic Act of Treason suitably worthy to be written up as at least one of the Articles of Impeachment against him. They are, of course, the self-declared enemies of the United States and known terrorists. If this blatant and outrageous public act of treason goes unpunished, the prestige and honor of this country are lost forever.

If either clownish Obama or fickle Kerry were a fat man, the duo would be duly dubbed as dithering dunces of diplomacy, in the comic manner of a Laurel and Hardy team; but, the former always gets a free pass, as is condescendingly known, because of his protective skin coloration; the latter because he is, after all, a notorious veteran who had so absurdly served in Vietnam; they are, in short, the proverbial blind leading the blind; the duo chase through a maze created by an insane actor who, unfortunately, happens to also be the nation’s Chief Executive plagued by diverse and multiplying scandals, both domestic and foreign in nature.

The insanity involved allows them to make Bashar al-Assad, a brutal dictator, appear positively heroic in contrast, a now supposed David (Syria) fighting or, rather, incredibly outwitting the fumbling American Goliath. But, what is really going on? The Obama scandals are not phony, all the investigations are; one needs to see that regime’s establishmentarians, in both major political parties, are united for tyranny. This is, therefore, a deliberate foreign distraction.

As a convenient dodge for domestic troubles, the American warfare-welfare State requires aggressive foreign interventionism, a future attack upon Syria, as a quite logical Machiavellian complement to its domestic interventionism, for the Obama Administration has (at least) three more years to exist. It has to create a “foreign devil” to hate as yet another needed diversion, though not since the infamous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis has a sitting president loused up so vigorously and thoroughly, set beyond mere contempt and condemnation, toward righteous suggestions for the urgent need for his much deserved formal Impeachment.

The world leadership role of the United States is, nonetheless, crumbling into dust amid a display of epic, nearly unprecedented, diplomatic clownishness; what used to be referred to as the strength of American resolve is equivalent to just pouring a glass of water into a vast desert, which strongly suggests that Syria is, in fact, a mere intended distraction. The many failed domestic policies and programs of this socialist Federal Administration are not harmed in the slightest by foreign misadventures, as was true, e. g., concerning LBJ’s Great Society fiasco balanced off by his Vietnam War; history, when lessons remain unlearned, gets repeated.

Not even, e. g., the tremendous Benghazi fiasco and its aftermath had been able to really stop Obama; he is, surely, the demonstrated menial master of American decline and depravity aided by his very terrible desire to create a national-security State (aka police-state) for crushing any basic semblance remaining of free, representative, republican constitutional government qua governance.

As to proper cause and effect being correctly perceived, it is the mental disability, caused by fanatical adherence to Obama’s neo-Marxist ideology, which then causes the incompetence to become, in effect, a deliberate result, not accidental or merely coincidental. To call upon, in addition, the well-known Hans Christian Andersen story, the emperor has no clothes and, in this actual case, no tangible sign of brains as well. Politicopathic behavior is, however, ideologically induced by a tremendously perverse act of will and, thus, cognitively required by what Eric Hoffer had insightfully called the true believers.

His unbelievable, nearly indescribable, September 10, 2013 oration, thus, has to be one of the most intellectually vacuous speeches in all of the recorded annals of American diplomacy, guaranteed as such, incidentally, by the suspected “adjunctive” input of a blatant fraud by the name of Elizabeth O’Bagy. It is known, therefore, that her very spurious “scholarly” writing exists as having been publicly cited, by no less personages, than the current Secretary of State and US Senator John McCain.

Obama’s odd performance was notably weak, unctuously disgraceful, direly ineffectual, drearily pathetic, and sincerely disgraceful beyond any rational question. But, what is even much more terribly frightening and nauseating is that this exceedingly vile piece of unmitigated trash in the White House makes the Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin, the last former head of the infamous KGB, look like a (putative) statesman of a high caliber, which, in fact, is shockingly weird.

Of course, the mass media and national propaganda networks, as is always expected, willingly play up Obama as if he were the “champion extraordinaire” of this filthy crisis, one largely of his own making, incidentally. But, nonetheless, objectively speaking, Putin had quite deservedly humiliated Obama, cleaned his clock, in the ungraciously mordant and tendentious pages of the New York Times, an establishment publication of the first order, a nihilistic mouth organ of the ruling class itself.

Contrary to them, the neocons, and RINO Republicans, America should stay out of the tragic Syrian civil war. The engagement of the USA there would, thus, surely be the proverbial wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. One so rudely suspects, of course, that calling this entire extraordinary matter, especially the September 10th talk, utterly strange or extremely bizarre is quite surely a major understatement, as well as then doing a significant injustice to the truth. [Yes, it is known that Pontius Pilate had rhetorically asked: What is truth?]

Under normal circumstances and for the grave sake of the national interest, moreover, such a deranged politician would be properly removed from office and, also, simultaneously declared mentally incompetent to correctly perform his presidentially required public duties. Obama’s requisite Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, since he obviously hates America, would, therefore, be a quite proper venue as a, thus, much needed constitutional response to this dangerous cognitive incoherence, noetic unintelligibility, pertaining to important American foreign policy. It is, in short, a rather monumental failure of statesmanship. Thus, historical observations are here provoked as to political pathology and its candid recognition as such.

As is seen throughout the course of human history, dying societies and cultures, as with all failing civilizations, are so overtly marked by the presence of an overabundance of definitely politicopathic politicians gone power mad. As with the ancient Fall of the Roman Empire, only Christianity (aka Roman Catholicism) was available to then help restore Western civilization. The officials of the Obama Administration are, in a sense, the disgusting maggots quite happily feasting upon the rotting cadaverous flesh of the existent political entity, nation, or empire under discussion and review. Must history repeat itself? Does religion offer hope?

But, the power elite, especially Obama in particular, are not satisfied with the slow progress of Weimarization in America; and, Obama himself is lustfully desperate to attack Syria for the sake of starting a world war in that the empirical height of nihilism’s most sincere fulfillment consists of waging a truly major military conflagration, of the immediate gratification gained by killing massive numbers of people. A confirmed nihilist only has cold contempt for any metaphysical order, for the traditional religious perspective upon life and reality.

This then appears as just a simply logical conclusion within the deracinated mind of a dedicated nihilist, which to any truly normal person would be recognized as a form of insanity and set far from the spirit of Christianity. As could be guessed, moreover, there is no desire, on the part of the cultural, social, academic, entertainment, and political elites in this country, to restore all things in the name of Christ. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve stays with the QE program, as a sop to the elites, to Wall Street and others, into supposed infinity toward national bankruptcy.


Regrettably, when the compulsive ideological decision, based upon Weimarization [the Weimar Republic with its hyperinflation], has been forcefully made to leap blindly into the ever terrible Nietzschean abyss, no way out exists for those committed to nihilism except death, inclusive of seeing the supposed many positive benefits of suicide, personal or national makes no pragmatic difference, at such a truly harsh point in time.

Truth becomes epistemologically bastardized in the pursuit of power, contrary to public virtue, when a citizenry abandons both patriotism and the love and fear of God, for traditional religion is urgently needed, not shallow religiosity or dubious spiritualism of any kind, type, or sort.

Without the adamant reaffirmation and profound recovery of intense spiritual resolve, in a true Christian religious sense, as to the theologically concrete, valid notion of a right versus wrong morality, nothing really effective can be done to so reverse the decidedly nihilistic course that the political-ruling class has, thus, freely chosen for this country and its tragic future failure that can be, in effect, logically guaranteed.

A restored and revitalized Christendom is not, however, a very likely possibility set under the present conditions sanctioned by the Obama Administration and its vile and degenerate efforts hypocritically aimed toward both maintaining crony capitalism for the corrupt elites and cold collectivism reserved for the mainly enervated masses, through the demagogic courtesy of democratic despotism.

It is a certainty, therefore, that the predominant political leadership of this nation would never, e. g., turn toward traditionalist, orthodox Roman Catholicism. Their quite sordid preference is a desire and lust for death as a positive accomplishment (that philosophically contradicts the negating spirit of nihilism), while yet pragmatically and surely achieving its so horrid and fatal consummation, which could, thus, very well be Obama’s rather ardent desire for starting World War III.

His own genuine nihilistic contempt and considerable hatred of America would, also, be then fully consummated as a direct sad result, especially, for instance, with his making a war against Syria, a victim of Obama’s overall failure of leadership.

God help America.

Catholic Postmodernism Endorses Nihilism: The Amnesty Debate

Catholic Postmodernism Endorses Nihilism: The Amnesty Debate

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Since it is now publicly known, e. g., that American Hispanics are warmly converting to Islam in ever increasing numbers and that, furthermore, amnesty for illegals will bring more millions of Hispanics into America, besides those already here illegally, the odd question must be critically posed: Is this part of an effort to give an opportunity at least for possibly allowing for more predictable conversions to Islam?

Of course, the still predominant majority of Hispanics tend, starting practically at birth through their baptism, to be Roman Catholics; however, one can easily perceive that life in the USA affords them the genuine prospect, if wanted, to then freely become Mohammadans. Amnesty, therefore, allows for such a troubling side effect to be exacerbated, meaning a yet greater loss of the (former) faithful.

And, the general disintegration of most of domestic Catholicism, of course, relatedly continues apace. It is so well known that, e. g., the mainstream Catholics are, on the whole, merrily contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence.

Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church’s morally corrupt hierarchy, as seen in its September 8, 2013 unfortunate push for amnesty for the millions of illegals, would, thus, surely have this rather curious above noted result, meaning as to a number of the Hispanics.

Equally, as has been extensively documented over many years, growing numbers of Hispanic apostates do chose various forms of Protestantism, contrary ever to their original or traditional faith. Is this push for amnesty a supposed idealistic and purely noble act of gracious charity for man or, more likely, just a cynical and vile, contemptible and duplicitous, attempt to (somehow or other) desperately save a dying Church in America? The latter case, in pragmatic terms of what may be thought tangible rather than solely ethereal, seems more reasonable, on average, and quite likely as well.

What, nevertheless, may be here understood? One certainly must greatly factor in the truly horrid aftermath and terrible results of the Second Vatican Council, which had legitimized progressive/radical dissent.

Embrace of the Nietzschean Abyss

Obviously, the quite degenerate ethical and moral vision of the postconciliar Church, in this country and elsewhere, very substantially exhibits postmodern thinking, upheld by philosophical nominalism, in that it is both post-existential and post-phenomenological in its basic orientation. Concern for the many illegals manifests a most curious dispassion, profound detachment, as to whether or not they may or may not wish to remain Roman Catholics in their choice of a religion. This is curious.

The too strange ethics and morality, rather bizarrely displayed, is so clearly, therefore, postmodern in its overt strong attitude that significantly indicates a great affinity for and, in effect, a blatant endorsement of nihilism. Let this fact be understood clearly. This has been cooperatively aided, in addition, by the baleful influences of subjectivism, relativism, and overall situation ethics that do pervade what gets normally taught in the main colleges and universities of the Western world. Can all this empirical consequence of the vast deformation of human thought be, therefore, unknown or unknowable to the hierarchy? Again, this is curious.

There is a pervasive blindness exhibited toward revealed causes and effects by which ethical and moral viewpoints become quite necessarily abstract; these then pronounced abstractions, in their turn, are fully allowed to govern progressive Church policy, in this momentously debatable matter, related to the burning question of amnesty. Postmodernism, in contemporary ethics and morals, cannot but help having a fairly logical affinity with gross nihilistic beliefs and practices that do evilly disregard noted certain malevolent consequences, as to many possible diverse impacts upon human lives.

The radical and ever radicalizing Spirit of the Second Vatican Council (postconciliar Church) introduced the ways and means by which the evil of nihilism would and could be legitimized within the rancid cognition of the hierarchy and elsewhere; this is because the heresy of modernism, warned against by Pope St. Pius X, was itself mainly legitimized.

With that former barrier successfully leaped over many decades ago, there was then really nothing to stop the, thus, logical progression, favored by nominalism, by which postmodern attitudes would come to pervasively dominate what can be obviously termed progressive or liberal thinking.

In its parody of Utopia, the nihilistic Nietzschean abyss has, therefore, been wholeheartedly embraced by the vast majority of the hierarchy, as is so quite superbly represented by, one could here guess, the ethically and morally corrupt National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB). How can this attitude be obviously detected?

Amnesty fits in properly with the realities of the American welfare-warfare State in that the basically socialist policies and programs of Obama and the Democrat Party, aided by many RINO and neocon Republicans in the GOP leadership, are politically congenial to the contemporary needs and desires of the Church and, of course, the NCCB. The decline and degeneracy easily seen in the nation’s society and culture, furthermore, adds to the overall immoral inclination of the Church’s venal hierarchy to just go with the flow of many national events, not to seek victories for Christ and His Church.

However, noted major activism explicitly done on behalf of the Obama-Rubio amnesty, as with the September 8th efforts, plunges this religious organization directly into the national political debate upon a subject that is a hot button item. It is, in many ways, ripping the nation apart.

Amnesty, as has been documented, will certainly accelerate rapidly the nihilistic decay of this country’s institutions; the Weimarization of America would then become nearly completed in that millions of native-born Americans will feel, increasingly, alienated from what was once thought to be their country, which would be, in effect, handed over to millions of foreigners. The Catholicism of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic traditionalists would then have to be repudiated as reactionary and atavistic, which is an even more serious matter, meaning especially for Catholics, of course. It just seems that Utopia can’t wait, though, as is known, it never arrives.

The hierarchy, in their perverse policy attitudes, violates the notion that charity first begins at home. About thirty million American workers, at a minimum, are either unemployed, underemployed, or have taken premature retirements or disability escapes; this is surely due to the nasty Obama economy in its horrid transition toward a European-style, social-democratic State that seeks to eventually absorb the entire economy, meaning as to its basic functions and organization as such. The plainly unholy alliance between this social-market/collectivist economy and the Church appears as if it were a marriage made in Hell, though claimed to be the assumed favoring of social justice (aka Utopia).

The fact of amnesty, therefore, gets sadly added to the noted national debauchery and depravity that is engulfing the sociopolitical and sociocultural realities of this country, as it spirals ever downward into the welcoming cesspool of world history. Instead of the Church valiantly resisting the vile trends, its leadership, however, turns a blind eye toward the inherent and logical consequences of their many harmful decisions that freely fuel the fires of this nation’s evident destruction, of its noted decline.

The rapid increase of the welfare population in America, including more and more people on food stamps, to be brought upon by the expected amnesty can only end up provoking ever higher and higher taxes upon the then dwindling middle class. Actions and ideas have consequences; they do not exist in a vacuum. In observable terms of human liberty and constitutional order, this is an unsustainable, greatly untenable, outcome as to the unfortunate future that can be beheld by objective observers. The bread and circuses of ancient Rome had basically the same results, including being overrun by the barbarians (aka illegal aliens of that past era).

The rich and wealthy, as usual, will find the various ways and means of minimizing or totally escaping taxation, inclusive of renunciations of citizenship, which is now occurring at a historically unprecedented rate. The poor and the then growing lower class are to naturally expand as the economic, social, and cultural misery also necessarily increases, along with the hyper-centralization of the State wanted by Obama and his evil Leftist minions.

One sees here how the hierarchy becomes a committed accomplice to all this evil, done in the Catholic name of social justice no less. In practice, so-called social justice becomes a mere synonym for tyranny, which incorporates injustice, corruption, vice, and oppression; it will not, moreover, fight against the rise of anti-Christian bigotry in America; Catholic religious institutions, thus, will not necessarily accrue more assumed sympathy or respect.

The Catholic Church, by its implicit cooperation with the transition toward the social-market economy, then becomes a willing partner to the disastrous consequences that must occur after amnesty takes full effect. It is expected, of course, that some kinds of religious rationalizations are to come forth by which postmodern degrees of reasoning can then be applied ad hoc to the increasingly debased conditions of the impoverished populace.

One can, at that time, observe how many will try to supposedly make the best of a bad situation, including the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church that would have served its purpose in better securing the immoral triumph of tyranny in this nation.

No intermediate institutions are to exist between the State and its subjects, the former citizens of a once free, representative, constitutional republic. The Church will be considered as being unneeded and entirely superfluous or just reactionary. All assumed essential and permitted social service functions and operations are to be taken over completely by the ever centralized political institution, the mortal Leviathan as Thomas Hobbes had called it. Many within the hierarchy, moreover, can be so counted among those who will side with the heinous notion that the Church has, thus, become an obsolescent organization no longer meaningful in the lives of people.

Postmodernism in thought, as ought to be seen, can become rather infectious, as rationalization poured upon rationalization merely comes, thus, to provide a grandiose self-justification for spiritual suicide and its results. Added to pragmatism, positivism, and secularism in cognition, nothing, furthermore, needs to hold the line against whatever specious argumentation may be shallowly sufficient and pleasing to the powers-that-be, the ruling-political class, regarding the wanted glorification of the State, the New Order, highly favored by Obama.

Nihilism is then to be provided with convenient euphemisms by which to conceal the demonic thinking that really supports this radicalization of the society and culture, eventually beyond proper recognition. As always, however, it helps to follow the proverbial money trail. Church organizations have willingly received, e. g., many pro-abortion Navigator Grants as a now fundamental part of Obamacare, which, supposedly, the Catholic Church has rejected as to its explicit Culture of Death orientation. But, then again, Utopia just can’t wait.

There is a strong stench, therefore, of Machiavellian quid pro quo about these contemptible matters that urgently screams to high Heaven and reaches down to low Hell. The sordid relativization of ethics and morals gets completed, moreover, when money coopts ethical and moral decisionmaking processes.

Furthermore, this is surely how postmodernism, via the demonic radicalism of the Spirit of Vatican Council II, has shamefully captured the thinking and motivations of the hierarchy as the evil basis for an overall nihilism in approach that vilely grips the souls of these despicably depraved clerics and their many necessarily compromised supporters.

The cognitive affect of rationalism eventually yields to the core rationalization of anything that basically serves to fulfill the ends sought by those who are in situational charge of the institutional reality of any organization, civil, social, or religious. But, when this happens, ends and means become distorted and convoluted, as with the openly self-serving cognition in Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Rationalization covers not only self-justification and self-righteousness; it conveniently encompasses a variety of sins, including those of omission and commission. The Catholic Church’s overt support for amnesty seeks to rationalize supposed Catholic teachings into providing religious coverage for those who have knowingly broken a country’s immigration/naturalization laws.

An error in ethics and morals gets committed. Two wrongs are said to make a right. The objective breaking of the law and the seen rewarding of people for breaking the law (aka amnesty) are quite conveniently rationalized into becoming the proper legitimation, for the assumed Catholic position, favoring the illegal aliens. The wish becomes father to the thought.

Postmodernism in ethics and morals is revealed, therefore, as supportive of the trend in thought that aligns itself with liberal or progressive political Catholicism, which becomes hardly distinguishable from outright adherence, as so thought needed, to mere positivism or pragmatism on the highly problematic issue of amnesty. Concern for poor people, a priority of Catholicism, gets itself oddly convoluted into becoming the having of a warmly solicitous regard for these obvious lawbreakers, those who crossed the border illegally, of course, meaning, by definition, criminals. Again, this is a curious matter.

Absolutely nothing (in comparison) is really said about the well-known massive corruption, economic oppression, and social injustice of the Mexican regime that eagerly creates terrible conditions that do force the Mexican poor and uneducated to flee their own country for the American welfare-warfare State up North. There is a virtual silence in this matter as compared to strong leftist denunciations of the USA in line with PC thinking and its Cultural Marxism. It is, as ever, curious, indeed.

Equally, nothing is much mentioned, relatively speaking, about the known tens of millions of people who properly accept the process of legal immigration and naturalization, nor the fact that about one million people are naturalized in America annually; this is, quite remarkably, more than the entire rest of the world’s countries combined, as to the creating of new citizens.

This, it must be said forthrightly, is hardly the action of an ungenerous or just quite stingy nation supposedly unwilling at all to, thus, reasonably accommodate and accept new people, meaning immigrants. Yet, this extremely important fact is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the mass media and the national propaganda networks.

The illegals, therefore, as can be then fairly perceived, have a very unjust cause. The Catholic Church’s bizarre championing of such an excessively unfair cause is prominently, ethically and morally disturbing to say the least.

It is not surprising, given their rather open support from the American Left and the Church, that the vast majority of the illegals now simply think that they do have (somehow or other) actually acquired a right to citizenship by the bold act of their knowing trespass and occupation on the soil of America. Logic gets thrown out the window, apparently, whenever bold rationalism is so confused and confounded with rationality, which, of course, is of the noetic essence of rationalized postmodernism itself.

It is historically argued, nonetheless, that the Catholic Church in America was once fundamentally an immigrant Church in that it existed to meet and greet the millions of 19th century Irish and others who came to these shores. But, the preconciliar ecclesial organization that existed had not lost its moral compass as is basically true of the later postconciliar institution. A quite different reality exists today.

The illegals are not made subject to any assimilation or acculturation, as had been true in the past; they come now substantially as colonizers who have no real intention of becoming Americans; their offspring, furthermore, are made to think of themselves as permanent outsiders, having a separate existence, who just occupy the land. This is, of course, a sure devaluation of American citizenship into becoming a mere utilitarian status symbol, not a part of republican civic virtue, not an attribute of Americanism nor patriotism.

Conditions and circumstances today are extremely different from what they were well over a hundred years ago; back then, there was no (existing or generous) welfare State, even in a primitive form, to lavishly greet and meet the immigrants, legal and illegal, as is so obviously true in this era. The Church is now, as can be easily noted, in a rather tight ideological alliance with Obama and the Democrats.

While it is historically true, in America, that the Democrat Party has usually been the natural home of immigrants, however, a truly full-scale welfare State, with a surely secularist orientation and existing bounteously in this present age, provides both the material and ideological means for separating such Catholics from their faith, not otherwise.  Is this an unfair statement to make?  How could it be really otherwise?

The highly different reality of this postmodernist era is a new existential situation by which millions of illegals are to be ideologically prepared for a diversity-oriented, multiculturalism inspired, and pluralism obsessed sociopolitical order that has nothing to do with supposedly helping Catholics to remain united to Holy Mother Church.   The primary purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls, not the spreading of niceness throughout the world.

Once this significant and critical fact is clearly recognized, therefore, the overt activism on the part of the hierarchy and those who foolishly or otherwise cooperate with it can be realistically seen in a light revealing the harsh outlines of a nihilistic regard for truth.   What is meant?

The logically and reasonably expected secularization of the masses is to then rather predictably occur, not the assumed anticipation of their warmly attending to the possible religious affirmation of an ardent Catholicism surely. The contemporary Western world, with the USA certainly part of it, is truly being enthralled to the neopaganization of its debased society and culture; de-Christianization, therefore, is the easily observed norm, not the exception.  Secularism is, moreover, considered the normal point of view by “sophisticated” minds and contemporary intelligences.

With its overt affinity for and ideological integration with the aggressive, American welfare-warfare State, the Church’s morally degenerate hierarchy is, furthermore, involved with the secular process of de-Christianization, regardless of any vague or meaningless protestations set to the contrary.  Reasoning as to generalities and particulars gets, moreover, thoroughly confused and greatly confounded through an unneeded ambiguity as to any requisite moral thought.  Catholicism, however, is still supposed to be rightly defended, not debated.

How has this disgusting situation come about?   The advance and assimilation of postmodernism in much prevalent cognizance has, thus, created certain situations such as, e. g., having a theologically confused pontiff, Pope Francis, who publicly says, for instance, that he cannot judge homosexual priests. The Holy Father seems to forget that, according to Catholic teaching, God does the ultimate moral judging at both the Particular Judgment at death and, later, the General Judgment at the final end of time.

Pope Francis, however, as an ordained priest of the Church, is religiously supposed to always judge and condemn all sin unequivocally, whether ever committed by heterosexual or homosexual people is not ever the issue.  Does he not understand this theological fact?   What sadly occurs when a priest, in this manner, forgets his vocation?   The rights, honor, and glory of God have become sadly neglected in a misguided desire to be nice.   The greater metaphysical order of reality gets lost, as when, as yet another example, the pope bows down to mere foreign potentates.

As the proclaimed representative of the eternal King of Kings on earth, the Vicar of Christ, his then excessive acts of humility become seen much more as a source of inordinate pride, not the vain presumption of a seeming desire to appear humble as supposed.   After all, there is known the hoary joke about a bunch of zealous monks in a monastery furiously arguing over who is the humblest of them all.   What needs to be understood, therefore, for properly elucidating this profound matter under serious discussion?

The supreme leader of the Church Militant, meaning the ecclesial reality on earth, possesses the high dignity of his exalted office; thus, to knell and kiss the Ring of the Fisherman is not meant to honor the mere personage of the temporary holder of the office, it is done to honor the current Vicar of Christ, not the man himself, not even just the Bishop of Rome.   The Apostles Creed, which is surely known to Pope Francis, speaks eloquently of the Catholic dogma involving the extraordinary Communion of Saints; this noted matter, fully and gloriously, includes the Church Militant, the Church Suffering (Purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (Heaven).

Thus, one can logically perceive, therefore, that the great defender and champion of the Communion of Saints ought not to be some sort of supposed lackey who bows and scrapes before the ordinary powers of this fallen world.   Pope Francis, as many perceive him, is a clearly neo-hippie pontiff so desperately seeking to be, in general, a lovable character who takes a grandfatherly approach toward his children.   What is, however, at the basic root of all these contemporary problems, lapses of needed moral and spiritual thought, so sadly afflicting Sancta Mater Ecclesia?

The Conciliar Captivity

Pope John XXIII and all those who followed him had been made subject to what may usefully be called the “Conciliar Captivity” created by the malignant Spirit of the Second Vatican Council; it is similar, in certain fascinating ways, to the Avignon Captivity of the Renaissance Papacy in that the crude kind of corrupted thinking to be found, under such circumstances, must ever remain within the now well-worn grooves of Vatican Council II. There appears currently, at the least, to be no escape from this mentality.

This is, sadly, known as the now weakened spiritual and theological condition of the postconciliar Church, with its Novus Ordo (New Mass) being the central part of this theological syndrome, which keeps captive, has nastily caged, the thoughts and general mindset of the hierarchy and their many sycophants; they are stuck in the 1960s. That era now defines the past as well as the future for them.

Consequently, in America, it ought not to be surprising that the hierarchy eagerly sides with the illegal aliens, the law breakers, and strongly against the suffering majority of the people of this nation who do oppose any amnesty that, in effect, openly rewards such criminality.

This matter reflects back upon the noted Conciliar Captivity that is not a physical place, as was the case with Avignon, France, but, instead, is a kind of place of mind seemingly guarded round by the obsessive Vatican II Spirit. What then needs to be here properly understood?

The preconciliar Church would not have (nihilistically) entertained such bizarre cognition that readily accommodates increasing degrees of secularization of attitudes to then match the prevalent conditions necessarily created by the expansive secular reality of the modern State. A St. Catherine of Siena is needed to admonish Pope Francis, as was done regarding her influence on Pope Gregory XI during the period that is known as the Babylonian Captivity or Avignon Papacy.

What exists today may be called the Conciliar Papacy, defined by the ‘60s “flower power” Spirit of Vatican II, that seeks degrees of compromise with the world; and yet, it knows that, realistically speaking, there can be no real compromise between the Culture of Life, the doctrines and dogmas of orthodox Catholicism, versus the always nihilistic Culture of Death.

Therefore, what critically needs to be comprehended carefully is that the embrace of amnesty aligns itself with the Culture of Death, which now clearly encompasses Obamacare with, as is known, its evil pro-abortion demands. It is impossible to dance with the devil without being burned as a result. The political and ideological forces favoring amnesty are, therefore, highly congruent with and supportive of the aggressive or militant secularization of American society and culture.

The logic of what is wanted, meaning by the laicist politicians and their ilk, cannot, moreover, be simply discounted by supposing that the raw veneer of religiosity can provide supine cover for what must, thus, happen naturally consequent to the full realization of the amnesty and its baleful effects. Increasingly, it ought to be plainly expected that, over time, fewer and fewer Hispanics will want to remain within the old faith of their ancestors.

Amnesty, as should be rightly noted, cannot rationally be perceived as being a victory for the advance of Catholicism in America. On the contrary, predictably divergent forces will come to impinge upon the Hispanic community as to the ever expanding pluralism and heterodoxy in beliefs to be easily found in contemporary America. Such reasoning should not be doubted given the empirical realities confronted as the Weimarization of this nation, the now basic thrust toward a European-style, democratic-socialist regime, evidently continues apace.

These marked domestic tendencies will then include, of course, Protestantism, Islam, and, as ought to be suspected, just outright secularism. Liberal or progressive Catholicism with its New Mass structure has not proven itself religiously powerful enough to firmly maintain and attract generations of believers because of the unauthoritative posturing that generally characterizes the usually lax appeal made.

This is surely true for both the non-Hispanic and Hispanic populations, as adaptations are, therefore, willingly made toward the secularized sociocultural and sociopolitical order now developed so militantly by the welfare-warfare State, especially under the nihilistic Obama Administration.   But, for the Church, what happened to the salvation of souls?

Moreover, e. g., the tremendously illegitimate or strange fears of the illegals are disproportionately absurd; there would never ever be any kind of police-state roundup of them; among other reasons, it would be simply inordinately expensive to attempt to actually capture and physically house about 12 to 20 million people, besides making the supposed cure much worse than the disease.

They are, in fact, allowed to openly roam about America and protest freely in all major and minor cities, which, incidentally, would never be permitted elsewhere in almost all the other countries of the world.   Their absurd hatred of this nation is, therefore, both unfair and ironic, while they so haughtily, snootily, keep demanding citizenship no less (called an amnesty).   Ingratitude is not charming.

Meanwhile, America’s secularist therapeutic culture is just ethically and morally disarmed in the face of such bold absurdity.   Mainstream Catholicism, in this degenerate nation, participates so easily with the noted therapeutic culture, which sees nothing actually wrong with the Obama-Rubio amnesty now supported by the Church.

Attitudes among the jaded hierarchy, however, are not expected to really change much, as long as the corrupting Spirit of Vatican II lingers on as it seems to, while the ever misinformed laity gets further and further befuddled as to what Catholic teachings are supposed to say about this terrible situation.  The Church, as a direct result, yields more and more real authority and power to the modern State, the assumed engine of most contemporary niceness and pleasantry, the goods and services, of a proficient tyranny, of the Big Nanny State.

Church politics and Leftist ideology, consequently, do then demonically combine to favor the blurring of moral right versus moral wrong, which, of course, satisfies easily the callous desires of those who want to maximize solicitude for the lawbreakers who claim, in effect, that they righteously may inhabit this country at will. Subjectivity, backed by a willing pragmatism and an often covert positivism, rules over all this vile mess, as the clerisy proclaims its ardent love for the downtrodden, which is so economically profitable for them, considering all the Federal welfare programs and policies that do lavishly exist.

The discussed Conciliar Captivity will never allow for any true reconsideration, much less fundamental questioning, of Vatican II as having created the Postconciliar Church with its wide openness toward the anthropocentric viewpoint, which all contemporary religious dialogue is to revolve around interminably. Pope John XXIII’s perverse Council is, thus, to forever endure as the core alpha and omega of theological dialogue, as long as there remains any leadership still enthralled by the Spirit that just cannot seek any real compromise.

One can guess that the final truth, the Philosopher’s Stone, has supposedly been found; it must then be myopically and dogmatically defended, regardless of the still many verifiable, demonstrable, negative consequences that are notably strangling the Church, especially in Europe and North America. This horrid mindset continues to destroy and stultify any possibility for having a hearing of genuine thought contrary to the superstitions created that condemns any fundamental questioning of the evil results of Vatican II.

The neo-Catholics, as they have been denominated, firmly support the “new orthodoxy” that was developed and hardened into dogma by that mid-1960s gathering.   All seemingly possible valid criticism, if made acceptable, can only be, reductionistically, made to support the redundant reform of the reform of the reform, which becomes merely absurd.

The enormous errors, the heresy, residing inevitably at the demonic center or core of the assumed reform discussed must, however, remain either completely or substantially unquestioned. Why? This further insures the odd legitimacy demanded for Vatican II, regardless of the tremendous suffering and anguish it has obviously caused and can only continue to undoubtedly foster, far into the future.

Until the equivalent personage of a St. Catherine of Siena (or, perhaps, a group or saints) can come along to appropriately right this wrong, by seeking to reorient significantly the jaded thinking of the papacy, nothing much would seem likely to bring about the needed and requisite change. Fr. George Rutler’s A Crisis of Saints truly defines the fundamental and explicit remedy needed for strengthening contemporary Catholicism. A movement is required to end this Conciliar Captivity.

The traditionalist, orthodox religious orders, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, and Society of St. Pius X, can be expected to generate a natural block of determined opposition that may very well produce the saints needed and requisite to the spiritually urgent task.


The coming September 8th pseudo-humanitarian niceness extravaganza is, surely, much more a product of the bizarre reflections that developed, as part of the mental, moral, and spiritual aftermath of Vatican II, than will ever be publicly acknowledged as such.

As a greatly deleterious spiritual result, the much damaged moral compass of the Church’s substantially failed leadership will come to celebrate a nihilistic regard for the truth, as the illegal aliens get depicted as the supposed victims of an oppressive country; thus, cold cognitive postmodernism, in its nominalist mode, unites plainly with nihilism in its favoring of a bland utopianism founded upon secularism.

Until some fundamental semblance of religious and theological normality may get needfully restored, perhaps, through the traditional teachings of Thomistic morality and Catholic orthodoxy, the Church in America can only sink ever further into the menial morass of viewing itself as a sort of adjunct social services agency obedient, more or less, to the laicist ideological dictates of the State.   Democratic despotism is to reign supreme as the sole judge of pragmatic, convenient, or relative truth.  For defending (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, however, what must be done?

The Conciliar Captivity, at a minimum, must be brought to an end as a means of joyously freeing, liberating, the Church from this bizarre attitude that minimizes the Gospel message, meaning as the evil tyranny of the modern State gets, resultantly, more maximized.  A great lion of the Church, a saint, is needed today to combat the forces of spiritual decay.

Only an adamant affirmation of the orthodox understanding and comprehension, therefore, of the three main pillars of the glorious Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, can properly produce the revitalization, the spiritual revival, which is so necessary for rightly proclaiming and advancing true Catholicism, not the secularist desire to be nice.

Athanasius contra mundum!

The Neo-Hippie Pope: Pope Francis as His Freakiness

The Neo-Hippie Pope: Pope Francis as His Freakiness

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


In ancient times, St. Jerome, a priest, confessor, theologian (author of the Vulgate version of the Bible), historian, and, later, made a Doctor of the Church, wrote that the floor of Hell is littered with the skulls of bishops.   Depictions of bishops and popes burning in Hell are to be seen in many medieval paintings.  Centuries later, the greatly egotistic and self-made Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had once, it is said, contemptuously shouted at a prelate that he could utterly destroy the Roman Catholic Church. 

Having a quick wit, the high cleric, Cardinal Ercole Consalvi, then rapidly responded in a famous riposte that, as far as may be known, went something like this: “We clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you’ll be able to do it?”   A 21st century commentator could still wryly add that, nonetheless, the clergy do keep trying, inclusive of popes.  What is meant by such a statement?

Ever since 1965, the Church has been in a true crisis, though both secular and clerical liberals and leftists have routinely misdiagnosed the cause, nature, and extent of this ongoing catastrophe, assuming that many really see one at all.   One symptom can be mentioned below as an illustrative example of this unfortunately continuing disaster that afflicts Holy Mother Church.

The priestly order pointedly denominated as the Society of St. Pius X has been denied, for scores of years, regularization and unrestricted acknowledgement of its wanted full communion with the Roman Catholic Church; this has, essentially, been for only one basic reason.   It adamantly refuses to ever accept the heresy of the Second Vatican Council, meaning its then complete legitimization as a, thus, supposed ecumenical council truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, as its many ever avid supporters and defenders do still always allege, contrary to much adverse evidence.   

The Vatican, in turn, recognizes the Society as a serious threat because, unlike the traditionalist Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Society of St. Pius X also runs schools, which means that their generational influence and demographic control insures more handily that tens of thousands of orthodox Roman Catholics will be more conscientiously oriented against Vatican Council II.  

Therefore, a more extensive and normal parish life and consequent vitality can, logically, exist by which to then more effectively and efficiently counter this heresy and its cognate evil effects.   The Priestly Fraternity, with its seven year program for prelate formation, produces only a relative handful of priests each year versus the ever expanding and unfilled demand that readily exists.  Compared to the Society, it is fairly inoffensive, unthreatening, and, thus, controllable.

Some defenders of that 1960s-era conclave, however, even have the unmitigated nerve to say that it was, also, a dogmatic council, contrary directly to the documented historical record denying fully such an exalted ecclesial status.   As a result, controversy appears unending and disputations unresolved; meanwhile, Pope Francis, with a new title given here as “His Freakiness,” wants even further openness toward the world, inclusive of a strongly pro-homosexual stance.

Argumentation Presented

Heresy, admittedly, is an extremely strong accusation.  There surely ought to be, therefore, concretely substantive and substantial facts, details, knowledge, etc. brought forth here readily to so validate and substantiate such a genuinely grave charge; this is by which fair and objective witnesses can freely attest to the inherent veracity and accuracy of what has been then forcefully stated; also, major contradiction of this quite serious asseveration should be, in context, objectively impossible as to the fundamental matter of the truth involved. 

Historically, e. g., the Arian heresy was of just such a nature in that the assertion can be and, in fact, had been totally validated; and, in the time of St. Athanasius, moreover, most of the Church hierarchy itself had been thoroughly contaminated by such religiously incorrect thinking.  So, it is, insightfully, seen that such a terrible situation is not at all unprecedented, meaning, thus, within the noted scope and breath of recorded ecclesial history. 

The Second Vatican Council, Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum, constituted, as to its set integral nature, the fomenting of heresy as its legacy, which can be critically perceived by what has then historically, empirically, happened as a result.  That is, admittedly, a rather bold and strong statement to make.   Pope Francis is, one can here rightly note, very comfortable with this terrible situation.  Proper argumentation, therefore, ought and will be gladly given in solid support of this highly important and quite abrasive assertion. 

Classic historical background reading would still include Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Devastated Vineyard and his Trojan Horse in the City of God.   Among others, Bishop James Henry Ambrose Griffiths, STD (1903—1964) had been present at that strange assembly; a convert from Protestantism and a quite theologically learned man, he came back, however, to say how exceedingly appalled and saddened he was at the horrendous sight of heresy boldly defended, of evil plainly sought.   

For among those who know and understood the traditions of the Faith, a contemporary and participant in the events keenly knew when Catholicism was being threatened and undermined; and, of course, he was not alone, in his then current observations, emotionally expressed with profound alarm and anxiety.   Has consequent history come to substantially vindicate his major fears?   One can yet consult: The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., or The Second Vatican Council – An Unwritten Story by Roberto deMattei, a more recent book.

Enough valid time, several generations in fact, have sadly passed to give an evaluation, assessment, and consideration of the vastly negative impact upon the Church of the horrid aftermath of Vatican Council II (1962 – 1965), hereafter usually referred to as VCII.    As Jesus Christ Himself said in the New Testament, you will know a tree by its fruit; a good tree bears good fruit; a bad tree yields bad fruit.  And, such evil produce is poisonous.   For as St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, in his Letter to the Tralians,”heretics mingle poison with Jesus Christ, as men might administer a deadly drug in sweet wine.”

Ultimately, all of the various conclusions and thoughts to be rendered, by this present cogent analysis, are as basic and simple, fundamental and noncomplex, as is that revealing epistemological statement emphatically made by no less a personage than the Son of God, the one and only Messiah. 

What, starting with the basics, makes something a heresy?   The meaning of heresy is, literally, a special opinion; it is, thus, a choice, says St. Isidore in his Etymologies, “by which each chooses according to his own will what he pleases to teach or believe.”   For Catholicism, however, heresy means much more than just an errant or naughty opinion; it is an idea, doctrine, notion, or any movement of thought or activity contrary to any of the three pillars of the Faith, which are Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium; none of which contradict each other and, moreover, all do logically uphold each other. 

Those three theological principles are forever consistent and necessarily, by definition, fully orthodox in their natures, as is, e. g., the Trinitarian Dogma itself.  The primary danger of heresy, set contrary to the teachings of the three strong pillars of Catholic religious life, is that it has and will lead to the unwanted damnation of souls; it must, therefore, always be abhorred and opposed unequivocally.

How would one define a heretic?  In The Common Man, G. K. Chesterton, often considered an unofficial lay Doctor of the Church by his ardent admirers, had this to say: “The heretic (who is also a fanatic) is not a man who loves truth too much; no man can love truth too much.  The heretic is a man who loves his truth more than the truth itself.  He prefers the half-truth that he has found to the whole truth which humanity has found.  He does not like to see his own precious little paradox merely bound up with twenty truisms into the bundle of the wisdom of the world.”

What has been said of VCII?   The Spirit of the Second Vatican Council is often placed against the Letter of the Second Vatican Council in a kind of Hegelian dialectic, which is thought to then lead to a kind of synthesis appropriate for modernism in thought, though not for true Catholicism.  Any Hegelian dialectic is, by its very nature, vehemently anti-Catholic to its core and so stands forever hard against orthodoxy because it is so corruptly founded upon nominalism in philosophy. 

A kind of weird theo-ideology, a sure abomination to behold, has been theologically and intellectually constructed by which VCII has become seemingly immune to any valid criticism whatsoever, especially in specific terms of its becoming the new touchstone of modern Church orthodoxy.

Those who do know that VCII is a heresy but still uphold it, furthermore, have no real fear of God or Hell, much less the criticisms of any fellow human beings; their hearts are hardened deliberately against truth and justice.  Moreover, one ought to ask why opposition to it has substantially increased, such that Pope Benedict XVI thought it necessary and prudent to promulgate his motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007?   

No such desperation has ever or, moreover, will ever exist for the swelling together of great crowds of people intensely hungering for the New Mass, which should not require any guess work as to why not.

Of course, many have and will say that it, the Summorum Pontificum, was only narrowly aimed at just helping to supply more traditional Latin Masses, now called the Extraordinary Rite, and was not really directed at fighting the sad results of Pope John XXIII’s radical Council.   This bare fiction is inventive, if not at all impressive or expressive of the whole truth.   If this contention were even halfway true, then the traditional Latin Mass, meaning demand for it, ought to have dwindled and, eventually, vanished from sight almost everywhere on earth.

Logically, there would have been, in fact, no significant need to so dramatically oppose the hardened intransigence of the vast majority of the hierarchy, on this matter, if it were not for the growing need sincerely expressed mainly by the laity, not the majority of the clergy.   Pope John Paul II’s earlier motu proprio: Ecclesia Dei of 1984, allowing for Indult Masses, was later found to be mainly inadequate to the important task, due mainly to the rigid obstinacy, vile incalcitrance, of the bulk of the bishops.  But, such a weak gesture was better than nothing; traditionalists, however, still keep praying and hoping for more, much more.

The Latin Mass Community, interestingly, represents those devout Catholics, denounced as the bells and smells miscreants, who usually have very large families; their children, in turn, gradually grow up and they normally do get married and they also have very large families; more and more of such tradition-oriented Catholic children as later adults, therefore, are then available for vocations to the holy orders.  This reality is fundamentally unlike the New Mass Community that is mostly contracepting and aborting itself out of existence with, on the whole, almost no vocations; it is geared mainly toward the Culture of Death with its adherence to VCII.

Traditionalist, prolife parishioners, in addition, are routinely among those who are quite generous toward their local churches strongly devoted to upholding religious orthodoxy, which is an important point to note.   They are, of course, a beleaguered, marginalized, vilified, despised minority subject to discrimination and contempt, prejudice and scorn, by the hierarchy.  Latin Mass churches are usually in ghetto or other such neighborhoods due to their parishioners being regarded as pariahs and outcasts. And yet, the future is theirs; demography is destiny.  Orthodoxy fosters the Culture of Life.

Hint: Demographics, vocations, and money are, clearly and heavily, on the side of the anti-VCII forces, not the modernists, the nominalist fetishists.   Generation by generation, over the many scores of years and, thus, centuries to come, victory, over the passage of time, will be with the Latin Mass Community (LMC), though prayers for the spiritual enlightenment of Pope Francis and the hierarchy should yet be encouraged.   

However, since he feels no love for them, benign neglect would be the best thing that the present Holy Father could practice toward the LMC.   But, the odd ghost of VCII hovers still over Church deliberations, though one doubts it is a heavenly spirit.   Meanwhile, the traditionalists may intelligently pray for the indulgence of benign neglect seeing how Pope Francis, concerning, e. g., his World Youth Day tour in Brazil, has quite openly manifested a major noted inclination to stir up youth, not truth.  

Moreover, his equally bombastic denunciation of clericalism, coming incidentally from the Church’s chief cleric, has a rather ironic and hollow sound.  [In strict obedience to him, should all Catholic youth stir up tremendous opposition to the Vicar of Christ, he being the greatest representative of clericalism?   What a buffoon!]

More than that, however, the Spirit of VCII is normally held as being always religiously superior to the mere Letter, in seeing that the Spirit of the Law ought to liberate, while its Letter alone imprisons; this Hegelian Spirit has, of course, a theologically liberationist function fully alien to all of proper Catholic theology.   Consequently, all manner of things heretical have come, not surprisingly, to find their crude or often sophisticated justification (aka rationalization) by conveniently citing the vaporous VCII Spirit in all of its inherent and deliberate ambiguity, its artful tergiversation and often semantic obscurity.

Does the passage of time, however, circumstantially confer some sort of allied substantive validity to ecumenical or other councils?   The Synod of Pistoia of 1786 was, finally, rightfully denounced by the Church, by Pope Pius VI, in 1794, who had condemned 85 of the Pistoian articles; the same sagacious result is, someday, hoped for regarding VCII.   As ever, a profound understanding and comprehension of the major religious, theological, and spiritual struggle needs to be epistemologically attained for having better philosophical cognition, advanced cognizance, about the critical issues involved. 

The interesting point being made is that VCII is not to be thought, somehow or other, just permanently sacrosanct merely for having been fairly popular at the time or, moreover, after the particular era that  weirdly gave it birth.  Chronological precedent is not a guarantor of truth.  Therefore, the mere passage of time does not, in and of itself, lend total authenticity or rightness to any such council or synod.  VCII’s own ecclesial authority is set on shaky ground, if somehow based upon longevity alone because, as noted, such gatherings can be/have been theologically and historically invalidated, finally repudiated.  

Has there been a truly remarkable worldwide plenitude, a kind of spiritual avalanche, of conversions to the Catholic Faith as a direct or indirect result of VCII?   With the exception of parts of Africa and a few other places, the Faith, on the whole, has been shrinking and dying elsewhere, especially in Europe and, of course, in Italy, which most directly felt the impact of VCII; and, thus, this should not be surprising. 

Pope Benedict XVI, himself having been present at VCII, had declared, some time ago, that it was not at all a dogmatic council, only an ecumenical or pastoral assembly.  It is a fact that no new Church dogmas, had been there promulgated or officialized in any way whatsoever; regardless of that significant detail, its rather blind acceptance had ended up becoming a test of modernist orthodoxy.  

Have there been, perhaps, many massive surges of eager postulants and enthusiastic candidates for the vast majority of the religious orders?   Except for the minority of orthodox congregations, one must, realistically, say not really.  It has been well researched by now, and numerous books and articles can be cited in firm support of the idea, that VCII has, moreover, quite miserably failed to revitalize or energize the Church, as had been once predicted.  But, the fruitless defense of it continues nonetheless; and, even regardless of its fundamental spiritual sterility; it was a conclave where requisite orthodoxy was sidestepped.

The emptying of the seminaries and convents, cultural Catholics (non-practicing sentimentalists), and “cafeteria Catholicism,” among other unfortunate examples of the decline of the Faith, have notably proven the bad fruit given by the very bad tree at the horrendous fiasco known as the Second Vatican Council.   Furthermore, the unctuous use of the vernacular for the Novus Ordo, New Mass, has not, in fact, excitedly attracted waves of Protestants in that vain and absurd effort to Protestantize the Mass in the overvalued name of reform spuriously cited.  Lex orandi, lex credenda.

The evil plague of modernism, meaning philosophical nominalism addressed aggressively toward both religion and theology and afflicting the Roman Catholic Church, has been continuing; it is manifested by the New Mass of Pope Paul VI that embraces the world of men, not an orientation favoring solemnity, holiness, tradition, and a righteous concern for Catholic orthodoxy.  An ever extended range of notions, concepts, ideas, practices, symbolisms, aberrations, and much else has wildly contributed to the ever expanding subjectivity and odd variability connected to and, moreover, generated by the existence of the New Mass and its many baleful consequences, including often a lack of needed solemnity. 

But, this radical concatenation of absurdity plied upon asininity has not led, as once so optimistically predicted, to a veritable springtime of a vibrant surge of worldwide Catholic evangelization nearly unprecedented in the entire history of the Church, rather, instead, the opposite has basically occurred.   

Millions of Catholics and others had committed the simple rationalization, in their untutored minds, that the Protestants did the modern language thing much better, i. e., English language religious services in the USA as an obvious example.   In short, one would be quite blind, deaf, and dumb not to notice the fundamental ruin and sad wreckage caused by VCII.   It is an often disguised attempt at promoting the hidden agenda of what honestly can be seen as the evil effort to achieve eschatological immanentism, which only halfway succeeded with Protestantism and not just with its more radical variants.

There now exists the widely celebrated fallacious historical notion, moreover, of a supposed preconciliar Church, the evil “Dark Ages” of Catholicism, as being widely different from the postconciliar Church, the good/joyous “Era of Enlightenment” since VCII.  Pridefulness has, also, played an ugly part in sustaining a positive view of what is objectively a quite terrible situation to behold, though it is known that “Pride goeth before a fall.”

Unfortunately, too many clerics and others had and still have publicly staked their entire intellectual reputations upon their acceptance of and interpretations related to this particular Church gathering that has caused shock waves similar to the Arian Heresy, which was an entire religious movement and not any kind of isolated matter.   Its evil impact, however, seems to be much worse than the Arian Heresy because the full force of the heresy of modernism, as was vigorously warned against by Pope St. Pius X early in the 20th century, has boldly and tenaciously taken hold of the contemporary Church.

The odd postconciliar Church would be substantially unrecognizable to St. Pius X and for good reason.   Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, if returned to life today, would be thoroughly shocked at the doings and practices allowed to exist.   It is extremely doubtful that Pope St. Pius V, among many other worthy pontiffs, would simply give his unreserved blessing to the prevailing theological and consequent religious chaos, which has led to this ongoing and heartbreaking crisis within the Church. 

What gets called “reform” is, in truth, actually radicalization, not the sage application of some certain prudential change, kept ever spiritually in proper line, by studiously attending to the requirements of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium rightly concerned with orthodoxy.   But, VCII supporters are too ideologically, emotionally, and intellectually committed to see any of its tremendously inherent flaws and faults, including, of course, the notable and undeniable de-Christianization of Europe.

The preconciliar Church celebrated Christ and the means given for salvation through the Church; the postconciliar Church celebrates the people as a religious community and presents the means for their intramundane glorification.   How is this known?  The traditional Latin Mass, the good seed that will help to bring forth good fruit, has the priest properly facing the altar for the worship of God; the New Mass has the priest facing the people to better worship them; thus, obvious actions speak louder than words, so much for the modernist tinkering with liturgy. 

And, this is naturally why the Novus Ordo has too much of a Protestant feel to it, not so unexpectedly.   Michael Davies, among others, had written extensively on this important matter, as with his extremely insightful volume entitled: Pope John’s Council: Liturgical Revolution: Vol. II.   Also, one can profitably read his Volume III: Pope Paul’s New Mass.   [A bibliography against VCII would have the effect of more than tripling the pages of this brief article.]

Meanwhile, among more recent popes, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the former a truly formidable charismatic pontiff and the latter an equally formidable intellect as a pope, had so surely engaged themselves in the ever pitiful reform of the reform of the reform, in a vain and fruitless effort to somehow make it all work as expected.   Guess what?  They failed.  Regardless, the vain attempt still continues.

But, things never worked out as planned.  Of course, many people ignorantly pin their hopes upon the Catholic Charismatic Movement that apes Protestant charismatic groups, which ought to be a warning sign; they are somewhat equivalent to the late Medieval flagellants whose raw fanaticism was wrongly seen as somehow purifying, revitalizing, and, thus, spiritually superior to much of the moral sloth and inactivity of that past era.  That earlier historical freakishness and the freaky and contemporaneous Charismatic Movement, seeking many endless emotional highs, are, in truth, just spiritual dead ends, not productive religiously-oriented futures.

John Paul II, an adherent of VCII, had himself participated openly in quite vile acts of horridly profound blasphemy by, e. g., placing pagan idols on a Catholic altar as at that greatly infamous gathering held at Assisi, Italy, though, currently, he’s on his supposed way toward sainthood.  Perhaps, it is an effort to help legitimize the heresy, especially by laudably calling him John Paul the Great, a man who had been a bold celebrator of many anti-Catholic aberrations, again, one sees that corruptively perverse Spirit of VCII.   Canonization and Church politics seem here to be wrongly united and geared toward incestuous reciprocity.

Or, in religiously needed opposition to such blatant error, as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his Oxford University Sermons, had so notably written: “Here is the badge of heresy: its dogmas are unfruitful; it has no theology.  Deduct its remnants of Catholic theology, and what remains?  Polemics, explanations, protests.”  One could, thus, suggest that such is the forever exceedingly faulty scaffolding, heretical argumentation, of VCII, meaning when honestly put on open display.

Presenting the ever improper notion, even semantically, that there is a postconciliar Church versus the preconciliar Church totally vitiates and negates the orthodox dogmatic assertion that there can be only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Pope Benedict XVI had, in fact, publicly spoken about such an important point as to its both complete inappropriateness and inherently fallacious nature. 

Nonetheless, literally speaking, it is widely known that many millions of Catholics, thousands of clergy, and, also, many non-Catholics do commonly voice themselves concerning the genuine differences and major distinctions of two fairly dissimilar bodies as to their noted or supposed past and present realities.  Different churches, divergent liturgies, consequently, do seem to exist, besides the opposed theological points of view.  What is needed today is the Church Militant, not the Church Ambivalent.

If VCII was, as claimed, theocentric, meaning strongly Christocentric, it ought to have spiritually swept through both the heights and depths of Western civilization with an intense evangelization not seen since the Middle Ages; instead, of course, its artful anthropocentric orientation is revealed by its basic sterility, for this curse upon the Church will not be effectively lifted until the entire Spirit of VCII is utterly repudiated and, in a forceful public manner, done for all time to come.

For instance, the postconciliar attitude seems to substantially minimize or, at times, just discard entirely the significant ancient and venerable doctrine and dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is so greatly pivotal toward the proper understanding, by definition, of the entire spiritual universalism, always claimed by Catholicism, as to its total exclusivity and exceptionality; this only relates, logically, to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; there is none other; there, moreover, never was or will be; it is a notable part of definitional catholicity and about as dogmatic as one could get.

Aggiornamento, which can be translated as “a bringing up to date”, was definitely one of the key words and slogans joyously and widely used during the Second Vatican Council both by bishops and the clergy attending the sessions; it meant full-scale modernization, which included an embracing of the world, for the sake of the lively rejuvenation, wholesale revivification, of the Church. 

It was not for nothing that John XXIII was, moreover, referred to as the “Maoist Pope” as an indication of his well-noted attitude favoring ecclesial change and novelty.   Aggiornamento, therefore, became an axiological incantation for deviously conjuring up the wild forces to be willingly directed by the Spirit of VCII, along with its explicit desire for modern ecumenism, of course.

But, as a horrid result of VCII, it is realistically possible to correctly assert that two different and opposed theologies now exist by which communicants of the Latin Mass Community, an embattled minority, find themselves forever estranged, alienated, from the often seedier and sleazier aspects of the New Mass Community with its Novus Ordo.   It is far from the Church Militant.

Truly separate Church realities, thus, have and will increasingly develop because the mainly divergent theologies are so integrally incommensurate and essentially incompatible; the former is geared only toward requisite orthodoxy; the latter finds it ever crescively hard to somehow avoid varying degrees of heterodoxy representative of modern ecumenism.   There now exists, as a consequence (which ought to have been logically expected), the preconciliar Church, staying ever faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, versus the postconciliar Church, having an anthropocentric orientation, with its observed predominant loyalty to VCII.    It is certainly difficult for it to battle against the Culture of Death.

Furthermore, millions of those same New Mass Catholics talk about their assertion that they never want to “go back” to the preconciliar Church, thus, de facto, if not de jure, clearly recognizing its (past) formal existence as a quite different Church or, at least, religious environment.  Today, the Latin American Pope Francis, a mainly happy-go-lucky fellow, appears quite supinely content to essentially live with the gross existing mess, more or less, which is not exactly inspiring. And, may God have mercy upon his soul.

Pope Francis: An Interlude with a neo-Hippie Mediocrity

If not necessarily having a heated objection to the traditional Latin Mass, he has shown an indifference to this one sure bulwark of true Catholic orthodoxy that could be readily and usefully put at the service of the Church much more effectively and efficiently than is now the case.   However, from what can be publicly guessed at or discerned, Pope Francis, lovingly called the “Slum Pope” by his many admirers, has absolutely no noted great desire to promote needed orthodoxy, passively or actively, through the Latin Mass and its orthodox religious demands.  This Holy Father has quickly decided to become a full parody of a media pope.

His touchstone for the modern Church is VCII as the assumed test of the “new orthodoxy” and the ever nauseously ongoing reform of the reform of the reform.   Those, the majority, who he may think of as being either his fervid or erstwhile supporters are laughing behind his back, for the joke’s on him.   They do let him freely indulge in his own idiosyncrasies and foibles, more puppet than puppet master, indeed, which may suggest why he needs the prayers of the faithful for his future salvation.

Instead of engaging righteously, as the Vicar of Christ on earth ought, in an attempt at doing a valid sea change for true reform in right favor of requisite orthodoxy, there is the pitiful effort at maintaining a substantial holding pattern; this is, of course, the doing of negligible repairs of just minor things that do, unfortunately, distract vital attention from the impressive gaping wounds that rudely cause the body of Christ on earth, Holy Mother Church, to figuratively bleed profusely.  A Leo the Great, an authoritative shepherd of Christ’s flock, is so urgently needed now; however, another version of a Pope Paul VI (or worse) exists currently to fiddle, while Rome burns and Catholicism suffers.   

His wondrous pontificate seems well on the way of seeing just how studiously the fiddling is done in the midst of the multiple trials and terrors facing modern Catholicism in the contemporary world.  This is not meant to deny that he is what he appears to be, meaning a good man who tries to work at holiness and urges it upon others; he may be, moreover, a good enough pope and, perhaps, just enough of a pontiff that God has allowed the Church to have at this time in history, meaning as a punishment, of course.  

However, his clearly existentialist and phenomenological approach toward various moral positions and teachings bodes ill for Holy Mother Church, as with his, e. g., openly pro-homosexual views, which will, e. g., willingly grant him free entrance to Hell, if not repented sincerely prior to his death.  Yes, of course, it is well known that he “reaches out to the poor” and those who suffer; he does a lot of nice stuff.

But, if one goes on this way, it would be an unctuous means of condemning him with slight praise, which is not the purpose of this present article.  The noble cry for enforcing orthodoxy goes unheeded by the See of St. Peter.  He, the Apostolic Pastor and neo-Hippie Pope, has ears but hears not; he has eyes but sees not.   Dante, to no one’s surprise, wrote about popes burning in Hell.   St. Jerome’s statement has already been noted.  At the Final Judgment, what excuse will Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome, give?

Has the Holy Pontiff recently noticed, e. g., any major concentration camps in the Western world filled exclusively with sodomites, laws forbidding them from owning any property, pogroms organized by governments set against them, forcing them to wear pink armbands for quick identification purposes, laws forcing them to live in ghettoes or making them victims of political persecution, etc.?    Are they absolutely marginalized currently out of existence in the areas of politics, education, law, entertainment, culture, science, etc.?    Could it be true that the perverts, the sodomites, are an endangered species?

What a true reform papacy should do would properly include the following, among many other good recommendations: defang the “lavender mafia” (sodomite cabal) by removing them, their friends, and associates from all positions of power and influence; whenever possible, close all convents, monasteries, and seminaries proven to be hotbeds of heresy, appoint an independent board of auditors to monitor and supervise the Vatican Treasury, and weed out of the Consistory and other papal departments those known to be subversive of the orthodox teachings of the Faith, meaning those who oppose these and other reform efforts, at a minimum.

Of course, the nominally diffident, formally speaking, Pope Francis can be expected to do none of the above, as to possible actions.   He can be expected to put forth many nice words and do symbolic things that will generally impress spectators and news reporters.   Piety will be noted, not expressions of his authority and power as the Vicar of Christ ready, willing, and able to uphold the three pillars of the Faith against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  He is certainly no Pope Nicholas II or Gregory VII, nor even a Gregory the Great.   Nor is this a mere matter of exclaiming: O mores!  O tempora!

Consequently, the openness to the world proclaimed by VCII is to broadly continue by which temporized or moderated “orthodoxy” gets promoted in its fashion, while traditional, meaning non-VCII, orthodoxy gets substantially ignored.  This is to be the existential and phenomenological situation.  Such is the true nature of the Spirit of VCII.   How should the crisis be analytically considered?   A prominent 20th century example of cogent thinking can be creatively cited for illustration purposes.

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887- 1975) was criticized wrongly, in the 1930s and 1940s, for then strategically not pursuing the Japanese invaders vigorously enough; he sagaciously said that they were merely like a disease of the skin; the Communists, however, were a serious disease of the heart and, therefore, much more dangerous and lethal for the health of China.  History, of course, has proved that he was completely correct as to the comparative weights of the jeopardies involved.

The malignant heresy of that grand Council, held in the early to mid-1960s, remains difficult to correct, for it is an insidious and maleficent disease deliberately aimed ever at the vital and sacred heart of Holy Mother Church.  Until this terrible fact of religious reality becomes necessarily recognized as to its being an essential and justly irrefutable truth, in theological and spiritual terms of profound acknowledgment, nothing effective can ever be really done to successfully combat it.   VCII simply cannot be reformed; it must, therefore, be thoroughly extirpated and repudiated without qualification.

One must become appropriately aware and rightly cognizant of the true nature of the crisis, for getting the proper diagnosis and for seeing the prognosis for what it really is, before the known proposed cure is perceived as truly needed and viably requisite to the particular task.  The promotion and promulgation of a bold and uncompromising orthodoxy is, therefore, urgently required without question as the, thus, obligatory antidote for heresy, which, if left unchecked, insures the damnation of souls. 

While it might be slightly hoped that, perhaps, Pope Francis may, someday, be needfully inspired by the Holy Ghost to oppose VCII, however, no one should absurdly hold his breath in imaginary anticipation of a miracle.  Nothing short of a miracle seems needed for breaking the iron grip of this abominable heresy commended by the ideological watchword of aggiornamento, which wanted forever to put the Church Militant to sleep; and yet, the true defense of Catholicism qua orthodoxy means the complete rejection of VCII.   

Meanwhile, he publicly denounces the (supposed or imaginary) marginalization of homosexuals, while supinely permitting the continued and real marginalization of traditionalist Catholics, so much for his flaunted compassion, understanding, and tolerance.  His gross hypocrisy, therefore, ever stinks mightily to high Heaven and low Hell.  His sinful condoning of sodomy is, by definition, immoral and, moreover, directly contrary to the confirmed teachings of the Church, of Catholicism, of the Culture of Life.   

Of course, it was reported that Alessandro Di Antonio, an officer with the National Union of Gay Italians in Rome, warmly welcomed the pontiff’s favorable remarks.   Currently, nonetheless, one hopes not to be a witness to the possible queering of Catholicism or the outright perversion of the Faith, for the evil Culture of Death sides openly with sodomy.

In opposition, traditionalist Catholics should, perhaps, add an additional entreaty to their prayers for the defense of Catholicism: Please God, protect us from the neo-Hippie Pope.


While the repercussion, the mobile destruction, of VCII marches on, one can only remark, supposedly, that papal mediocrity is as mediocrity (read: Pope Francis) does.  Meanwhile, each harsh decade after decade, generation after generation, the evil legacy and aftermath, the evil fruit, of that gathering still causes increasing divisiveness and antagonism, endless controversy and consternation, unlike, for instance, the First Vatican Council, which helped greatly to strengthen the Church and, moreover, instilled a further missionary zeal in its spirit. 

The fruits of that ecclesial assembly, on the whole, were substantially good; those of the other, on average, were nearly uniformly bad and, moreover, any ridiculously anticipated improvement should not be expected any time soon.  The Faith’s internal and external apostates must be opposed as to their nefarious plans first openly revealed at VCII, which explains why it needs to be forcefully denounced.

But, it is true, as keenly noted by the sapient Fr. George W. Rutler, in his book well entitled: A Crisis of Saints, this present decadent age, dominated by the postconciliar Church, has not, in fact, produced any wondrous overabundance of self-sacrificing saints of a significant stature to righteously overcome this rather too heinous crisis.  Only the good fruit of Catholic orthodoxy can, therefore, properly turn the tide against any further infection and devastation; at a minimum, the heretical sedevacantists, those who have gone to the opposite extreme of VCII, will never become reconciled under the present conditions.

Only an indomitable Athanasian (read: orthodox) position ought, thus, to be adamantly taken against all manner, kind, or manifestation of heresy, and totally regardless of how much of the hierarchy opposes this moral effort, for such evil is surely hated by the Lord God.  It is a direct affront to the Almighty, the Supreme Being, the Living God, regardless of what the neo-Hippie Pope may think who seems to forget that he is the spiritual descendant of St. Peter.   He needs to strongly defend the Faith, to protect the Church, not his evident faddishness and folly.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor himself, taught that any Catholic had the right to admonish even a pope when done in true defense of the Faith, as did, e. g., St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena.   Of course, e. g., the idiotic retort is often given that only saints have a right to speak out against a pope, ignoring totally the obvious fact that such outspoken critics were not canonized during their lives.

The heroically valiant spirit of St. Athanasius is, therefore, clearly needed now more than ever to fight against the often none-too-disguised effort at trying to achieve eschatological immanentism.  A great lion of the Church, a splendid champion and hero of the Faith filled with a moral tenaciousness, must rise up to sincerely struggle and seek a blessed victory for genuine Catholicism qua orthodoxy, the good fruit. 

Athanasius contra mundum!



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.