The greatest site in all the land!

Great Roman Catholic Schism: Intended Consequence of the October 2015 Bishops Synod

Great Roman Catholic Schism: Intended Consequence of the October 2015 Bishops Synod

By Joseph Andrew Settanni


For those who have been paying close attention, it should be quite obvious, by now, that Pope Francis seeks to provoke an intended schism within the Roman Catholic Church.  How can this ecclesiastical horror be contemplated?   Why is this said?

His favoring of various heresies and near heresies that will be adopted, however subtly or plainly, by this terribly ill-founded Bishops Synod, cannot but have the then logical consequence of theologically and religiously dividing many Catholics against other Catholics, as to what orthodoxy means and does not mean.

This apparent “triumph” of evil, nonetheless, still carries the proverbial seeds of its own destruction, regardless of a Satanic optimism.

Faith of Our Fathers Challenged

Pope Francis surely desires the equivalent of a major Protestant Reformation by the efforts, sought out especially through the aftermath of this greatly blasphemous Synod, to so significantly transform and transmute the inherent nature of the Holy Catholic Faith for all time.

Regardless of the fact that he will not finally succeed in doing so, however, this certainly demonic effort of his will yet provoke sorrowful dissension, dissent, and discord, among many millions of the faithful, for many generations to come.  Rivers of tears and prayers are to accompany this papal-induced disaster of a severe magnitude; existing dogmas and doctrines will be challenged; the Church will be shaken to its foundations.  At all cost, the Devil, one surmises, is to be pleased by such internal agitation and turmoil.

Obviously, this Holy Father’s tremendously warped perception of and attitude toward the Faith is at enormous subversive variance, to say the least, with any genuinely orthodox understanding and valid comprehension of what is Roman Catholicism consistent with Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, the three pillars of the Catholic definition, the true and comprehensive sensus fidei.

Judging by his often infamous conduct and nefarious career, he is, one must add, neither a naïve nor ignorant prelate just trying to supposedly do good within his own lights, as is often alleged by most of the uninformed, ill-informed, or simply too unobservant.  This man of the cloth plots carefully and coolly toward the radical objectives, defined by a nominalist orientation of thought, that favor subjectivity, relativism, and ambiguity by existential design, not accident.

The evil of schism is intentional, deliberate, on the part of Pope Francis because he thinks this is the best practical way of driving a permanent wedge between the orthodox adherents of the Faith, a minority, versus the manifest vast majority who are truly quite malleable and flexible, regarding what they are so willing to now supinely believe.

There is fertile ground for much suffering.  The majority of the poor sheep, ignorant of much, are lead by a deceptive and deceitful shepherd intent upon creating both enormous mischief and unholy disorder within the whole Church to please his hubris, parading falsely as humility, and cold contempt of traditional ways and values.

What is Perceived, Seen and Unseen

Tremendously poor catechesis, for at least several generations, has sadly disarmed the vast bulk of Catholics who blindly do assume that if the Pope says something it must be Gospel truth. Most of the unfortunate radicalism of the horrendous results of the detestable Second Vatican Council, the cause of the ongoing crisis, have filtered down into becoming mainly mainstream beliefs and practices.  It is difficult for many to perceive heretical orientations, especially when sponsored and encouraged at the papal level.

Many of the sheep will be led astray, millions are to find various paths toward their damnation, for the invisible powers of darkness are, thus, to rejoice at this insanely bizarre spectacle.  Good called evil, evil said to be good.  Metaphysical warfare, however, is significantly occurring well beyond what so superficially gets noted in popular culture; the so quite viciously and consciously overt attack upon the Christian family, marriage, and morality itself is literally cosmic in its ever ultimate proportions, not just temporal in its consequences, as to what may be easily noticed.  Catholics need to open their eyes and alert their souls.

What will result, basically, is a version of an Arian Heresy problem, where most of the institutions are to be predominately held by the heretics, while the faithful minority, the orthodox people, are to provide a, thus, continuing resistance that will be needed for only a few centuries at most; this since victory against the forces of error is to be achieved, though, of course, through much applied effort.

Eventually, the seemingly triumphant heretics are to be displaced because, as is known, not even the Gates of Hell can prevail against the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, meaning the Roman Catholic Church.  Sin as evil and as seen in every heresy, no matter how notably bold it may appear, is ever only a negation, not a positive rendering of the Truth, the substantial reality of orthodoxy, of Catholicism.

Ontologically speaking, sin is a lack of good, for by itself only a sort of vacuum exists; the real Christian spirit, moreover, craves the truth, not lies; orthodoxy, not heresy, for the Cross will conquer.   And, the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary is set against the wiles of Satan forever.

Sinfulness will not have the final word in this contest, though those heretical German bishops may cite very high-sounding principles, as with that evil heresiarch Martin Luther, the real bone of perennial Germanic contention concerns money; the ever plainly pleadingly pecuniary question of the governmental subsidy per declared communicant; the “religion” of all radical-bourgeois culture and calculation, not false appeals to supposedly sought after spiritual values and heavenly endeavor.  Such is what is truly at the corrupted heart of the October 2015 Bishops Synod for its too heavily-leagued and heterodox instigators.

There are to be those, however, with an Athanasian resolve ready to contest the field against both the internal and external enemies of Holy Mother Church, as heterodoxy, in the end, is so known to be both spiritually and intellectually puerile at best, repugnant to the Blood of Christ at worst.

For to be most Christian is to be most orthodox as to all proper dogmas, doctrines, and teachings of the immemorial Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and codified by Him forever in the appointment of St. Peter, the Rock.   And, the supreme height of the invigorating orthodoxy of substantive Christianity, for all the ages upon ages, is justifiably exemplified in, by, and through Roman Catholicism, nothing else.


This universal and sacred truth, for over 2,000 years, is affirmed absolutely by the holy blood of the early Christian martyrs, the Communion of Saints, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the cited pillars of the Faith, innumerable converts such as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, as to the always correct development of the Faith; the Patristic Fathers; the First Vatican Council; the Doctors of the Church; and much, much else besides.

The profound theological and religious weight and courageous substance of Catholicism, therefore, can only come to crush the contemptible vanity of Pope Francis and his more hard-core sycophantic followers.

The terrible future schism being vilely welcomed by Pope Francis cannot, therefore, last forever.  His vain heterodox hopes are, therefore, to be eventually just dashed asunder.  As during the centuries of the Arian Heresy, the often oppressed laity is to valiantly and heroically pour forth many requisite vocations, prayers, sacrifices, penances, holy families, money, and their blood, sweat, and tears, when needed, to help secure the blessed future for Catholicism, not heresy.  Holy Mother of God, ora pro nobis.

And yet, there is glory, be it told, living and dying by the Sign of the Cross.

Athanasius contra mundum!

October 2015, Vatican Bishops Synod’s Urgent Embrace of Nihilism

October 2015, Vatican Bishops Synod’s Urgent Embrace of Nihilism:

Theorization of Roman Catholic Theology and Historical Inevitability

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Anyone who truly understands Roman Catholic theology realizes that there must logically and reasonably be great reasons for hope, meaning especially that orthodox belief, orthodoxy, will definitely survive.  But, not just sacred theology or mere belief proves the truth of this assertion, contrary to Satan and the forever embittered forces of Hell.

Starting, at the very least, with the Manicheans then the Arians, Albigensians, Protestants, French Revolutionaries, Communists, New Agers, etc., each successive historical wave of assault, either supinely or aggressively, had assumed its own historical inevitability without question. But, is the Great Apostasy, as many do fear, achieving its evil fulfillment now?

If the Roman Catholic Church were, of course, merely, only, a religious institution, then such a judgment that the tide of history must run only in one direction, in an inevitable manner, would have then seemed fairly logical and reasonable. This would have appeared to be the case both to the engaged and committed participants of the quite vigorous challenges made as well as to many outside observers with (at least) presumed impartiality. Or, so the broad presumption usually goes.

However, regardless of the people, the human beings involved, who have often been sinful, imperfect, disreputable, or just otherwise not quite the best of mortal specimens, the Church is also, by definition, a supernatural institution, or else it would be a meaningless nothing. The perniciousness of what is projected to occur at the October Synod exists because the nihilism involved is directed toward the very heart of affected dogmas and doctrines, the basis of the Faith of the Church, though many rosaries said to the Blessed Mother of God, the Queen of Salvation, may prevent such a triumph of evil.

The Holy Ghost is, for instance, assured to always exist and to protect it from the very gates of Hell, according to the known theological understanding proclaimed as being the actual truth. There is, in truth, no real middle position, no via media, to this critical point that could be held to be theologically acceptable for Catholicism, for the one Church founded by Christ. It then possesses indefectibility, indissolubility, and authority. This is, equally, as the Sign of the Cross is the outward visual expression of what ought to be an interior faith, not just a religious institution.

What, therefore, is so adamantly asseverated here?  No real need exists, furthermore, for the illegitimate importation of yet more secularist ideology into the ecclesiastical realm, for the aims of this future gathering seem directed athwart sacredness, set against proper holiness.  Yet, no surprise ought to exist if offense may be given to the Trinitarian Dogma itself at that meeting. Are such matters to be put into semantic jeopardy?

For brief illustration of what is easily meant, St Paul proclaimed that if Jesus the Christ had not, in fact, truly risen from the dead, as is to be absolutely believed without any question, then the whole Christian faith is entirely in vain, held then to no useful purpose whatsoever. For the valid goal of humanity, its truly highest achievement and purpose, is then the worship and glorification of God, not of human beings, (however much this may be heatedly questioned today, of course).

Any proper theory concerning effective and substantive Catholic theology, meaning genuine orthodoxy, must axiomatically accept this without any questioning as dogmatic veracity, as factual truth, not just, perhaps, as a peculiar Christian suggestion or, again perhaps, merely opinionated afterthought.  As Jesus is said to be the Christ, the Messiah, there are, in fact, cognate implications and ramifications.

Religious Theorization of Roman Catholicism

A radical supernatural break in all of human history, a literal theophany, had forever occurred by the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Corpus Christi Himself, which eternally defined the past and future from the time of that most glorious birth. And, this is no small matter.  It is literally a cosmic event, not a simple anamnesis, as so many Christian “reformers” allege.

The monumental historicity of the only Christ, the true Messiah, rises above all other beliefs that are then axiomatically relegated to mere fables if put into contradiction. Why is this confidently said?   Supernatural reality forever trumps human or natural reality, the latter is subject to mythology and superstition, not the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus was supremely needed to come to deal with the truly terrible consequences of Original Sin by, through his Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, providing the then totally requisite means of actual salvation, as afforded through His sacrifice and the belief in Him as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life. Mere Christianity is never enough, however, whenever compared with the theological fullness of Catholicism, Apostolic succession, and the sacred hierarchy of truths, with the very basis of all ontological truth fully included.

This relates to the historicity of that which has been known, through the ages, as being Catholic. In the 3rd century AD, there is St. Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church.  One could cite, in the 4th century, the Letters of St. Pacianus who had explicitly declared himself a Catholic, not just a Christian; in the following century, St. Vincent of Lerins, in his Commonitoria, noted the meaning of Catholic. Such actually used terminology was not a supposed fictional creation of the Catholic Reformation made many centuries later; it was, simply, coterminous, coexistent, with both the existence and growth of the early ecclesiastical reality itself, not artificial at all.

And, of course, there quite abundantly is St. Augustine’s Contra Epistolam Manicaei, De Fide et Symbolo, De Vera Religione, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and his The City of God; also, there is Boethius’ De Fide Catholica and his De Trinitate, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Discourses, St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, and Lactantius’ Divine Institutes.  More need not be said.

The above, just being a very small sampling, still greatly illustrates what now ought to be seen, contrary to the endless fallacies of Protestantism, as to the theologically important reality of there being a very known, well defined, and understood Catholic Faith, meaning Catholicism, nothing less; the early Church, the Church Fathers, these preachers, and the Patristic Tradition in general, explicitly and continually, all proclaim this obvious truth without any question. Q. E. D.

There are many critically important matters, however, that do mark out Roman Catholicism as the most radically different belief that distinguishes it forever from anything else as a faith, especially Protestantism in any and all of it various forms. Ontologically speaking, it is definitely an incarnational faith made forever absolutely explicit with the truly remarkable dogma of transubstantiation; in contrast, any Protestant (read: deficient) thoughts of consubstantiation are just a mere mockery or jest at most that evilly detracts from the supernatural righteousness of the Holy God, the Supreme Being Himself.

Against the amassed forces of Hell, the metaphysical order had both powerfully infused and illuminated the ontological order of reality, and, thus, was made manifest the New Creation, the Christ, for all time, past and future. The supernatural order of reality, greater than any “religious” symbolizations, stands forever above and beyond the mere natural order of reality; further than that, anthropocentricism, secular humanism, is always strongly refuted by the Christocentric appreciation of the meaning of all life on earth, which purpose is to give glory to the Creator. And, one sure means of rendering glory, for instance, is certainly the traditional Latin Mass with its concern for reverence and orthodoxy of belief.

A symbolic “Christ” is, therefore, an abstraction not worth either believing in or dying for, at a minimum. How is this to be here known?  Transubstantiation, thus, makes the Catholic faith inherently Christocentric, radically so, in both ontological substance and orientation without any question whatsoever. And, if nothing else, this ought to be perceived as the truth for all of valid Christianity, for all of heresy, in contrast, is demonic in nature.

The, for instance, simply symbolic Christianity of all of Protestantism, moreover, is doubly seen to be simply unworthy of martyrdom and casts imperious contempt, furthermore, upon religious belief itself; this is because it, furthermore, acts so strangely as the vile attempted rationalization of epistemological meaning and axiological truth simultaneously, which is so cognitively quite obnoxious. One sees here how the alleged Reformed Religion is necessarily the attempted theonomic (thelogico-normative) diminishment of Christ and His eternal glory that must be held, in truth, as being just axiomatically anathema to all genuine Christians.  But, this could be only if the supportive logic is well understood.

It is known that innumerable former Protestants, such as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Monsignor Ronald Knox, etc., had correctly figured out that most salient fact quite long ago. Why? The Truth is indivisible, though there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity, yet, the Godhead is forever One, which remains a mystery not subject to any gnosis, just a belief of the true Faith. All are to be united in Christ, not divided into (increasing numbers of) sectarian bodies, which is ever a tremendous and invidious scandal that no committed Christian should tolerate, though it is very pleasing to Satan, of course.

And, the movement ever further toward Christian orthodoxy demands the good realization in belief of the compulsive desire to obtain the fullness of Christ, not any partial attribute(s) seen in, e. g., an ever increasing multiplicity of diverse and necessarily divergent Protestant sects, offshoots, and cults. The subdivisions of variegated, motley, beliefs are potentially endless and should, at the least provoke, tortured Protestant consciences, if not tormented bodies.

Each man, whether consciously admitted to or not, ends up being his own pope; the choice of alleged “orthodoxies” becomes a subjective preference justified, no less, by imperiously citing Scripture, a practice that can and usually becomes spiritually abusive. It has been well said, moreover, that the Devil can cleverly quote Scripture too.  But, fortunately, Satan can never pray the rosary.  Q. E. D.

A rather simple formula here explains the contrary proclaimed indesinent truth: The more Christian, the more orthodox, the more Catholic, for Catholicism and Christ are held to be indivisible. Who says one says the other, simultaneously, as to the indicative theorization of the perennial Faith with its defense of the Trinitarian Dogma as being absolutely essential.

Those informed converts and many others rather perspicaciously saw, therefore, how all of Protestantism is inherently incommensurate and, ultimately, ontologically incompatible with the definitive integral nature of Christianity itself. Catholicism, opposed to dogmatic inversions unrecognized as such by many divergent doctrinal Protestantisms, seeks the mysterious peace of superbly Christian unity. True faith, as opposed to all the theological differences of the so-called Reformers, is indivisible.

In contrast, rationalization of belief for supposed explicitness peels the philosophical onion to get at the real onion that disappears through an odd religious sort of devotion to secularism, for atheism, also, too often goes unrecognized as a faith. Heterodoxy logically results.  And yet, e. g., the opposite extreme of (Protestant) Evangelism produces its own errors, inclusive of so wrongly pitting faith against reason, in effect, God against man.

Most of what goes by the name of “Christian” today is a horrid partial “Christianity” not worthy of the name, for these worthless fantasies will not at all suffice regarding the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, or Hell.   Equally, the desire of the “reformed religion” to absurdly derogate the Blessed Virgin Mary into being either a minor or obscure functionary of their larger speculative creations speaks ill of the truth of the Immaculate Conception, the Queen of Heaven, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

The title “Mediatrix” refers to Roman Catholic Mariology’s denotation concerning the important intercessory role of the Holy Virgin Mary as a facilitator in the Salvific Redemption by her Son, Jesus Christ, and He, thus, bestows graces through her. Mediatrix, however, is not any new “papist” invention but, rather, an ancient title that has been actually expressed by a number of saints since at least the 5th century AD, for Blessed Mary is venerated, not worshipped, contrary to the ever perpetuated lies of the alleged Reformers.

The so-called Reformers, being hypocrites, who claimed that they just wanted to get back to the early/primitive Christian Church conveniently ignored, as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman had observed, most of the history of the early Christian Church in their highly skewed exegetical process (what today would be more simply called deconstructionism) seen by their alleged “reform.”   The baleful consequence was the ugly shredding of Christendom by their assumed Reformation, a massive epistemological attack set evilly against the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which every Christian ought to have recognized as such.

Also, in their hotly supposed desire to eliminate any intermediaries between man and God, they ironically kept the intermediate institution of then necessarily intermediary ministers of the Gospel. Any real Christian, with half a brain, however, would logically prefer the Mediatrix of all Graces to the various, questionable blessings of a quite variegated hodgepodge of less than perfect presbyters and others.  So much for Protestantism, with it Sola Scriptura.  Such crudely assumed Christian “primitivism” deserves, so rightly, the historical and theological scorn that has been heaped upon it.

On the contrary, both faith and reason must spiritually unite for the then betterment of the perspicacious perception of the ontological order made significant intensely by the noetic realization of metaphysical order for achieving its end of offering salvation for humanity. For Catholics, the end of ontological order, both its correct teleology and theological entelechy, is God, which means that doctrinally such matters as the sacred filioque is not a mere semantic joke.

It is a requisitely positive sign and insight of true Catholicity itself, as is Apostolic succession and the eternally proclaimed hypostatic union of the Christ, all that and more to compose the ever necessary sensus fidei of orthodox Christian belief, not its necessarily heterodox opposite as was preferred by the so-called Reformers with their quite practiced scriptural legerdemain; thus, e. g, when Martin Luther wanted to so cleverly excise the Epistles of St. James, the uproar was such that he had recanted; otherwise, his massive “Stalinist” redaction efforts, demonic in conception, would have then succeeded.

This quite vile attempt at such unholy deliberate adulteration was not just primitive but rather positively imbecilic, not primitive Christianity certainly. The truly earliest Lutheran, Luther himself, thought he, committing the sin of presumption, could really hubristically do much better than Holy Writ itself.  Yet, Catholicism did not disappear, of course, nor has the  traditional Latin Mass.

There is far more involved, as can be understood, than the asserted theological primitivism, the reification, of just saying that one has a personal relationship with a personal Jesus or Savior, guaranteeing salvation by faith.  How so?  Any such true personal relationship is obviously equivalent to an earthly beatification, though unrecognized by all Protestants due to their ever predisposed soteriological myopia. Christian beatification in Heaven is utterly unlike, e. g., the assumed, highly erotic satisfaction of carnal lusts, as in the Muslim Paradise with its 72 eternally pulchritudinous virgins awaiting each crazy martyr, roughly equivalent to the Norse warrior’s entrance to Valhalla.

Anything less than puissant Catholicism, furthermore, is representative of degrees of paganism, as is, in such a sense, the too often disguised paganism of Protestantism. Also, monotheism or Judaism is not enough; paganism, therefore, is not just adhering to a multiplicity of gods, which needs to be critically understood; being thoroughly Christocentric is theologically essential at all times for avoiding being less than properly Christian.

Anything less than the fullness of Christ results in forms of paganism, though much too often not recognized as such, for Saul, a devout Jew, had to be literally knocked off his high horse before becoming St. Paul. The absolute holiness of God, thus, takes necessary precedence first, last, and always, not Sola Scriptura. The true essence of Protestantism (aka nominalism), thus, is not the proffered purification of faith; it is, however, its actual contemptible corruption, whether intentional or not.

For Catholics, as an example, Purgatory exists for the purification of those souls not yet ready for the true sanctification, beatification, of the life of the world to come, for attempted holiness on this planet, no matter how seemingly great, is not enough; it must be transferred into Heaven as the object of salvation, the Kingdom of Christ, set beyond any mere purgatorial minimum because that ever exalted realm is logically everlasting, not further transitional to any other place. And, Heaven is an actual location because, among many other reasons, the physical bodies of Lord Jesus, High Priest and Eternal Judge, and the Blessed Virgin Mary are there.

In context, one then perceives how extremely anemic Protestantism and any other belief is with necessarily attenuated or greatly emaciated concepts, if any, of soteriology, doxology, Christology, eschatology, dogmatics, apologetics, etc. The rejection of Catholicism is then the rejection of the Truth; no middle way exists whatsoever because, sooner or later, that leads the way toward the degenerative path of relativism.

However, the continuing existence of Protestantism, New Age, and other beliefs testifies vividly to how nominalism in cognition has almost totally turned anti-classical, modern, and what usually goes as postmodern thinking upside down and inside out by its poisonous subjectivism; the refutation and confounding of heretics and other enemies of God is righteously needed, not dialogue or ecumenism. For in truth, the demonic opponents of Christ have a pure hatred for “sweet reason” and never seek supplication, much less atonement. Q. E. D.

In this cantankerous and too often defiant upside down and inside out mental world, an effort to start with the ontological arguments of, e. g., St. Thomas Aquinas are no longer adequate to the task. Granted that there can be isolated successes as to making some people agree with reason and logic in a traditional manner, but this is not, in truth, compelling evidence as to what is needed for a majority. Most contemporary intellects are inherently insensate to the requisite noetic characteristics and hard cognitive demands of classical reasoning and logic.  Nominalism, thus, severely flattens the human  intellect.

Today, for better or worse, one must start with axiology, with all its deficiencies, to go up to epistemology and then, rising still much higher, toward ontology. Why?  Because nominalism has become so incredibly pandemic as to be, seemingly, fully coequal with the very air that people breathe. The world, e. g., greatly despises the notion of the mortification of the flesh, thinking it barbaric, brutal, and insane, done for the love of God, while still praising all bloody murderous abortions, surely quite barbaric, brutal, and insane, as a moral, social, cultural, and political good of the highest order. Good is boldly said to be evil, evil is loudly said to be good, with a bold contempt for classical Natural Law, as, e. g., with “married” sodomites.

Any simple or uncritical appeal to Thomism/neo-Thomism will not work, especially, e. g., as Pope Francis has so, increasingly, provoked much frightening speculation as to if these are apocalyptic times. Many wonder if he is, in fact, the prophesied anti-Christ or not. It has been well said, moreover, that someone can smile and smile and smile and still be a villain.

One can learn much of his overt apostasy, for instance, from his truly Teilhardian jesuitical monograph: Laudato Si.  One can see, of course, that he is in great need of fraternal correction, an act of spiritual mercy, since he is not the anti-Christ, for Francis has not manifested the required “signs and wonders” necessarily requisite for this preposterous accusation to hold. Scholastic theology, for the adept, can easily guard some people against simply accepting such wild allegations or various animadversions, but the masses themselves, however, are not so mentally equipped and fall prey, as ever, to much nonsense and popular superstition.

As can be perceived above, the principles of what may be properly denominated as classical Thomism have to be critically exercised within the context of a fundamental cognitive disaster of truly gargantuan portions. For instance, it is absurd to profoundly discuss, e. g., the basics of collegiate Catholic theology if the prospective students have no fair preparative understanding of even Natural Theology; they would lack the requisite mental tools for rational and informed thinking. Without that, even attempted critical theological exegesis would, in fact, be meaningless.

Catholicism, therefore, must be properly understood and comprehended as an exoteric, not an esoteric, faith as is, e. g., Gnosticism. This vividly means that the simplest peasant or workman imaginable, as well as the most sophisticated and educated prelate or pope, can know all the basics of the Faith, as surely as it ought to be known that the Church can never accept the immorality of artificial contraception, homosexuality, or the possibility of ordaining women as priests, all are, by definition, forever inherently anti-Catholic in nature.

There is, in fact, absolutely no requirement at all for gaining any amount of (assumed) esoteric or supposedly hidden knowledge whatsoever. And, moreover, this is an extremely important, critical, and highly significant point to suitably grasp at the very beginning of this discussion, in spite of the aforementioned prevalence and inroads of nominalism.

Christianity and Catholicism, in particular, as its ever proper and highest expression of such religious and theological truth, consists of public, not private, knowledge. Almost all of what needs to be fundamentally known can be so readily made known by a reading of the Nicene Creed, along with admonitions to practice both corporal and spiritual acts of mercy.

No gnosis is ever needed or required. No private (or secret) understanding or assumed comprehension is ever demanded, which creates a tremendous dividing line of unimaginable proportions. The truth is free but often at the religious cost of humiliation and suffering, penitence and prayer, which the modernists, afflicted with accidie, reject as entirely anti-human and, thus, beneath the assumed dignity of exalted Man seeking entrance to the intramundane Utopia (by whatever name).

This is why it is also important to know that Gnosticism, favored by Satan, seeks always to be a rival of Christianity but necessarily fails in its perverse mission to then subsume or conquer Christianity. It is not, as often misinterpreted, a variation or subcategory of Christian thought, a companion system of belief just waiting in the wings, so to speak. Such a defective belief has absolutely nothing to say to Catholicism, for Gnosticism is no better than Manicheanism.

It is, by definition, heretical since, among other valid reasons, it is always inherently and deliberately esoteric in its assumed and much too vainglorious cognition. Thus, as such, this kind of warped thinking is, by definition, very anti-Christian in its fundamental orientation and purpose, logic, and reasoning.  Catholicism, moreover, refutes all such metaphysical errors.

This is why axiologically, epistemologically, and, especially, ontologically Gnosticism is opposed to Christianity, to the Catholic sensus fidei, without rational question.   Any true theorization, theologically considered, that does not clearly recognize such a basic, requisite fact, such an indicative truth, is unworthy of being taken seriously, regardless of how much contemporary religious literature now exists to the contrary. Error is not the truth, no matter how many times it gets repeated these days; repetition, therefore, is not proof, theological or otherwise.

In firm reiteration, Gnosticism is definitely not a synonym for Christianity nor, in fact, is it any assumed variant of it, in any way whatsoever; moreover, Roman Catholicism is ever the very opposite of such a belief system or orientation of thought because nominalism in philosophy is necessarily intolerant of all genuine orthodoxy, of the reality of true Catholicism itself, of the aforementioned sensus fidei.  If that is not obvious, however, nothing really is.

Once this greatly critical point is correctly understood and comprehended as to its complete theological and religious truth, then such odd matters as supposed same-sex “marriage,” communion for continuingly adulterous people, and other such manifestly heretical practices can be always reasonably seen as blasphemous triumphs of nominalism in cognition that do, logically, parallel Gnosticism in fundamental direction and much allied evil consequences.

Since Catholicism is, by definition, an exoteric belief, as has been irrefutably demonstrated, no such vile perversions are held to be ever properly compatible with or favorable toward the orthodox presentation and acknowledgement of the Faith. This is a self-evident truth of a high order, an indicative magnitude, set righteously beyond ecclesiastical machinations, clerical intrigues, which may be determined to the contrary. Further than that, Christ is King, not any pope or, perhaps, celebrated conclave or synod whatsoever; and, the traditional Latin Mass exists in rather splendid defiance of heresy.

Therefore, the history, theology, religion, and affirmative mental dynamics of all of Roman Catholicism, correctly perceived and practiced, stands adamantly with all of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, the Three Pillars of the Faith, united strongly against heresy, by definition; thus, this is, adamantly, set against any machinations attempted at the October Synod, which is not any supposed preparation for the Parousia itself.

What is going on, in terms of modernity lurching into postmodernity, is man’s odd search for intramundane salvation, not the salvation of souls, which is what the Church is to be interested in being involved with, as long as this world exists.   Most of the Western world, specifically, is seeking a New Eden on this globe spinning in time and space, rather than wanting to devoutly pray as much as possible to Venerated Holy Mary, the Mother of God.  All Christians are to take up the Cross every day of their lives, though this is not usually that easy to do; but, all are to live and die by the Sign of the Cross, which is hated by Satan and the evil demons in Hell.

Those who wish to introduce religious novelty are, thus, no better than aberrant Gnostics concerning a disregard for the exoteric nature of the Church’s teachings, as they have been publicly known for many generations, many centuries, contrary to the evil forces of error, of heresy itself. Catholicism, as to its essence, is forever radically set against the intramundane reading of human reality as is ever greatly desired by modernity and its assorted prophets.

The Incarnate God, Jesus as the Head of the Church, demands acceptance of the standard of absolute Truth, as is to be observed in the posited dogma of transubstantiation within the Holy Eucharist; it is surely defined at Holy Mass by both sacred anaphora and epiclesis; Catholicism, furthermore, is a fully Eucharistic faith, not a series of supposed (Protestant or neo-Protestant) symbolisms finally diverging out toward the useless abstractionization or, perhaps, too vapid rationalization of belief. The reality of the Christ is incarnational, not subjective speculation geared toward nominalism usually concealed under various and elaborate euphemisms resorted to by dialectical speech.  Catholic clarity should exist.

Creed of St Athanasius: Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. There can be no amount of supposedly reformulated theoretics that can transform the known theorization inherent to Catholic theology and its own rightful religious, social, cultural, and other expression on earth, besides, of course, always suitable consideration for supernatural reality and its truth.

Fidelity as to Catholic doctrine and practice is not merely owed to any current generation, contrary to the strange speculations of heretical clerics and their assorted sycophants, but must ever take into account the dogma, the doctrine, of the Communion of Saints; this is besides the demands for holiness and ascesis, from the believers, as to their own precious Catholicity, for Jesus is the Christ, of which there ought to be no doubt whatsoever. Ontology here is reality; there is to be no sophistic division of substance against symbol nor faith against reason.

The supernatural reality of the Church, often neglected or scorned today, goes well above and certainly far beyond mere men who may think that they can freely tinker with plastic notions of morality or mores. God cannot be fooled, and He cannot be mocked with impunity. The Holy Ghost, the Communion of Saints, the Tradition of the Patristic Fathers, and much else must be intimately involved in any and all questions and issues concerning the Faith, regardless of the proclaimed capacities or competencies of a (mere) Synod of [many God-defiant] Bishops. They seek, being overt to the truth here, to defame the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Catholic theological theory has had, e. g., champions of a sturdy Athanasian resolve such as St. Thomas Aquinas who, long ago, laid down certain orthodox fundamentals of religious teachings and cogent ascriptions that get so wrongfully neglected whenever petty or vainly disrespectful men, puffed up clerics and their lackeys, try to evilly second guess the Lord God Almighty. The essential core of the Faith was, in effect, basically codified by Aquinas, which has been added to by other orthodox teachers, writers, and others, for to be truly a Catholic is to willingly love God unreservedly, to entirely worship the Lord unconditionally. Nothing less is religiously valid.

Attempted errant reformulations by any heretical ecclesiastics are never, logically or otherwise, consistent with the faithful theorization created for Catholicism by the first Apostles, the early Church Fathers, any of the religiously orthodox synods held by the Church, the Council of Trent, and the First Vatican Council. Citing of the Second Vatican Council against all of that is to make the proverbial tail wag the whole dog; it is fully obnoxious to the wholeness of truth and Catholic teachings, dogmas, and doctrines covering over 2,000 years of the Church.

For it is here perceived most intensely that Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all combined, meaning none held as being in any opposition to one or two of these pillars, uphold all the theoretics of an orthodox system of belief, not Gnosticism or even neo-Pelagianism for that matter. Most obviously, as can be above noted, the October Synod is not preaching into any supposed vacuum of spirituality or seemingly hollow doctrines lacking substance, thus, the fallaciousness of (often covert) heresy stands here exposed.

Catholicism does deal, of course, with true mysteries such as the Trinitarian Dogma, which no mortals can ever grasp as to the overt infinitudes so manifestly involved within the dogma. But, these assertions are not done for creating any sort of assumed gnosis so that some enlightened tiny minority of a minority may alone know the actual truths of the religion. Moreover, the predestination of souls, a free response to grace that can also include His passive Will, is for Almighty God to know, not for mere mortals to grasp at foolishly as with Calvinism’s many absurdities.

Mysteries enhance the divinity of the Supreme Being and give meaning to the love requisite toward needed worship of the Creator, not the false glorification of those who claim a “higher knowledge” only specially gained by the assumed “adepts” of a mere cult, which is not, in fact, equivalent to a religion, as with, e. g., Mormonism.

Not even the much too often flaunted Spirit of Vatican II can be cited successfully toward the radical overthrow of heuristic matters defining the Faith made quite sacred by immemorial tradition and practice known as being contributory to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. Nor can, e. g., any supposed historical inevitability traduce orthodoxy where novelties are but old heresies in new disguises.

Nothing must be, in human affairs, until men will it or, at the least, when the passive Will of God allows situations or events to occur, for good or ill, knowing that the Lord can yet produce good out of an evil. If it were truly thought otherwise, then one would surely be dealing with confirmed fatalists or determinists, not Catholics.   All of this has both complex and simple elements, as to an explanation and deeper extrapolation philosophically and theologically speaking, meaning as to the posited specific Catholic theorization of theology qua theological theoretics.

But, what is and has been predominantly plaguing the intellectual or cognitive movement of the world is neo-Pelagianism, essentially, the denial of Original Sin put into religion, morals, ethics, politics, culture, society, etc. Thus, modern Christianity, in the desire to seem “hip,” has ceased long ago the eternally vital task of saving souls and seeks, instead, the accumulation of too sedulously tedious and vapid pieties toward no good end, thus, coldly creating a supposed “church” of the essentially faithless and/or indifferent.

But, it doesn’t even take a Catholic to perceive this rather open truth, e. g., the Rev. Franklin Graham himself sees through this grand farce of a faithless faith pretending to be Christian.

Contrary to Eric Voegelin’s very flawed thesis, neither Gnosticism nor neo-Gnosticism can adequately ever explain what has and is happening to a warped humanity’s thinking toward wrongly accepting degrees of utopianism, the desire for the intramundane New Eden, under various euphemisms. The humanistic or secularist disavowal of Original Sin, meaning neo-Pelagianism, has had many baleful consequences, inclusive of the sin of blatant secularism itself, for this is how sinning produces the convenient rationalizations for yet more sinning.

This has caused, e. g., serious problems for philosophical theorization and political theorization, not just for Catholic attempts to properly formulate certain efforts at the appropriate heuristic construction of useful theoretical ideas or concepts as propositions. A contemporary zymotic societal and cultural reality, in addition, easily facilitates confusion, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding, even in language used for attempted common communication. How so?

It gets rarely, if ever, recognized how the common occurrence, for instance, of sin ends up then creating stupidity in human cognition. The linkage here of religion and politics with compositive theoretics is not, as should be understood, either arbitrary or absurd as people seek to actively rush toward the obvious damnation of their souls.

The acceleration of sinning, in turns, further accelerates the decline of the ability of the human mind to escape from being progressively dumbed down, as with the evil dumbing down of the fundamental perception of deviance. Human beings, however, are still utterly dependent upon God, not themselves, as secular humanists, modernists, do suppose.

The more that sin, especially truly serious moral turpitude, gets accepted publicly, politically, as being normal, the more that it becomes extremely difficult to think logically, reasonably, and rationally. An Orwellian mindset takes over the then so much befuddled and reified brain, where what had been once accepted as rational, as common sense, is made to appear irrational and, thus, unacceptable as well. All manner of fornication gets rationalized into becoming normal.

For instance, what would have been once simply recognized, generations ago, as clearly forms of minority-aristocratic privilege are now routinely classified as modern democratic rights to use the force of law for imposing deviant social and cultural mores upon the many recalcitrant unbelievers. A surely privileged class of sodomites now exists.  It is not just an abuse of law, it is an abuse of truth and classical Natural Law itself in the name, oddly enough, of civil rights. Secularization is, therefore, the strange sanctification of idiocy, of indomitable stupidity, at large. What is, thus, critically meant?

It is the core essence of the contemporary zeitgeist when a “right” is nothing other than a mere sentimental imperative, as Alasdair MacIntyre has well noted it to be; the truly perverse contention is nothing more than an audacious and imprudent desire, which used to be called lust, incubated by an ever incestuous craving to promote selfishness. However, this is fixated pseudo-ethically with the tyrannical demand that others must now forever slavishly submit to such a necessarily pubescent insistence that the mere desire, the asserted feeling, be always thoroughly gratified, supposedly, at whim.

This so irredeemably meretricious, highly specious, notion of manufactured rights degrades them by inserting subjectivist individual desire ahead of all true objective value, an illegitimate interchange that axiomatically reduces to plain nonsense any and all very obstreperous claims to have such putative rights axiomatically respected as such. This is insanity writ large.

No conscientious objection whatsoever is allowed those who are subject now to involuntary servitude (aka slavery) to homosexual activists in manifest violation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.   All must now bow down to salacious Sodom and its so vile hellishness.

In America, this so clearly sex-obsessed form of insanity has ominously sanctioned the odd rationalization, through nominalist reductionism, of enshrining sodomy as a respected and protected civil right that is supposed to forever even trump the civil liberties once thought guaranteed forever by the aforesaid Constitution. As a truly cognate consequence of blatant secularism, e. g., the theorization of theological absolutes, of Roman Catholic dogmas, has itself become now greatly questioned by even many of the highest prelates of the Church, in the second decade of the 21st century.

Gross sin has its important implications and added significant ramifications; nothing evil seeks to only exist in isolation, as misery loves company; its inherent reductionist, subjective, need is to become so crescively prolific and, moreover, to be accepted as normal, not really perverse; it is not a matter of mere tolerance, one must fully accept it under penalty of civil law, as a part of the contemporary mythology of secularism triumphant. Resistance is now depicted as unlawful behavior no less, not a needed and proper appeal to both sanity and morality.

This more than suggests, in hindsight, that the terribly insane tolerance of such grave evil, in civil society, has inexorably lead to its aggressive defense and strident legal promulgation as the now new minimum standard of the height of (sexual) justice itself crudely mandated without any question. Such surely perverse cognition in the debased Western world has reverberated, increasingly, into religious establishments to their sad detriment, not for their sanctification certainly.

Since the past Extraordinary Synod on the Family, the Church has seemingly entered a strange new period of much perceived heightened uncertainty and unneeded confusion over several highly controversial issues: communion for divorced and “remarried” couples, a change of views towards homosexual unions, and an assumed related relaxing of attitudes towards non-married couples. Sacramental understandings may get upended and distorted as a very dire consequence of bringing forth deliberately troublesome theological speculation of a reified nature at best, which will, then, give great offense to the metaphysical order of reality.

All of this surely bodes ill, while pastoral practice is said now to be made the enemy of doctrinal admonitions against heretical thoughts, since practice is supposed to match and complement doctrine, not to be wrongly divided against it. Whenever sacred faith is set against reason or vice versa, however, heresy then raises its ugly and unwanted head.

The only known cure for such impure fevers of speculation and subjective questioning has been always orthodoxy, not odd preferences and perversions lusted after, as might have been once said by Msgr. Ronald Knox, through much disguised whimsy, verbiage, and clerical frolic.

The theorization of Catholic theology and religion, since the time of at least the Scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas, supports proper orthodoxy toward, through, and in the Faith, which is, by definition, the opposite of heresy.   One sees that any use, for instance, of the Hegelian dialectic or, perhaps, Marxist exegesis would be illegitimate, by definition. No proper understanding of Catholicism should ever be made subject to modernist or postmodernist ideological dictates, no matter how seemingly fashionable in certain intellectual circles, inside or outside the Vatican.

Not even, for instance, St. Augustine, being among the early Church Fathers, was as thorough as Aquinas concerning the various appropriate ways and solid means of correctly securing theological knowledge amenable to and quite consistent with the perennial sacred teachings of the Holy Mother Church, ad majorem Dei gloriam, along with, e. g., the traditional Latin Mass.

Theory and the cogency of the demanded pastoral practice was, further to the point, united superbly, e. g., at the orthodox Council of Trent; this was then by which there was a surely true and careful clarification of many important doctrines, dogmas, and teachings, not obfuscation certainly. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi should, therefore, be every true Catholic’s personal motto. Only an uncompromising Catholicism, as one perceives, can come to last and, thus, give always righteous glory to God, not its opposite, not a Hegelian dialectic.

For valid Catholicism is, if it is anything, an exceedingly sacramental faith spiritually uniting the sacramental communities of all parishes and dioceses in the blessed ecclesiastical enterprise of directing attention toward the Christocentric life as being the only true life worth living for all of the faithful. This is, therefore, as it ought logically to be for all professed Christians without any dissent as to its intended holiness, as it is said that Jesus is the Christ. Anything less is merely a mockery of Christianity, far from the guidance of the Holy Ghost at a minimum.

Any innovations or alleged reforms, invoked ever in the dubious name of that haunting Spirit of Vatican II, that contradict this truly central fact of the universal nature of the Catholic Faith will, thus, fade away eventually, as being integrally repugnant, so clearly obnoxious, to the perennial axiological, epistemological, and ontological tests of obvious orthodoxy. All else is then, by sure definition, heresy by whatever name it may appear.

This is certainly why it can be validly perceived, especially after 50 years, that the Second Vatican Council and its horrid aftermath failed to complement the highly important reality of Catholicism, being truly a supremely Eucharistic religion, at odds with the supposed reforms that have vigorously sought its deformation. The both indicative and instructive point is being reached, with Pope Francis, to choose schism rather than to surrender orthodoxy in an effort to help him ideologically achieve ecological redemption, rather than requisite spiritual salvation, for the Church.

Its ever dwindling appeal, especially in the Western world since the end of Vatican II, has been matched empirically to the so-called reforms that have oddly tried to make the Church more “relevant” to the worship of humanity, seen as being so increasingly desirable by ecclesiastical progressivists and liberals, the permanent reformers. They will never, by definition, be satisfied since nihilism knows no pleasant rest from its insatiable demands.

This quite evident nominalist theory of reform, most recently perceived by bizarre efforts at papal ecological redemption, has so cracked severely, again and again, under the recalcitrant weight of sinful human reality; however, the age-old worship of Nature, in whatever guise, is still not Catholicism, for it really is, in the end, merely man worshipping himself, thus, bold neo-Pelagianism revealed at last.

In the upcoming October Synod’s theology: “God” is merely an anthropomorphic projection of human aspirations and feelings, nothing more than that, and so made entirely subject to the historical process (read: German-Hegelian idealism) as the then movement set within history. What is the secularist implication?

Man is to then evolve toward his (secularized) humanity as a means of escaping existential angst and phenomenological devaluation by, thus, negating the abstractionization of man qua being. With his coming of age, so to speak, man can needfully recapture, regain, his essence “stolen” by just a childish regard for Deity incapable of appreciating the greatness of humanity, for all things are subject to mutability, including God itself.

But, such nominalism is almost never recognized for what it is, for its much too often unconscious acceptance appears as natural as the air being breathed; it is, thus, that both insidiously and enervatingly pandemic as it infects and rots the human brain and spirit so contagiously.

The right cognizance of dogmatic theology, therefore, upholds firmly that level of profound theorization so requisite for the confirmation of the architectonic structuring of the three pillars of the Faith, meaning Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, united always for proclaiming the Roman Catholic unity of faith and reason.

As has been demonstrated, therefore, there is a distinctive theological theorization of what is Catholic, especially as the Apostolic Age of Revelation had ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. No new revelations, contrary to the clearly heretical writings, e. g., of Scott Hahn, are possible as to the Faith, as to Roman Catholicism.

All this above superbly represents the vital integral essence, the inherent quintessence, of such a tremendously sacramental faith, the exposed nature of true Catholicism athwart its unholy and demonic degradation and repudiation by too many supposed innovators.

This distinctiveness of such religious metaphysics is ardently set against that often unspoken handmaiden of spiritual nominalism, known as immanentism (aka intramundane salvation), which internally fuels the ever greater and ongoing ecclesiological crisis as the true dynamism supporting neo-Pelagianism fixed into modernity and postmodernity, as if it is simply just inevitable, plainly inexorable, like a spreading plague.

Historical Inevitability or Determinism?

The Zeitgeist is said to (mindlessly) compel people to obey laws of historical determinism or inevitability, as if men were mere lemmings set blindly upon an absolutely fixed course of conduct nihilistic in its dreadful consequences.  But, it is Lutheran to deny the doctrine of free will, not Catholic. The Moslems, for instance, have their kismet, roughly translated as being fate, while many millions in the West do harbor within themselves variants of fatalism nearly indistinguishable from degrees of determinism under different euphemisms.

Where does this all mainly come from? The return, in the modern world, of what can be seen clearly being paganism qua neopaganism acting and prevailing under many guises. The secular religions, known as ideologies, have so contributed greatly to this quite baleful situation, along with the often unrecognized return of myth and magic to the modern political order, through the successful advance and pandemic spread of what exists as neo-Pelagianism.

The morally and mentally forceful combination, mixture, of a strident neopaganism and a very psychologically seductive neo-Pelagianism has captured not only what had existed as modernity but now threatens to absorb all factions of postmodernity in thought as well. The impulsion for this began, most forcefully, in the 20th century. What is meant?

Malcolm Muggeridge, among others, had keenly noted that what was vastly different about that century versus all the past centuries was the effort to live as if God (or gods) did not exist, as if this is an ultimate measure, supreme touchstone, of all true and validated “Progress,” a god-term, ironically speaking, if there ever was one.

For the greatest superstition of them all is to piously believe that one’s own age is, supposedly, entirely free of superstition. The New Atheism, as it is usually called, is but one instance of such clearly superstitious nonsense on parade, of (assumed) autonomous man existentially trapped in a phenomenological vacuum, set ever incomprehensibly within an irrational cosmos, possessed of a meaningless meaning. But, as Muggeridge astutely knew, the real argument is actually always about something else, usually left unspoken. For instance?

Seeking to herald the alleged wave of the future, the “true believers” know that they cannot attack God (their real enemy), so they, thus, seek to attack His creation by supporting abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and, of course, population control in general to overtly spit in the face of the Creator. Though unmentioned by them, this is what is, in fact, going on in their many heated protestations, ideologically based or otherwise.

It is part and parcel, e. g., of progressivism or radicalism to claim that it is always the inevitable wave of the future, which illustrates its absolute affinity with historical inevitability or historical determinism. Karl Marx had asserted that there were inexorable laws of history, as discovered by him, which had then mandated a Communist future for the entire world; no one, however, was supposed to ever question what was so axiomatically declared as so inevitable.

The Islamic terrorists of today, of course, feel exactly the same way with their own version of explicit determinism, conducted with as much intended violence and bloodshed as is true for Communism. The many overt parallels, especially planned violence, exist for all to see.

Admittedly, before going into a demonstration of the necessary falsity of all such popular conceptions or general extant understandings of historical inevitability, there will be given examples of that which could only be described as clearly inexorable or predictable realities, seen historically.

Mark Antony had been sure to lose of the Battle of Actium because, among other reasons, he was a truly brilliant army leader with sure skills in handling strategy and tactics on land; but, he was no competent naval commander as was surely most needed for that famous sea battle. Only a series of major incompetent actions by Octavius could have helped Antony who so obviously lacked maritime, nautical, resourcefulness.

Napoleon was bound to lose, sooner or later, because his insatiable conquering urge was ever ceaseless, until so met by a surely resounding defeat, by the inevitable final challenge that he, inescapably, was simply not able to overcome. It just happened that defeat, in 1815, occurred at Waterloo, though it actually could have been elsewhere.

Those were/are easy examples of inevitability, though not determinism. The metaphysical order intrinsically mandates that those who do neglect the important matter of sin will be, eventually, dominated by that harsh reality that usually, in secular terms, is called human imperfection or failure.

But, fatalism ought not to be conflated with determinism, though often both do appear as supposed synonyms. Fatalism implies that nothing at all can stop what is perceived as being inevitable, which appears to then need no real cause as to its sufficient cause for being. The historical inevitability, not fatalistic necessity, of the now well observed fall of Western society, culture, and civilization is due to many real causes that have combined and gravitated toward a proclivity that cannot be reversed. How so?

A great boulder coming lose, e. g., will fall down a steep mountain, unless meeting with a halting structure sufficient along its path, and so normally continue downward, until it reaches the lowest point consistent with the end of gravitational pull and its observed proclivity to keep falling.

This does not mean, however, that a new Western civilization, etc. is incapable of rising. But, the present post-Christian order, starting with the Renaissance Era, is in the natural process of rapidly crumbling; error, finally, cannot sustain itself. The drift away from a proper religious concern for Divine Providence is the supposed sophisticated desire of modern man and his self-worship inevitably leading to nihilism, e. g., the secularist focus on world population control. So, what has noticeably occurred?

The very last vestiges of what was just the mere shell of a now former Christendom are no more; perhaps, as seems very possible, a New Christendom may yet arise as a proverbial phoenix coming up out of the ashes. With Christ, by definition, humanity is never bereft of true hope; without the Son of God, man begins to despair to the point of achieving his death wish because of the both hubristic and solipsistic rejection of the supremely important metaphysical order of reality. Once the Social Kingship of Jesus gets denied, as in America and elsewhere, then exactly, in a spiritual and moral sense, all Hell breaks loose.

What needs to be so critically recognized is that the amassed wills of, literally, tens of millions set into the hundreds of millions have, directly and indirectly, united to destroy the present society, culture, and civilization as a kind of death wish. This surely perverse willingness has created the inevitability perceived, not a vague source or kind of (assumed) determinism even against the human will as it were; what is then occurring is, moreover, neither fatalism nor a fatalistic determinism, which can, moreover, be here readily explicated.

Causes have effects; what is being witnessed is, therefore, the quite natural consequence of an accepted nihilism, the worship of death as the real price of sin, the harsh reality made manifest as the evil attempt to secularly deny the too baleful results of Original Sin; but, as always, the metaphysical order (aka God) will not be mocked with impunity. Such depravity, furthermore, necessarily impinges upon the course of reality seen in society, culture, politics, economics, etc.

As is well known, the wages of sin is death, thus, though those addicted to either modernity or postmodernity do wish to deny this fundamental truth of human reality and its many innate imperfections, yet, there are still the too numerous empirical consequences of the yet clear proclivity, the rather marked inclination, under examination.

In brief summation, historical inevitability, as has been qualified and elucidated above both historically and philosophically, is what is involved, not a supposed determinism operating against the free will of human beings.   What is actually happening is not some sort of kismet, happenstance, or, perhaps, mere fatalistic conundrum fixed beyond the real control of people existing within an existential or phenomenological vacuum in space and time.

This is but the abstract and too shallow excuse for wishing to remain either ignorant of or simply indirect to the empirical truth, to the strictly human reality of sin, as is ever denied by “enlightened” folk.

Nor is, e. g., simple heresy itself in the realm of historical inevitability since, too often, it recurs under a merely new semblance that soon supposes its odd possession of a sort of determinism, which is, in truth, just a tautology. No, the verified ugly reality of nihilism, and its supremely vile hellishness, is what is here truly involved, meaning as to the easily notable degradation and degeneration, decline and deterioration, overtly seen in the decaying Western world.

And so, the questionable October Synod, a product of the true Spirit of the Second Vatican Council as to its tawdry legacy, is then merely reflective and observantly symptomatic of the rather grave moral and spiritual mess that exists these days, with yet another bold step toward (a much wanted) secularization, through absurd “religious” means no less. Religion, the most fundamental matter pertaining to the final ultimates of all reality, is not meant to be hidden, secreted, from the public square; it is to be fully congruent with human life itself.

The modernist compartmentalization of life, the segregation of religion to the private sphere, is to be rejected without question; all things in Christ and for Christ, thus, living a thoroughly Catholic life is the truth of holy religion, the desire of the Holy Ghost for all the people of the world. Which can be obtained by men allowing for the twelve fruits of the Paraclete: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, and chastity. But, what is the still false (read: secularist) dilemma needing proper cognitive exposure?

Real-world choices, substantially made in a free manner, have, in fact, come to have generated real-world consequences, which the bulk of the nihilists still do hate, nonetheless. That also, a sense of dissatisfaction with what someone ends up having, is a true part of defective human nature since misery loves company. Can this be truly verified, perhaps, sociopolitically as an example?   Secularism, ultimately, hates itself, for its fruits are always inherently evil and, thus, necessarily gaudy as well.

It can be easily empirically proved. Leftists, having helped to sociopolitically destroy New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, didn’t really like the results of their nihilistic work, so they set out for New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine to then repeat their many horrendous errors.  This, in turn, because Utopia was still not achieved as the New Eden on earth, necessarily had so produced dissatisfaction, for nihilism, by definition, can never provide true relief from itself in any way, shape, or form. Evil qua nihilism is always a lack, not a different chance at a lust for wholeness.

In its nature, it is purely a negating force that always is noted by its inherent lack as to any positive realization; nihilism, thus, exists by integral negation only, which explains why, of course, it is, also, the significantly central descriptive and denotative feature of Hell.  And, these same sorts of temporal-based lusts will be, judging by the public directions of things, abundantly seen at the too morally perverse October Bishops Synod.

Payers can be directed, nonetheless, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, to help prevent the evils intended; her holy intercession is, most certainly, mightily needed now in the urgent defense of the true theological distinctiveness qua theorization of Catholicism, the Faith of Rome.


The worldly demands that the Roman Catholic Church, at the upcoming Synod, needs to bow down to a worshipped humanity come-of-age, through the absurd sanctification of secularism unbound, bespeaks not just a basic ignorance of Catholicism but a cold contempt for Christ the King.  Such morally debased thinking, moreover, could never find a place at the traditional Latin Mass.

Let there then be no sincerely genuine doubt about what will be there attempted at this hellish meeting. They are not just or merely attacking Catholicism; they are, thus, adamantly reviling all of basic Christianity itself in their endless and radical lust for many innovations; furthermore, these pompous prelates are both intensely rejecting and snidely scorning the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ!

One may easily add that the nihilistic degeneration of orthodox truth, aided often so subtly by immanentism and its variants, is not to be associated with any assumed historical inevitability, for man proposes and God disposes. And, bonum est diffusivum sui.

The faithful in the Catholic world ought, therefore, to utterly reject anything that goes against the three pillars of the Faith, not just some obvious heretical deviations from selected dogmas. It is a certainty that the Bishops Synod’s arrogant effort to, in effect, plunge a stake directly into the very heart of Holy Mother Church surely reveals the true nature of this tremendously grave crisis, which is not to be doubted.

This quite ardent, yet vulgar, neo-Pelagianism, a terrene ideology as it were, should, moreover, be firmly met with the truly righteous contempt it ever deserves; the Church Militant should be triumphant here in firm affirmation of the religious theorization of Roman Catholicism that was clearly presented, for extra Ecclesiam nulla salus because, by definition, salvation is the Church, which, thus, defends and honors the Body and Blood of Christ.

In short, the often seductive immanentist creed must, thus, be thoroughly denounced for what it really is. And, though probably no high prelate may today dare say so, if Pope Francis, in fact, sanctions the document(s) coming out of such a heretical gathering, this will then be positive evil done by him, not supposedly just accidental or, perhaps, coincidental in nature.

Give no sanction to nihilism, especially not in the sacred name of Catholicism. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

Athanasius contra mundum!

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.