The greatest site in all the land!

The Great Mercy of Hell Proves Absolutely the Infinite Love of God

The Great Mercy of Hell Proves Absolutely the Infinite Love of God

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni


“Hell is ruled by time, not by true eternity.”St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica1


For many sophisticated people, Hades (or the Dark Place) is only a state of mind, perhaps just a mere cognitive construct, though it be a mere parody. But, if Heaven (in various ways) can be believed in by millions of folks, why not belief in its direct opposite? In any event, how can anyone seriously discuss the proposition that the place of Perdition is integrally emblematic of something such as mercy?

Secularism, of course, simply abhors this kind of unenlightened notion as being as nonsensical, as is religion itself, in the mind of a truly dedicated advocate of societal and cultural laicism, especially for its own sake.  But, the spiritual and religious lethargy and pietistic illusions of this misconceived age must be both piously and forcefully shocked back into requisite reality.  Enlightenment is the road to Hell.

New Age “religions” (being, at bottom, narcissistic cults) would commonly see the assumed incongruity between Hell and mercy, especially more so in ever seeing God’s love manifested infinitely by the actual existence of the Infernal Regions. But, if one posits that the Lord of All is absolutely perfect in being, by definition, the Almighty Being of Perfection itself, then the holy mercy of the Lord must, by definition, be absolutely equal to His sacred justice, to the Eternal Truth; otherwise, there could be, in fact, no God truly worthy of such a supreme designation expecting awe and worship from His human creatures.

For it has been well said, many times, that the real polar opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The Christian God is not indifferent.   Unlike, e. g., the nihilistic Hindu nirvana that preaches the total extinction of the individual soul on the supposed road to perfection, the both Jewish and Christian understanding of the Divinity and its related soteriology does not include the total (Hindu) annihilation of the human spirit at any point in time. And, this critical point is more, much more, significant than is usually realized or comprehended.  How so?

In Christian, especially Roman Catholic, theology, the love of God for His creation means that even evil souls are not to be exterminated or eradicated, either deliberately or through indifference; there is a now eternally existing place for them because of the great abundance of the Lord’s blessed mercy, yes, a truly quite bountiful divine mercy at that.

A Supreme Divinity, however, having no such mercy would be theologically impossible in both Jewish and Christian thinking; this is, fundamentally, since such a supposed Absolute Being would thereby lack the requisite Godlike perfection of absolute love as well. These highly essential points will be further elucidated and logically extrapolated concerning a horrible place filled with condemned souls who have a tremendously spiteful ingratitude, thanklessness, toward their Almighty Creator.

And, yes, the many seeming paradoxes or conundrums involved will be here resolved both theologically and religiously, philosophically and intellectually.

God’s Love Overtly Manifested in Hell

In Catholic theology, therefore, the creation of Hell was not an act of hate; it was, however, an act of the fullest love for those of God’s human creatures who so decided to obey their own sinful wills, meaning instead of adhering to the always holy will of God. While the Lord hates evil and all evildoing, He cannot hate the creaturely reality of His own creation, since creation by God is always an act of love, not hate.  The merciful reality of Hell, therefore, absolutely proves the infinite love of God for all human creatures, including those who willfully abused their free will and chose to commit unrepented mortal sins.

However, modern minds or, in addition, today’s postmodern minds do see only a complete paradox, a dilemma, or total contradiction between the asseveration of a good God and, on the other hand, a Being who could freely create and lovingly sanction the surely horrible existence of Hell.   The primary reason, for this much unneeded confusion of thought, is the unfortunate existence of nominalism in thinking that celebrates many perverse degrees relativism, subjectivism, and, in the penultimate, nihilism before the final arrival of insanity, the last “refuge” of truly dedicated nominalists.

Thus, e. g., there are now growing numbers of delusional people who demand that they be actually seen as being dogs, cats, birds, etc. because – why? – they do imperiously say so. It is of the same mentality as those who posit that an all-loving Deity, according to their subjective reasoning, simply couldn’t ever really permit anyone or, perhaps, maybe only a very few (extremely bad) souls to go to the Fiery Region; this ignores the fact that, as (orthodox) Catholics are supposed to be taught, Hell is a necessary part of God’s holy plan for salvation, not something created as a kind of thoughtless whim or, worse still, just an empty gesture; damnation, thus, is not a meaningless function of mere existentialist symbolism.

Millions stubbornly refuse to see Hell as a place of divine justice (and love) and prefer, instead, a rather grandfatherly Santa Claus of a God who forgives all and love all unconditionally always and to the nth degree; this is, however, a certainly much worse fantasy than Santa Claus ever could be. They do prefer to cognitively divide God’s justice from the Lord’s mercy, as the nominalist’s divide faith from reason, which, in turn, points directly back to the integral heart of the false problem absurdly created by the nominalists themselves, not by the Supreme Being.

For God, by definition, is not schizophrenic; therefore, all those foolish people who do stridently deny and vociferously reject Aristotelean-Thomistic realism are, in fact, mentally schizophrenic, though, of course, they are inherently unable to either recognize or diagnose their truly unfortunate condition.

Instead of rejecting their contradictory, unreasonable, and illogical nominalism, they perceive a God divided against Himself; this usually produces forms or types of a weird Manicheanism under various euphemisms, more so, as one could guess, in blatant terms of secularism these days. How may this assertion, in effect, of a schizophrenic God be illustrated to easily prove its inherent falsity?

A theoretically “plainly merciless” Supreme Deity (though an impossibility) would both imperially and imperiously annihilate any and all souls that did not measure up to His standards of haughty acceptance to better “prove” that there is, in fact, a real limit, not an abundance, to His love.   Thus, there would be a category of human souls, thought so tremendously unworthy of the supreme concerns of the Divinity, such that their instant and contemptuous evisceration unto a meaningless nothingness, a total oblivion, would be so infinitely pleasing to such a rather spiteful Godhead.  This thought would be, however, a rather vicious and venomous conception of the nature of the metaphysical order that actually exists.

But, really now, any Supreme Being of such a coldhearted and malicious nature would be seen as not being worth worshipping but, rather, only worthy of being held in deserved contempt for so studiously reviling and denigrating His own creation through their despised and utter annihilation. One sees, now, clearly that Hell is not at all a contradictory place, but it is abundantly a genuine manifestation of the great love of God for His creation; this is because of the pronounced respect given to man’s free will, his own beingness, to choose between good and evil, for the astounding existence of the rational soul, possessing a human conscience, exalts in eternity mere mortal flesh and blood, the physical body.

Only a nihilistic Deity (filled with self-hate) would hate the beingness of the being, the ontology of the existence, of its own creation, though God is free to hate evil and love that which is good; for Creation, inclusive of the rational sensate beings qua creatures, is good; all of Creation, therefore, testifies to a loving Lord who honors being and its cognate beingness as an ontological extension of the total reality, which has emanated from the supernatural, metaphysical, reality created by the Creator-God Himself, the very Ultimate Being of all being whatsoever and wherever considered.

The forever overwhelming profundity of all this vital cognition as to the meta-epistemology operating, consequently, ought not to be ignored or dismissed as having no value for human beings, the creatures of Creation exercising their innate, though entirely always contingent, beingness.

The amazing situation of how an almighty Supreme Being, condescended excessively to allow for the actual existence of rational souls in mortal creatures, is too often not considered as to the absolutely profound metaphysical issues involved to the nth degree; and yet, this is all an understatement of an enormous magnitude concerning the always incredible realty that was literally created from nothing by the mere (loving) will of supernatural power alone, the ultimate Mystery of Being.   What is morally, philosophically, and spiritually meant as to the tremendous implications and incredible ramifications?

Serious contemplation and deliberate cogitation of a very high order easily seems much, much more than just simply requisite, consequently, to how human gratitude, even multiplied a billion fold, would necessarily be entirely inadequate as a rational and needed response; this consideration concerns the meaning involved as to such an act of pure charity toward totally subsidiary, imperfect, and contingent creatures.

How can one gain, therefore, some better and proper perspective as to the truly fantastic metaphysical magnitude of what was done by Divine fiat?   From outer space, people look no bigger than seemingly insignificant microbes circulating or merely existing upon the planet.

And yet, a loving, ever-caring God is ever mindful of all the beings within and beyond the entire universe simultaneously, including all the insane atheists who can absurdly look at the unadulterated night sky, in all its incredibly bountiful magnificence, and yet boldly say that there is no visible or empirical proof of God’s existence; the factually ignored contingency of all being, and its necessarily cognate beingness, so absolutely evades their too cramped, perverted, limited minds.   So, Divine Providence is real.

Thus, even a bad soul gets the respect of never being dismissively erased from metaphysical reality, as if it were only so much just discardable, futile, meaningless trash, having then no real significance or true import whatsoever.   Such is never the case, however, with the Supreme Lord Almighty, the true Divinity existing from everlasting to everlasting, meaning before and after (the merely earthly concept of) time.

Hell affirmatively acknowledges that the irretrievably damned souls still do possess value and are not (idiosyncratically or otherwise) regarded by an indifferent God as, thus, being inconsiderable creatures of utter worthlessness, of neglectable insignificance as so much trivial rubbish or just useless detritus.

Moreover, the vital importance of the Infernal Regions is due to its inhabitants and because, in fact, it too shares in being a definitive part of all of God’s blessed creation; thus, an informed Christian will suitably praise the existence of such a place as a genuine manifestation of the Lord’s love and deep devotion toward His creation. Both Good and Evil are truly observed parts of the good Lord’s plan of blessed salvation.

Nonetheless, the chief characteristic of the Underworld is that which is lacking, namely, the presence of the Supreme Being and, moreover, the ever eternal glory and paramountcy of Heaven. The endlessly deplorable and wretched place without hope, without God, is defined best by that which does not and cannot ever be there, including such things as endless joy, happiness, and bliss unto the nth degree.

Heaven, the ever highest realm of the holy Godhead Eternal, is the always appropriate place for the absolute, the total, demonstration of permanent supernatural love beyond all mere human imagination, afar demonstrably from just forever inadequate mortal, earthly, conjectures.

Christians, and especially Roman Catholics, therefore, ought to always highly praise the Holy Name for the existence of the Infernal Regions, since it is a love-filled proof of the Lord’s deliberate mindfulness and concern for human beings and, thus, their ever God-given dignity.2 Only a loving and caring God, furthermore, would allow for the Netherworld as a needed affirmation of Being, the creative assertion of a divine ontological understanding of true metaphysical reality, of supernatural order, to exist as an imperishable location for the ever damned souls.

After all, the actually worst part of being in the cursed Underworld is not the physical pain, suffering and torment fully guaranteed to exist there for the enemies of the Supreme Being; that’s, so to speak, just “the icing on the cake,” or, rather, much better to say it is just the mere tip of the Devil’s pitchfork. The condemned spirit will, forever, be completely denied the ultimate meeting with the Absolute Deity, which includes seeing the face of God Himself.  The condemned are in their hate-filled prison of deepest ingratitude.

Contact with the highest pinnacle of the Alpha and Omega of all things visible and invisible (on earth) as to the fullest entirety of all of ontological and metaphysical reality can never ever occur, therefore, to any of those necessarily hated and hate-filled beings angrily held in the hopeless Fiery Pit for an eternity.

The degrading misery and tempestuous travail, supreme sadness and utter desolation, involved is the least painful aspect, meaning when the human soul is there completely bereft forever of what a good, blessed soul easily recognizes as the greatest meaning of salvation imaginable; there is not to be that damned soul’s presence in the grand and blessed, magnificent and exalted, company of the Holy Trinity, the saints, and the angels forever.

Being eternally cast out to the outermost darkness of metaphysical reality, through committing even a single unrepented mortal sin, is the very least form of such positively requisite punishment that is so justifiably inflicted without question. The ever greatest and most profound form of chastisement, of thoroughly severe rebuke, is the total inability to be at true peace with God, the foundation of all truth, justice, beauty, goodness, and righteousness to the nth degree.

On the other hand, this extremely post-Christian society and culture of the Western world with its vilely rampant secularism, undergirded increasingly by a contradictory neopaganism, has no thoughts of an afterlife filled with punishments for those, according to (orthodox) Catholicism, who have, in fact, merited damnation.

Atheists think there is nothing to worry about because their pragmatic materialism axiomatically blinds them to the truth; plain secularists live for themselves and their pleasures; the neo-heathens assume they have their own post-death futures set in various dreamy locations; thus, fewer and fewer people, especially in the West, are really concerned about such an archaic, folklorish destination, as it would be to them, the seemingly incomprehensible Netherworld.

The pain and suffering, with disease and loss, in this earthly realm, oddly offers to them no discernable hint, apparently, that any observable metaphysics could possibly be at work; while, perhaps, blinded atheists could be thought of as simply naïve as they do hurtle toward Perdition, the others cannot be so easily “pardoned” because both the secular world and the neopagan one do still have (and are prideful about) their own various, morally-warped concepts of sin, by whatever euphemisms.

And, any transgressions between or among them are not easily tolerated, for the most intolerant people to be found are any profoundly (or, even sometimes, slightly) offended secularists and neo-heathens. To twist a saying, Hell hath no fury, e. g., as a Liberal who’s been mugged.  Gone, then, are thoughts of sweetness and light.

While the masses may seem fairly content in their worldly paradise, some keen observers of the human scene do yet know better; there is a restlessness and a longing, often unexpressed, but felt in the human heart long before it reaches the slower-responding brain that seeks to just rationalize everything somehow found to be inconvenient to the lustful defense of mortal hubris.

Today’s true counterculture seeks to find a solace, therefore, not truly encountered in the plaintive nostrums of the variegated cults, or the secularist centers of peculiar worship and devotion, or the so-called New Atheism offering absolutely nothing of substance, by definition, because disbelief says there’s nothing there out there. Q. E. D.

Whether the often disguised worship of self (by whatever euphemism or means) or the lust for seeking evil, both lead to dead ends on earth, though there is an entrance into the Infernal Regions for those who do not deeply repent and seek Jesus Christ. Spiritual voids and vacuums get filled, sooner or later, for as G. K. Chesterton so sagaciously remarked, those who cease believing in God almost never become real atheists, they then become susceptible of believing in anything; this includes any superstition, cult, or whatever belief that offers an opportunity to somehow or other believe in something rather than only nothing, as with the dead end atheism and its literally vacuous cognition.

This easily explains why the terrene fascinations of fornication, sodomy, pornography, adultery, drug addiction, etc. grow exponentially as religion ceases its hold upon people in being geometrically held to be less and less important, in proportion, within the scale of human values. Most so-called enlightened opinion praises any sexual perversion, inclusive of homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, and even incest.

Fear of Hell is greatly disvalued, especially by those who supposedly claim to pridefully have advanced, sophisticated intellects far above the vulgar herd, most of the latter who yet share the subjective kind of moral vulgarity of the intellectuals, if not their wits.

All this is very exemplary of the increasing descent into evil, perceived in the post-Christian societal and cultural norms of the modern world; this is where most people now have regrets about the sins they did not or may not get a chance to commit. Few people, these days, wish to publicly admit that they are unsuccessful sinners; it is like “shamefully” admitting, e. g., to being a virgin before marriage.  In their so perverted minds: How awful!  Perish the thought! [ … though they do not care if their souls perish.]

Few, if any, expect to be logically “rewarded” after death by being deposited into the Burning Pit to suffer forever the consequences of willingly and deliberately choosing evil over good. They will never see the face of God, the true meaning of all that is, was or can be within and beyond the mere universe.  The definitional purity and truth of the Absolute Supreme Being can never become in contact with that which is forever totally impure and untruthful as is any unrepented mortal sin, which is of the essence of the torment, pain, and suffering involved eternally.

Deprivation that is everlasting, no chance whatsoever of viewing the Holy Beatific Vision, exists as the absolute horror of horrors, as to its unfortunate occurrence, that thereby enormously torments the cursed spirit-body to an indescribable degree set forever beyond mere human imagination; it is the very definition of vilely despicable wretchedness, for it is what it is known to be: Hell.

But, Rev. M.P. Hill, S. J, in his The Catholic’s Ready Answer (1915), supplies the still classical and true understanding that, “There is, it is true, a rigorous side to God’s dealings with men, even during their mortal lives, that fills us with terror; but of the rigor we can, in some measure, divine the reasons.  The pains and inflictions meted out both to individual men and to nations have often been the temporal punishment of crimes that have made the earth groan with the weight of the iniquities that have oppressed it; and the temporal punishment, in many cases, may have brought men to their senses and saved them from eternal punishment.”

Hill, in the book’s section on Hell, wisely adds: “The thought of hell necessarily awakens deep reflection: let not such reflection issue in an impeachment of the divine mercy. …“   In any event, he, also, there correctly writes “but one thing we know, that no one was ever lost who was not lost in spite of God’s merciful designs in his behalf.”   The Lord’s abundant and pure mercy is, by definition, completely perfect; man’s typical questionable response, however, has usually been very far from flawless; the fault, so obviously, resides entirely in the latter, not ever in the former reality posited.

In Praise of the Infernal Regions

The true righteousness of Hell, moreover, is an enormous tribute to the foresight of the loving Lord in provisioning properly for those who have sought to willingly hate Him so extremely or intensely.  And, when examined more closely, it is not really the mere existence of such a place that confounds many of Perdition’s critics, actually, it is its genuine righteousness that so offends substantially and hurts the most, and with the least qualification.

One may, thus, logically note that the sheer hellishness of such permanent suffering, torment, and absolute deprivation of the Beatific Vision proves the theological rightness of the glory of God forever, which thought ought to send (thoughtless) atheists into a tailspin.

To the damned, meaning to all those permanent reprobates cut off forever from the Mystical Body of Christ, it is not the horror nor the torments nor the misery that really offends the most; all that and more is just so ancillary and ought to be simply expected as merely being axiomatic; for as Chesterton would have concurred, it is, as has been above so correctly noted, the very rightness and righteousness of the Netherworld, meaning the total and everlasting absence of God, that truly affronts the most. Why may this be easily said?

No rational being who loves the Lord, no good Christian worthy of the name, would ever want so to be even one second or a fractional millionth of a microsecond out of the celestial, magnificent, and glorious presence of the Almighty Supreme Being Himself. That absence would be Hell, the containment center for all ungrateful souls.

It is positive proof, moreover, that what human beings, God’s creatures having immortal souls, do in their lifetimes is not at all morally insignificant. The human soul, whether going to Heaven or not, is held to be important and does not lack value, even in the blazing Inferno.  That is obviously why Satan is busy all the time trying to send millions to want to go there, meaning as a vicious means of hating, despising, tormenting, and torturing God’s creation; it is a horrible means of deliberately and eternally offending God.

For as the Catholic Faith in truth teaches, this is against the ever bountiful blessedness of Heaven versus the unending wretchedness of the Fiery Underworld; it logically and perfectly reflects the Mystery of Good as opposed forever to the Mystery of Evil.   If Lucifer finds any devilish “joy,” this is the closest he might possibly get to it in vilely tormenting the condemned spirits and their then extremely ugly bodies.   Furthermore, in that (cruel) sense, the necessarily supernatural ontology of such a hellish place must be so very mighty impressive, if nothing else.3

Against forever the soulless contemporary world and its overt nihilistic beliefs, there should truly be, as Chesterton’s own paradoxical thinking would suggest, a veritable celebration by Roman Catholics of the reality of Hell as an inspiration for all Christians.  Thus, “celebrating” the wondrous glories of Hell would clearly add a Chestertonian aura to this quite insightful cognition reflecting, as it certainly does, upon the ever eternal greatness of the Lord God Almighty.

All sincere Christians, therefore, should really be grateful and thank God for the loving existence of the Fiery Pit, a tribute to the Lord and His eternal and blessed glory; this is because the adamant upholding of the ever holy righteousness of metaphysical order is necessarily quite primary, not the subjective opinions of any mere human beings thought to be contrary.

There should be, moreover, a strange or certainly peculiar “bliss” among the damned. The only critic of this might be Hillaire Belloc who, in his To Dives, wrote that, “They order things so damnably in hell.”  Amen.

For those reprobate sinners deserving of their personal perdition, mere mortal death is not indicative of an extinction of the self qua soul, rather, the incredible immorality of the soul is glorified by that fact concerning its continuance forever more.  Supernatural existence and order guarantees this immortality, though, of course, in a hellish place not ever to be congenial to happiness, glee, joy, bliss, or any such positive things in any way whatsoever.  In short, it’s really Hell.

Yet, this matter greatly needs proper elucidation in a world increasingly filled with varieties of hedonists, humanists, secularists, positivists, pragmatists, relativists, and nihilists. Unfortunately, the too harsh realities involved with everlasting damnation get rarely, if ever, preached from the typical pulpits; the vast majority of pastors do a grave disservice, thus, to their terribly deprived flocks by stressing a treacly, slimy goodness and light, a supposed easy sweetness for all, kind of relaxed path to an expected sort of axiomatic salvation by hoping, piously or otherwise, for it.  This is surely unreal, a debased metaphysics, a desire for a broad or very wide way toward Heaven, which simply does not exist.

But, Christ overtly said, as an extremely clear warning, “Many are called, few are chosen,” which ought to be a proverbial word to the wise, if nothing else. Those who think so lightly about damnation had better learn to embrace the mighty baleful consequences of such an absurdly fallacious belief ever set (wrongly) contrary to the Gospels, teachings of the Patristic Fathers, Scholastics, Doctors of the Church, etc.

One can, therefore, appropriately say of damnation: Know about it, believe in it, and seek, most of all, to greatly avoid it at all costs. The pathway toward Heaven, as ought to be know, is always so narrow and difficult for a good and moral reason; this is since people, human souls, are being deliberately tested to see if they are truly worthy to achieve their salvation.  Only the best of the best called will be able to get to a destination that bespeaks the opposite of Hell, though not in terms of simply being eternal.

Further examination of this intriguing topic may help to manifestly expatiate the things that do need to be said in support of such important considerations. St Cyprian, in his To Demetrianus the Proconsul of Africa, had there wisely noted, “Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life.”   Experiencing it will certainly be believing in the most immediate way.

All the various distractions of this sorry fallen world of fallen creatures are as nothing compared to the everlasting reward given to the minority, to the genuinely faithful souls, who are found very worthy of supernatural beatitude; and, this is, of course, why the Netherworld, the perpetually dark region of the cursed souls, rages so horrifically against it forever.

St. Augustine, in his Enchiridion, did not doubt, “The perpetual death of the damned …” having there no “mitigation or interruption of their torments.”    In the Dialogues of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, one there easily reads that,” Everyone there, according to the quantity of his sin, has the measure of his pain.”  The contempt for metaphysical order, for God’s goodness, seen in the desire to commit mortal sin, to shut off the divine light to one’s soul, creates the logical consequence that the damned freely chose to be in Hell by their thoughts, words, and/or deeds.  Heaven, therefore, has been then forever lost to all the damned souls, to the ungrateful wretches, who must suffer all their justified torments eternally.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Compendium theologiae, had there so well noted that, “Therefore man’s extreme unhappiness will consist in the fact that his intellect is completely shut off from the divine light, and his affections are stubbornly turned against God’s goodness. And this is the chief suffering of the damned.  It is known as the punishment of loss.” And, that loss is the metaphysical, the Particular Judgment, added eventually to the physical damnation at the General Judgment where body and soul are both condemned to an eternity of experiencing the greatly horrifying torments of that divine loss.

And yet, strangely enough, an unusual sort of point was noted by the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 8: “If anyone says that the fear of Hell, whereby by grieving for our sins we flee unto the mercy of God or refrain from sinning, is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.” What may be inferred?  For Hell is the plainest realization that the dark side of human dignity does have an eternally horrid place for its most damnable expression, as surely as is all of Hollywood a most willing playground for the Devil, for the knowing existential celebration of evil.

Thus, the perennial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fundamental and definitive idea that there are ultimately only two categories of souls: the saved and the damned.   In support of this very important point, there have been three General Councils of the Church, meaning Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439; and, in reiterative addition, Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus (1336) that have all so invariably taught, de fide, that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes immediately to suffer the earned eternal punishments of Hell and its awful indefeasibility.

This strongly enduring and settled belief has, verifiably and unquestionably, persisted in the Church to the present time. One may suitably add, moreover, that it is logically repeated, almost precisely, in the still current Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1022, 1035).   Furthermore, one may note that there have been a number of local councils, found back in the Middle Ages, and without seemingly meaning to openly define the point, declare in passing that some people have, in fact, actually died in a state of mortal sin and been, thus, necessarily punished by their then merited eternal damnation.  For as the Common Doctor, Aquinas, considers the matter in his Compendium theologiae, “But those who are found evil at that moment [of death] will be forever obstinate in evil.”   Q. E. D.

For any sincere and dedicated Christians, especially for (traditionalist, orthodox) Roman Catholics, none of the above statements ought to seem strange or absurd, including the defense of the existence of Hell itself; however, admittedly, the nominalist thrust of rampant modernity and, more so, postmodernity stands directly to the contrary in existent thinking, which problem, needless to say, quite bedevils the world constantly. Existentialism, phenomenology, pragmatism, positivism, relativism, Gestalt, and nihilism all cloud men’s minds toward ever increasing degrees of absurdity, vanity, and/or morbidity.

In contrast, all sincere Christians ought to thank God for His supreme graciousness and kindness in making sure that Hell lovingly exists. How may this be better understood?   Plato, millenniums ago, wrote that a murderer, if possessed by the needed knowledge in his rational soul, would expect and want to receive capital punishment for his crime; thus, the faithful can and should, analogously, praise the Lord God for the unendingly enormous and blessed mercy of the provided place of Perdition.

Gratitude to God in this matter, created as a genuine sign of His great love, is highly and unquestionably deserved, for mortal man’s ways and thoughts are not those of the Deity.

Those who willingly would not seek their much needed redemption on earth will, consequently, get their absolutely deserved punishment in Hell for eternity. It is, thus, so eminently fair, logical, and reasonable.  Because, for instance, modernism in cognition tends to be so dominant these days, the rightness of metaphysical order and its justice gets ignored or, worse yet, simply disparaged outright; thus, the manifold benefits of the Eternal Damnation Destination, the Great Unquenchable Fire as it is often called, get wrongfully neglected by (indifferent) secularists and, yes, many of the religious/clerics as well.  How might this be properly understood?

The important benefits notably include: everlasting knowledge, within the metaphysical order, of the certainty of the General Judgment and, later, the Particular Judgment upon a human soul; the fixity of the reality for giving a location wherein the damned soul knows that it will never be destroyed as a worthless discarded thing; a way indicated as to what needs to be totally avoided by strident moral resolve, prayers, fasting, charitable acts, and true piety.

And, furthermore, a definitive means exists for the total and righteous vindication, actual proof, of the true will of the Lord God Almighty; this is so regarding all those who have too grievously offended Him without truly seeking needed forgiveness, which comes with no phenomenological qualifications of fact.

In addition, as Aquinas had written, the righteous in Heaven are greatly comforted knowing that the evilly unrighteous in Gehenna are deservedly experiencing God’s both perfect justice and holy wrath.   The worst of all places is, indeed, the ideally best location for all damned souls to be, without question.

Offenses against the Supreme Being are supremely evil because His perfect and infinite majesty, honor, and glory has been terribly and deliberately besmirched, an act of the unquestionably vilest ingratitude had occurred; it was, thus, horribly done, moreover, in a willful manner, as if one were to be slapping the face of God in utter contempt.

As Dr. Ludwig Ott concisely expresses it, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, “St. Augustine defends the endless duration of hell-punishment against the Origenists and against” those who advocate mercy.  But, man’s subjective concept of mercy cannot, by definition, be ever greater than God’s objective and everlasting mercy. He instructively further adds: “On the ground of the teaching of Revelation it is to be inferred, that the will of the damned is immovably hardened in evil and is, therefore, inaccessible to any true repentance.  The reason is that God refuses all further grace to the damned.” Thus, it simply has to be perceived as a quintessential fact.

Elsewhere, Ott properly so notes the Catholic epistemological understanding as to what is meant as to the metaphysical ontology involved: “Suffrages are of no profit to the damned in Hell as they do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.” And, this is certainly a most important point to remember.  The damned, ever logically, are forever excluded from the exalted Beatific Vision; otherwise, for instance, God’s holy justice and mercy could not be both, by definition, always and everywhere so absolutely perfect and, axiomatically, unquestionable as such.  Q. E. D.

Unrepented mortal sins, in accordance with metaphysical order, do merit the severest punishment of an often unimaginable extent beyond all description because of the enormous magnitude of the sins, as to their extreme importance; they have, in fact, directly offended and insulted the Lord God Almighty by also reviling and rejecting the love of the Lord by refusing to seek a much needed penitence with a very profound remorse. And, this understanding of truth is as certain as Jesus being the Christ and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Holy Mediatrix of Grace.

Why is this, meaning the commission of mortal sin, so evilly and malevolently perverse? The damned soul always demonstrably prefers Hell, the vile realm of moral darkness, to Heaven, the joyous abode of the blessed.  And, there are many interrelated implications and ramifications attendant thereto related to the positive and requisite condemnation of all human hubris and arrogance.  Sin, especially the most grievous sort thereof, is a serious matter not without baleful, unfortunate, supernatural consequences.

For in the Compendium theologiae, one clearly reads that: “But we should understand that those who are condemned to final misery cannot have after death what they craved as the best.  Libertines in Hell will have no opportunity to gratify their passions; the wrathful and the envious will have no victims to offend or obstruct; and so of all the vices in turn.”

The above is, of course, thoughtfully rendered as being morally and theologically opposed to mere modernist or postmodernist prejudices set adamantly against such thinking, as to the propriety and appropriateness of the requisite existence and suitable reasonableness of the Infernal Regions. Why?  For seriously offending God, without any profound repentance, obviously ought to and does, in fact, have certain truly dire consequences of a most terrible, shocking, and, in fact, everlasting kind: Hell.4

Of course, admittedly, many people passionately question the whole idea of a loving God or even the existence of such a Divine Being when disasters (natural or manmade), acts of terrorism, the deaths of children, etc. occur. They reason from secondary or tertiary principles, not from first principles as to the rightness, reasonableness, and logic of metaphysical order; also, they make their terribly misinformed judgments based upon considerations of social order, political order, cultural order, etc., not from the point of view of metaphysical order, the first principle of all or any order to be correctly considered.

The atheistic existentialist Albert Camus, for instance, infamously judged God and found the deficient Deity to be wanting because he could not really tolerate the thought of seeing little children suffer or die. The “imperfections” of God (by definition, an impossibility if one posits a God) had provoked him because he could not see the real imperfections, the sins of people, that have existed since Adam and Eve were banished out of the Garden of Eden.

If he had properly reasoned by the first principle, he would have perceived correctly that the natural or physical order is obviously always imperfect; there are fallen creatures, including human beings, living in a decidedly fallen world; many very unpleasant and other consequences logically do then result from this extremely important truth of this ever rather harsh reality, including all human suffering and death, not just that of innocent children.

Sinning, being done on a grand scale covering hundreds of millions of people, is yet another logical result of being imperfect creatures existing in an imperfect world. God gets mightily offended by all this sinning, especially by all mortal sins, since He is always, in fact, the principal party who is offended, of course.  Every act of sin, moreover, is defiantly directed against metaphysical order

There must be a suitable and appropriate place of eternal punishment and allied retribution considering, e. g., the hundreds of millions of abortions in the world, past, present and to come; ditto for acts of fornication, sodomy, artificial contraception, divorce, etc. For instance, the blood of those murdered babies cries out to high Heaven and low Hell for severe chastisement, especially when there is no truly profound repentance and genuine seeking of forgiveness from the Lord.

As Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity, clearly states, “Given that man can, [italics in the original] freely, choose love of self and hatred of God, the rest follows.  In all reverence we can say that God, respecting the will’s freedom, can do nothing about it.  He does not thrust devils or men into hell: they go there, because that is their place.”

Sheed, interestingly, continues the noted thought in the same paragraph, moreover, by also citing Holy Scripture that Judas went, in fact, to the place where he (logically) had to go; it was not because of any supposed ignorance; for the irretrievably damned, by their inherent natures, do remain eternally defiant and decidedly oriented, by evil act(s) of free will, to then be forever recalcitrant, by knowingly rejecting the Lord because they would not sincerely repent.  The Supreme Being, thus, is merciful but not stupid.


The permanence of Hell is a justifiable rebuke to extreme sinners and a comfort for those who have sought to honor God, in pursuing a humble righteousness unto their holy salvation, by being in future among the glorified saints in Heaven.5

Verily, the terribly burning realm of devilish Perdition is a mirror to Satan, reflecting both his supreme vileness and hopelessness on a grand scale unto eternity, 6 while Heaven is, so rightfully, the blessed abode of those who have arduously sought out a narrow path toward God, the Eternal Truth.  It is the source of faith, hope, and charity and the wisdom found in the Trinitarian Dogma as well.  The fever-pitch raging hate forever seething there, filled with beings having been once both freely and lovingly granted the divine gift of immortal souls, justifies the both true and holy goodness of the good God who created it.

For the glorious meaning of salvation is necessarily magnified many, many fold by the shocking and justified existence of such an extremely terrible place fit for those who have wantonly, deliberately, defied the Lord Almighty by so knowingly abusing their free will. No one ever gets there, of course, against their own will.  The Lord’s abundant mercy is always the same and equal to His justice everywhere (including the Netherworld, of course) and at all times, which is why the unfortunately damned souls are mercifully and considerately retained in Hell and never callously or thoughtlessly obliterated.

Verily, God’s Holy Name ought, therefore, to be always gratefully praised for the everlasting great mercy of Hell. The Lord of Hosts is, thus, rightfully seen to be truly a God of enormous and righteous mercy, even by its very existence.  In any event and contrary to experiential subjectivity, one can asseverate that as informed Christians ought to know, all things, visible and invisible, in the universe and beyond, including both Heaven and Hell, axiomatically exists Pro Gloria Magnum Dei.

Athanasius contra mundum!



1.)   Strictly speaking, the point correctly noted, (as is expected) by Aquinas, is that Hell was created after the fall of Lucifer and about a third of the angels that had willingly followed him.  There was simply no prior need for it.   Creation is (merely) contingent being.  God, therefore, is always infinitely much more important that any single part of or all of Creation put together and even multiplied a billion times because, after all, the Lord Almighty is the very Author of Creation.


2.)   God’s great respect for the dignity of man, made, after all, in the image and likeness of God, means that those extremely reprobate human beings, who commit any unrepented mortal sins, get their then irretrievable and everlasting sinfulness acknowledged authoritatively.   Nevertheless, as this short article explains, truly one ought to logically see that Hell is the mercy of God manifested eternally.

Beings having the image of the Lord Almighty and possessing an immortal soul cannot, therefore, be just vilely obliterated into mere nothingness as if they have no real value as creatures. Hell is, therefore, the logical repository for all those who do hate the Supreme Being because they freely chose to not repent; this is because, moreover, they earnestly wish to remain in permanent enmity toward their Creator to the nth degree.  And, all this is properly related, of course, to sound, orthodox Roman Catholic theology.


3.)   It ought to be easily seen now why, therefore, the truly blasphemous and anti-Christian notion of a “Universal Salvation” mightily offends the Lord God Almighty and His wisdom.  This obviously heretical notion spits upon the Divinity by denying that Hell’s creation is an act of true love, not hate or contempt for God’s own creation, meaning Lucifer, the other fallen angels, and the damned souls of human beings who deserve to be there with all the cursed spirits.

Neither cruel nor vicious annihilation nor obliteration, eradication nor extermination, will ever so befall those suffering and tormented souls that the Lord is so forever mindful of unto eternity. In short, only an insane or crazed Deity would have made Hell as a place that would never be actually needed.  It would be, therefore, so thoroughly and certainly irrational, illogical, absurd, and just too downright preposterous.

Thus, only theological idiots or heretics (same difference) could believe in the blatant idiocy of there being a supposed Universal Salvation. In short, Hell’s creation was not whimsical or frivolous.  It is not an empty threat; the Netherworld is, in fact, literally filled with many, many ardent and knowledgeable believers in it through experience.   St. Padre Pio (1887-1968) was once asked what he thought of people who did not believe in Hell. He wisely replied: “They will very well believe in Hell when they get there.”

Interestingly, the most radical, the most theologically nominalist, cults that claim to be Christian, in one way or another, have sought to either substantially minimize Hell into its just perceived as a meaningless symbolic sort of thing or, on the other hand, thoroughly eviscerate it by draining away all meaning as to its being an actual place of eternal punishment. Either way, the Fiery Furnace, for them, does not exist as a fundamentally perennial and definitely Holy Scripture-based fact of Christian belief.  One does see this significantly confirmed, e. g., in the faith tenets of the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and, of course, Mormons.


4.)   Roman Catholic doxology, soteriology, and eschatology all cover various parts of what is intended to be conveyed in this article, as aligned with the orthodox sensus fidei or sensus fidelium. For as Aquinas clearly had stated, in his Summa Theologica, “The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin.  Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness.  Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.”  Q. E. D.

According to the Angelic Doctor, moreover, there are four distinct parts to Hell: Gehenna, Purgatory, the Limbo of the Children, and the Limbo of the Fathers. He, of course, carefully elaborates the parts and renders many expository details.  As (orthodox) Catholicism considers such matters, neither faith nor reason are divided against themselves, nor can a loving good God be said to be incapable of creating Hell. So, while still on earth, people can repent and do and say acts of contrition for their sins.


Actus Contritionis

Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum,

eaque detestor, quia peccando,

non solum pœnas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum,

sed præsertim quia offendi te,

summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.

Ideo firmiter propono,

adiuvante gratia tua,

de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum.



5.)   The Communist “eschatology” entirely mocks and inverts this by seeking its New Eden on earth, as the Communist Utopia, whereby the collectivist “saints” will be glorified; however, the path to Hell is paved with (SUPPOSEDLY) good intentions, as every and all efforts at attaining the perfectly terrene paradise do necessarily fail, prompting the true believers to always say, next time, it will then surely succeed; this, however, only makes Satan laugh in contempt.  He has a certainly good reason to do so: over 100,000,000 lives, so far, have been devilishly sacrificed to Moloch (aka Communism) already, which well testifies to the Devil’s quite easy confidence, in this very bloody and malevolent matter.

Islam, in its bloodthirstiness, seeks to satanically compete with Communism, as its jihadi are supposed to be guaranteed upon death their sensuous, extremely erotic paradise with its 72 perpetual virgins lusting for each blood-stained soul-body to embrace, for its hellish ability to devilishly massacre infidels.


6.)   Satan is forced to remain exactly where he is and, while he greatly enjoys the tormenting of God’s lesser creatures, he is simultaneously always mocked by their contemptuous presence, which offends him unto a towering and obnoxious degree of devilish rage; this unceasingly accursed and titanic wrath set beyond all human comprehension feeds, in turn, unendingly back into the ever unmitigated, ever unadulterated, hellishness of Hell, for it could not, by definition, be otherwise.

While there may be “many” saved souls, the chosen spiritual elite/saints, in Heaven, this number is relatively very small when correctly compared to the billions burning in the nasty Netherworld, for as Jesus Himself said, “Many are called but few are chosen.”

On the other hand, one can, e. g., read the liberal National Catholic Reporter that so heretically prints articles debunking the supposedly silly and dumbly reactionary, unenlightened, archaic “myth” of Hell:



St. Robert Bellarmine [Doctor of the Church], Hell and Its Torments

Catechism of the Council of Trent

Fr. Martin von Cochem, The Four Last Things

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and Patrick Cummins, Life Everlasting and the Immensity of the Soul: A Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori

Bob Lord, Visions of the Saints (Visions of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory)

Fr. Wade Menezes, The Four Last Things: A Catechetical Guide to Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell

Fr. F. X. Schouppe, SJ , The Dogma of Hell

Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic Of Damnation

Fr. X and Robert C. Hilkert, The Hell Catholic




Evil Pope Francis vs. Ad maiorem Dei

Evil Pope Francis vs. Ad maiorem Dei: The Infusibility, Instantiationability, Indissolubility, and Ineffability of the Roman Catholic Church

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

[The Church is St. Peter’s concern that like a] “boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.” – Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, on 15th July 2017

The above cited, recent words of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, one of the most prominent intellectual and surely spiritual leaders of the Church and, more so, the entire world Catholic community as well, should not, however, be ever at all lightly dismissed as merely being the vague or inconsequential musings of just a doddering old fool. He is, definitely, a major prelate of renown and distinction by any measurement, besides being a prolific Christian author and profound thinker.  And, his thoughts are truly alarming.

Those specially chosen words, both highly evocative and provocative, ought to then, logically, be a most rather significant and not simply ignored clarion call for the always requisite defense of Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith. What are suitable proofs, fully supportive of the great urgency for such a remarkable consideration as statement, set in terms of deep religious truth and holy fidelity?

It is well known, through the study of Catholic theology, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses the spiritual attributes of impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility as the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, because it was, in fact, founded by Jesus Christ Himself. All this, however, is in spite of the monumental and ongoing grave crisis in the Church, since Vatican Council II, in the mid-1960s.

A convinced disciple of that wayward Council, evil Pope Francis, in his terrible efforts to radicalize and pervert the Church and its holy purposes, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these attributes in supposedly thinking that they only describe himself and his papal powers. Such, although not seemingly suspected, will yet prove to be his own fatal Achilles’ heel, regardless of the popular press adoring and cheering him and, one suspects, many Satanists secretly applauding him in a snooty snide manner.

There appears to be, one greatly suspects, a (deliberate) sort of forgetfulness that he is only the chief Servant of the Servants of Christ, not an absolute dictator, imperial autocrat,  or unrestrainable tyrant.  Yes, he is, also, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City known as the Holy See, besides then being the Petrine Apostolic Primate Extraordinaire of the entire Catholic Church no less.

Nonetheless, there is no need for the vilely gross absurdity and obnoxiously worshipful sycophancy of papolatry.   He is merely the Vicar of Christ on earth, not a new Incarnation, as many Catholics may so blasphemously suppose, in their unfortunate ignorance and tolerance of papal vanity popularly parading as a feigned humility; his gross pomposity and vile arrogance, moreover, deserves true reprehension and contempt, rates public reproof and scorn, for much papal aggrandizement and pontifical puffery.

In any event, what is important is to avoid hatred toward the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter, better to pray for his soul’s salvation, and concentrate, instead, on the blessed defense of and love for Catholicism, a miraculous creed. How may this be done?

Strengths of the Orthodox Reformation

With all the above properly kept in mind, there are other theologically orthodox implications and ramifications as to other (read: orthodox-traditionalist) attributes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. One of these may be denominated infusibility due to the ever ongoing guidance of the Holy Ghost.

This is logically since the combination of impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility ensures that heresy can, thus, never be made formally or officially any valid part of true, meaning authentic, Catholic teaching, hence, the both integral and inherent infusibility of Catholicism, of the hope of the martyrs and the joy of the saints.

It is, as a direct definitional consequence, the only true perfect religion qua genuine faith allowed and sanctioned by Jesus Christ as authentic, meaning defined by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium.  The spiritual protection of the Divine Paraclete Himself, moreover, fully guarantees this as a dogmatic certainty without question, for God, by definition, loves the Truth and hates all heresies.

Because the salvation history of the Church validly suggests optimism, this provides an ever requisite amplification and reinforcement for the four cardinal virtues of justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude.

The loved totality of the intellectual and theological defense of the Sacred Faith should then always, therefore, properly include its related infusibility and as a suitable and appropriate means of refuting heretics and the plainly ignorant as well; and, of intellectually, morally, and spiritually reinforcing the important need for holy orthodoxy and a life dedicated to holiness.

This factor of resolute infusibility negates efforts to absurdly strip off elements of the Church as if one could get at, e. g., the “real” onion by peeling at it until nothing is left of it. One sees here absurdity compounded, especially by those who wish to attack or denigrate Catholicism.

Thus, analogously, there is no genuine viable or possible authentic way to get at a “primitive” Church before “Romanist” accretions had supposedly obscured the true religious body; among others, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman came to intelligently recognize this most salient and pointed truth, which included his proper total rejection of any assumed via media alternatives as being presumed substitutes.

Another quite readily cognate attribute might be called the Church’s “instantiationability” in that it will exist until the end of the world as the primary empirical and verifiable instance of the ecclesiastical organization on earth representative of the actual intention of Christ to found it as being His one and only Church.

This confidently asserted instantiationability legitimately concerns the instantiation qua representation, within an ecclesial mode of existence as a visible sign of an ongoing reality, present in this world for the salvation of human beings, until the consummation of all time has, at last, occurred. Furthermore, Catholic eschatology and soteriology, of course, both freely affirm this assertion.

Proofs of such overt and supremely Christian instantiation do axiomatically include the all of the Holy Church’s authority, history/historicity, Catholic origins of the Bible, the Biblical sanctions for all its Holy Sacraments, and the fact that the obnoxious heresy of Sola Scriptura is not really supported by the Bible.

Catholicism, therefore, provides an instance of or, moreover, rather concrete evidence seen in adamant support of a particular realization of faith, as is maintained by the ecclesiastical body known as the Roman Catholic Church when properly sustained by orthodoxy, by its holiness and sanctity.

This is, surely, a manifestly definitive means of observed instantiation, as to the theological reality and representation of the fruit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which was explicitly intended by the Lord and Savior Himself and, thus, ought never to be questioned by any Christian. Catholic Christology and doxology do firmly support this great truth expatiated and elucidated through intelligent religious epistemology.

The Church acts as the both existential and experiential incorporation of an imperative religious and theological entity that defies any intramundane logic and reasoning thrown against it by pragmatists, positivists, materialists, atheist-naturalists, and nihilists all combined or, moreover, multiplied to the nth degree.  Meaning that it is hard for most fallen creatures in a fallen world to believe the truth, even when made so obvious.

Consequently, the bold asseveration of instantiationability necessarily affirms the integrity and integral nature of Catholicism being both spiritually and empirically consonant, meaning with the representative characteristics and signs of the Roman Catholic Church, and, more to the specific point here, none other. All this is thoroughly supported by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, of course, being that they, as is taught theologically, are always the inerrant Three Pillars of the Faith.

One more feature may be mentioned as to the clear indissolubility of the Church on earth.  The ancient Roman Emperors sought to destroy the work of Christ, the Arian heretics attempted the same, as have other such enemies; the Protestant Revolution claimed it would first surpass and then totally replace the Church; the French Revolution thought it could also destroy Catholicism; the Soviet Revolution tried its hand at a total demolition; in short, the Gates of Hell, repeatedly, have not prevailed to eliminate the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

Even the current heresiarch evil Pope Francis cannot succeed in exterminating the roots of orthodoxy within the Church that will joyously continue long after his evil pontificate. The evident fact of this historically noted indissolubility has manifestly thwarted evil doers, heretics, and other various mischief makers throughout the ages and will, quite predictability, continue to do so in the future.

Traditionalism, as combined responsibly with the dogmas and doctrines that form the blessed centrality and core of the Holy Faith, is to be reasserted athwart the demonic innovative spirit stirred into being by the duplicitous Second Vatican Council, a triumph of Modernism, which holds grace in contempt.

The stubbornly indissoluble nature of the ecclesiastical entity ever encompasses much more than just the physical structures of buildings and the hierarchical offices no matter how extensively considered, inclusive of the entire Vatican power and machinery notwithstanding. The Arian heretics, for instance, had most of the hierarchy and the Church properties in their foul possession for some centuries but still lost in their ultimately futile but highly vigorous attempt to conquer Christ’s creation.

Consideration of the unbreakable nature of the Church means that it is more than just a merely human institution founded by (through merely secular eyes) a bunch of illiterate parlous rabble in and around the obscure Sea of Galilea in ancient Palestine, a low-account province of the once vast Roman Empire.   Was it really that “propitious” that the Founder was regarded, by the local authorities, as being merely a crucified Jewish miscreant, an obscure Nazarene carpenter’s (assumed) son?

Anti-Catholic and anti-Christian historians have been, of course, quite inventive as to seeking what they considered to be fairly plausible explanations qua many rationalizations for the incredible survival of the Church.   When these assertions are properly placed under any advanced sort of very intensive scrutiny, however, they still fail various tests of plausibility, meaning whenever the miraculous gets conveniently excluded from any such possible pragmatic calculations of terrene success.

Just when it seems to be at the critical point of an expected failure unto ruin and ignominy, more or less, the ecclesial structure and its people appear to rebound somehow or other back to life unexpectedly, for Ecclesiam nulla salus is the truth, the Catholic truth, the sensus fidei, to be ever upheld by instructive dogmatics and Catholicism’s ontological theology.1

The repeated attacks against the Church by militant Arians, aggressive Protestants, both French and Soviet revolutionaries ought, logically speaking, to have killed off any secular or such typical organization a very long time ago. Rather, its very existence must be, thus, regarded as miraculous within such a given context of often quite virulent anti-Catholic and anti-Christian hatred directed, for many, many centuries, against it.

As St. Paul, in Ephesians 6:12, had wisely written, “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” Thus, as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, truly knew, the superior metaphysical order of reality, therefore, commands the highest attention and respect of Catholicism as to its greatest affirmations.

Catholic orthodoxy definitely knows and teaches that powerful metaphysical forces are battling and struggling, pertaining to that which is of the invisible order but are still more real, much more so, than mere humans typically know. Atheists, pragmatists, positivists, nihilists, and secularist-humanists do, however, scoff at such theological cognizance as being primitive nonsense, meaning as the power of evil gains strength and dominance in the very face of their rationalist superstition.

No basically human institution could have ever withstood the terrific onslaught of so much greatly intensive and rather bitter hatred, denunciation, and persecution for ages and ages, in defense of the Sensus Catholicus.

To suggest otherwise is either blandly ludicrous or shamelessly ignorant of the historical, psychological, sociological, and cultural facts of human reality that would have worn down such an organization into nothingness, after these so many centuries of typically strident condemnation and private and public revulsion and contempt.

Its noted indestructability for ages is an amazing phenomenon well beyond any existential or phenomenological rationalizations that exclude its true nature as a really supernatural institution defiant of mere human will or, on the other hand, reductionistically secular understanding; it is, ultimately, inscrutable because it proceeds from the everlasting will of God, as defended by the Holy Ghost.

The last feature (or mode of knowledge and reflection) to be critically cited, in this article, is ineffability.  How is this meant?   Toward the very end of his life, St. Thomas Aquinas is said to have admitted that all he had written was just “so much straw,” as to indicate the true utter insignificance of “mere” theology, no matter how extremely profound, when incomparably compared to the Beatific Vision, which he was once permitted to glimpse, for the greater glory of God.

The Holy Mysteries vouchsafed singularly to the Roman Catholic Church are all, ultimately, well beyond any merely human means of expression and thought, comprehension and cognition, which is true to the nth degree. God is, by definition, is entirely limitless; human are not.  A notably and conscientiously full listing of the entirety of the attributes of the Supreme Divinity, the Lord God Almighty, the Divine Order Himself, would take up quite a hefty tome, indeed.

Such sacredness, at last, becomes too undefinable, as with secularists thinking that seeing pain and suffering as a privileged path toward grace is not at all understandable; nonetheless, Catholicism has always possessed an axiological regard for affirming religious and theological truth, regarding of all the skeptics, the naturalist-humanists, in the temporal world, past, present, or to come, for secularism, atheism, is but ultimately an empty shell of tautologous contradictions.

Aquinas, therefore, sagaciously taught that humans can only perceive analogously, termed the analogia entis, at best concerning the actually indescribable, truly inexpressible, realities of the final absolutely metaphysical, meaning supernatural, order of things.  The Trinitarian Dogma alone, as has been said many times, is a brain buster in and of itself. Besides the great truth that Jesus is the Christ, all the Divine Mysteries together, as taught, defended, and elucidated by the Church, should make any normal human being fall to his knees in worship and fear, love and awe.

The Lord God is, then, inscrutable because the metaphysical order is, by definition, miraculous; for as the spiritually wise G. K. Chesterton would have just paradoxically remarked, if Christianity lacked the miraculous, it could not be believable. He knew that the Church was an exercise of the Divine Will.

Thus, ineffability (synonymous with inscrutability), the last named but not insignificantly recalled or thought the least, ensures that the supernatural order is not to be wrongly neglected when considering what human beings forever owe to God, when thinking about the greatness and majesty of the Holy Catholic Faith. This is why Catholics are required to believe in things that a both visible and invisible.

Finally, when there is that which is set so extremely beyond all human thought and comprehension, cognition and cognizance, one perceives correctly that all of existence is by, in, and through Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen.

For all of reality is, moreover, purely contingent being; there is no inherent necessity within solely material matter whatsoever. Creation is, therefore, a free gift of God because nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.  All these principles need reiteration because of a typically disbelieving humanity fixated usually upon the worship of Man, which axiomatically excludes miracles and grace.

But, most intriguingly, why is that which is miraculous so vitally important to the Catholic Faith and its Church as the representative for such a compelling creed? Well, if the Incarnation is not a miracle, what is?   And, by the way, how about both the Resurrection and the Ascension thrown in for good measure?   St. Augustine, an eminent religious authority, is quoted on the miraculous when saying, “I should not be a Christian but for the miracles.”   Such a clear statement, moreover, is very explicit.

He added, in his The City of God, “Although, therefore, the standing miracle of this visible world is little thought of, because always before us, yet, when we arouse ourselves to contemplate it, it is a greater miracle than the rarest and most unheard of marvels.  For man himself is a greater miracle than any miracle done through his instrumentality.”   And, this thought should be held as being simply axiomatic in nature, for supernaturalism logically defines the very reality of the metaphysical order itself.

The Lord God Almighty, as St. John of Damascus both correctly and concisely put it in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, made his disciples, the Apostles, “captive in the net of miracles and drew them up out of the depths of ignorance to the light of the knowledge of God.”    In his Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas had clearly written about, “the miracles by which Christ has confirmed holy apostolic doctrine.”

And, of course, all good Catholics must absolutely concur on such a valid point, as with cognate support for and affirmation of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  Aquinas further, interestingly, states in his Commentary on the Sentences, “Miracles demonstrate the veracity of the announcer, not directly the truth of what he preaches.” Finally, one quite instructively learns, from the theologically rigorous Summa Theologica, that, “Miracles are signs not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.”

Centuries later, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his Present Position of Catholics in England, had rightly noted: “The Incarnation is the most stupendous event which ever can take place on earth; and after it and henceforth, I do not see how we can scruple at any miracle on the mere ground of it being unlikely to happen.”

In speaking forcefully against the then 19th and early 20th century German Protestant “higher criticism” theology, which sternly rejected the miraculous within Christianity, Chesterton had playfully written, in his brilliant Orthodoxy, ”The only thing still old-fashioned enough to reject miracles is the New Theology.”

Furthermore, in his looking toward the future in The Common Man, “there is every sign of there being a great deal of mysticism and miracle in the twenty-first century; and there is quite certainly an increasing mass of it in the twentieth.”   Perhaps, Chesterton easily had in mind the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (October 13, 1917), for this year, in fact, will be exactly the 100th Anniversary of that extremely well-documented historical event.

In The Belief of Catholics, Monsignor Ronald A. Knox (a Catholic convert) noted: “I cannot understand people having historical difficulties about miracles.  For, once you grant that miracles can happen, all the historical evidence at our disposal bids us believe that sometimes they do.” And, therefore, any truly effective moral and spiritual resistance, needful and righteous opposition, within the Church, prelacy and laity combined, to the present Bishop of Rome’s policies is, seemingly, quite amazingly miraculous, in and of itself.  The Age of Miracles, thus, has not yet passed.

Fortunately, many of God’s people, resolutely allied with many loyal and faithful priests, bishops, and cardinals, are the remnant, the seeds, that the current Holy Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, cannot entirely crush out of existence.  In addition, all the seven characteristics or features cited, either collectively or individually, do truly help to constantly both revivify and sanctify Sancta Mater Ecclesia, the earthly home of all Roman Catholics and those who may wish to be united with the Faith, ad maiorem Dei.

And, may the spirit of St. Athanasius always defend the Church, as being ever synonymous with the ultimate Truth, for too often the glory that is Catholicism gets wrongly forgotten, while the Church works for the eternal sanctification of soul. This holy bishop, a Great Lion of the Church, was hunted, hated, and persecuted, for most of his life, by the hierarchy, the majority of whom were Arians.  All that is needed is for at least a remnant, the relative few, to keep valiantly fighting on for the blessed Truth of Catholicism regardless of the cost.

Also, in firm reiteration, let not the weighty and profound remarks of Benedict XVI, as to the terribly precarious condition of the Church, go wrongly unheeded by the faithful. Nonetheless, the orthodox reformation cannot be stopped by merely mortal men.2

The goal of all the effort, repentance, pain, and suffering is the salvation of one’s soul, for being able to go to Heaven and possess the seven fantastic but real properties of the glorified/beatified body, as was noted by St. Thomas Aquinas.

These are enumerated as: identity (perfect soul-body unity), integrity (perfected humanity), quality (distinction only by degrees of holiness and existence in prime of life vitality as either male or female), agility (instantaneous transporting of the self anywhere/anytime), subtlety (ability to bypass any/all physical obstructions at any time/place), impassibility (eternal and absolute happiness and everlasting joy with no possibilities whatsoever for any sadness, boredom, etc.), and clarity (an ever impeccable brilliance of being, a magnificent holy beauty forever well beyond all human imagination).

In short, it is blissfully meant to be an eternal Heavenly experience as an immortal being forever so possessing the Divine gift of immortality. Even for sapiential minds, having advanced perspicuity beyond the normal range toward genius or far beyond, this notion is yet incomprehensible and incommensurate within a purely human understanding and comprehension, i.e., cognizance by an imperfect intellect also necessarily bound by its mortal corporeality.  In brief, most people think it to be unbelievable, meaning if they lack faith.

One can see immediately why Satan, necessarily kicked out of Paradise forever, seeks vigorously, indeed extremely mightily, to prevent as many people as possible from ever trying to attain holiness on earth, for fear that such people will, thus, make it to Heaven, of course. It is dreadfully distressing, by the way, that Pope Francis is doing his seeming best to assist Lucifer in his so very despicable plans for expanding Hell, the harshest, most punitive, anti-Heaven of them all, beyond human imagination.  Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

This is why the Devil’s disciples are usually either as “enlightened” secularist dupes who absurdly insist that he simply does not really exist at all or vicious Satanists who rather enthusiastically lie about the Evil One being supposedly “slandered” by many uncharitable people, assorted religious bigots, or just ignorant fools. Such tautologies are truly laughable, but they do still tend to convince the unwise.

One should not be that surprised, one suspects, if His Holiness should serendipitously come to think that a so lively “dialogue” with the Satan worshippers should be fruitfully commenced; on that staggering point, nothing outrageous should be thought beneath contempt, as easily judging by his past and vast infamies, for this haughty theological adventurer and spiritual swashbuckler, this liturgical bon vivant and doctrinal buccaneer supreme.  Further, the Lord knows he has a swinish regard for Catholic truth, though too many dare not admit it publicly or boldly.

Fortunately, for Catholicism, it is not really just a pure coincidence that impeccability, indefectibility, infallibility, infusibility, instantiationability, ineffability, and indissolubility are seven features that do quite neatly match the aforementioned seven attributes of Heavenly beatitude. There is a supernatural reciprocity and symmetry existing that mightily sustains the veracity that metaphysical order is for real, that the Lord God Almighty is for real, because the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Sancta Mater Ecclesia.


Can the evil Pope Francis, now at 80 years of age no less, really succeed, e. g., where the full terror and might of the hellish Arians, for some brutal centuries, had just ended up so miserably failing? Though he may vainly think otherwise all he wants, the fullness of the life of Church is really not dependent upon the existence of any one individual pope, and it is ever more, much more, than any physical structures.

It can be rightly and easily assumed, therefore, with informed, great and sustained confidence that the previously noted infusibility, instantiationability, ineffability, and indissolubility of the Roman Catholic Church will defeat him and his many nefarious purposes and plans.  The forceful protection and proper guidance of the Holy Ghost, moreover, spiritually guarantees this simply to-be-expected outcome.

This will all, moreover, be reciprocally matched to its impeccability, indefectibility and infallibility, added to the powers of Holy Mary, Mother of God, as the Mediatrix of all Graces. These are the ever inherent strengths and gifts of the righteous orthodox reformation that is to follow his papacy, regardless of all his malevolent machinations to the contrary. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus!

After all, the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, holds only an elected monarchical office, not a tyrannical one, for the love of God should provoke all opposition to vile papal corruption, arrogance, and intrigue.  Grace and sanctity will finally defeat him.  Because the sanctification of souls is one of the true glories of Catholicism, therefore, confidence is to be placed in Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, not in the doings of any mere miscreant and (relatively) temporary popes.

The pain and suffering caused among many of the faithful by His Holiness, therefore, is not endured just in vain, for provision for salvation is among the greatest boasts and proofs of the truth of Catholicism.3   And, one must logically come to see, in the end, that the true struggle against the Pope is not just some arcane quibbling or “scholastic” sophistry over dogmas, doctrines, liturgy, etc.; it is, through perceiving with spiritual clarity and moral concision, both a surely full-scale and unmitigated metaphysical combat involving the hate-filled forces of Hell.

Nothing less is, thus, being considered regarding the extreme importance of this ecclesiastical civil war that has, in fact, provoked a genuine schism, though few dare so say publicly.4

Verily, of course, there have been good, bad, and even some indifferent popes. Complacency, however, is not being called for here, rather, a thoughtful and reflective appreciation for the entire history of the Church and how it has incredibly survived many, many threats, both internal and external in nature, over many centuries.

But, of course, fasting and saying rosaries are both still needed for combating the great evil ever setting in upon humanity; and yet, faith in Christ should always yield a proper kind of optimism in the midst of such heartbreaking malevolence, as is truly coming from the Vatican itself.

After all, if some average person would have been told, in about the year 60 AD, that the Apostles, some apparent nobodies, would so be the initial and actual vanguard of about 1 billion followers in the world, that person would have, surely, laughed very heartily and would have been also, of course, totally wrong at the same time. Some Great Lion of the Faith will lead the worthy war against blatant heterodoxy and evil heretical teachings.

So, fallen creatures ought to perceive that Jesus the Christ is always the true light of the world. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

 Athanasius contra mundum!





4.) Unfortunately, very few high prelates are willing to publicly take on this corrupt theologaster, who grossly toys with many supremely venerable Church teachings, having no pious respect whatsoever for established tradition, custom, or prescription.  He has a radical social engineer’s Benthamite regard for the past history of the Church, as if it is all just a tediously boring and hoary presence needing major acts of innovation and Protestantizing to the nth degree, whenever he thinks it necessary, of course.


Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Catechism of the Council of Trent

W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a 2,000-Year History

Heinrich Denzinger-Peter Hunermann, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus

Anthony J. Mioni (Editor), The Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Development of Christian Doctrine

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Blessed Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors

Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Saint Pius X

___________ , Pascendi Dominici Gregis


Should there be any permanent records?

Should there be any permanent records?

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Historians of ancient civilizations, especially regarding the Greeks and Romans, tell the public that, e. g., only about 5% (or less) of created Greco-Roman literature has survived to the present time.  Many volumes and tomes of what Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Cicero, Plutarch, Virgil, etc. wrote had not, in fact, been saved from various acts and instances of destruction for whatever reasons.

Untold thousands upon thousands of manuscripts have been simply lost permanently, in the tunnels of time, besides the so unfortunately repeated burnings done to, e. g., the ancient Alexandrian Library. Massive chunks of knowledge, as should be known by all educated people, have easily been lost to human history.

Thus, one perceives that there has necessarily come about an extremely skewed or quite obviously distorted view or vision of the once extant classical production of all such Greco-Roman writing.  A relatively tiny portion of writing has usually be used by which to judge the assumed value of its intellectual greatness or, at least, literary productivity of which did not in fact, in the majority of instances, survive over the ages to any significant degree.  And, that phenomenological and existential fact is, of course, intellectually interesting, indeed.

The superficial presumption, which is not logically true, is that the best survived because it survived, and then this (supposedly) indicates that it is the best because, well, it had survived.  What?   Only a truly foolish person, if any, actually believes in such an oddly bold tautology.

In any event, civilization, of course, had survived and, moreover, regardless of the asserted loss of 95% of such recorded writing/information that had once existed in the now long-gone ancient world.  Knowledge of the Classical World, thus, was not fundamentally lost, for all the known substantial paucity of its very slim original documentary presence notwithstanding.

People of the modern and, now, postmodern world have decided to try to affect what may be called (when forced to admit it) an opposite “vice;” this is by seeking to nearly retain, whenever possible, 100% of what gets created as to human writing (or its equivalent), which is, as to the instance cited, declared to be permanent in its value.  Is this truly, nonetheless, really necessary for the both actual and verifiable progress or, perhaps, maintenance of civilization itself?1

After all, in historical point of fact, it took only about 5% to yet secure a basic and now lasting (and once highly and widely treasured in the West) knowledge of one phase of ancient human advancement, as was above noted.

In case it has not yet be easily noticed, this article is, therefore, dedicated to a radical bit of iconoclasm.  The provocative cognitive effort, through sustained argumentation, will be critically directed, however, not to arguing against all records retention, but to say that most and, perhaps, almost all records need not be ever kept permanently.  As will be radically argued, any other view is, ultimately, very superstitious and quite fetishistic.

This logically includes, moreover, almost all kinds of data/files/records thought or said to be vitally essential as to information content.  A many-pronged attack will be given, therefore, firmly against what are typically designated as being permanent records.

The Fetishism of Permanent qua Records

Today, literally, trillions upon trillions of documents and records series were, are, and will be declared to be of permanent value. Is this sensible?   Is this realistic?   Is this fetishistic?  The answers, if one wishes to know, are said here to be: No, no, and definitely yes.

For instance, when a typical government bureaucrat or, perhaps, an elected official declares certain records to be permanent as to their expected legal retention, does that person know, fully and comprehensibly, what is then necessarily meant?   The honest answer, on average, is absolutely no.  And, many advancements in records technology, no matter how apparently remarkable, can only do so much.  But, must all so-called permanent records be kept permanently?  The question may, thus, seem to present an apparent conundrum.

For example, archival records are meant to be permanent; however, in pure archives theory, if the entire holdings of the US National Archives was reduced to a single microdot, DVD, or whatever media and if the paper or all other media holding the information were destroyed, then that microdot would then become the archives.  It is the information that counts most, not the mere media involved.  The media should not become an issue.

Let there be engagement in what Albert Einstein called a thought experiment.  What is being required, when put under a rigorous examination and logical analysis, by the designation of “permanent” can be neither realistically guaranteed nor permanently achieved.  Think about this: A permanent record/record series is to be (supposedly) kept, on whatever records media, permanently.  It is a document which retains its legal, administrative and historical value as to the information contained without any timeframe ever becoming applicable; it is said to be permanent as to its assumed value.

This means that the record (or whatever is equivalent) must be retained, literally, forever and ever more. Note: Not just a few hundred, a few thousand, or a few millenniums of time are to be logically involved.  And, this should be taken up as a challenge to the records and information management profession, for there is the desire to shake up the profession.  What, in particular, is being asseverated here?

Let the overt matter be made more perfectly clear.  Thus, it is being declared, whether consciously realized or not, that a particular designated document or groups of documents, then constituting a said record/record series, will be expected to be in demand for viewing many millions upon millions of years from now and, moreover, into an unknown perpetuity.  That is the so often unspoken reality to be properly connected to the existence of a permanent record; and, such a primal consideration or matter is, at a minimum, hardly insignificant.

People, either in the past or the ever fleeting present, have so determined that a document will be expected to be present millions of eons, epochs, from now.  It is, for public institutions, the official administrative record which is held by a government or public agency for an indefinite period of time. Is this consideration, however, viable and credible?

Think hard about that fact, a mind-staggering fact, of what a permanent record is to be as to its fullest existence, meaning it is to be held for future posterity and, moreover, to the nth time of posterity. Literally mind-boggling kinds of research requests are to be easily imagined.  How so?   Somebody (or, perhaps, an advanced robot) or any presumably still sensate being available, e. g., in the year 1,000,000,000 AD will want (desperately?) to see a copy of John Doe of Oshkosh, WI’s birth certificate.  Really?  Can this be confidently asserted as being undeniably true?

Or, hordes of people or at least sensate beings, in, say, the year 3535, will so urgently demand to see such things as the permanent city council minutes of [using fictitious names] Pukesvilleton, VT or Bittersicky, OH; one must believe, in addition, that typical requests will come, in the year 6565, for anxiously seeing the 1890 Annual State Budgets of Kentucky, Vermont, or New Hampshire;  in the much later year of, perhaps, 9595, it will be seen as just completely indispensable to carefully look at the full list of all registered 1902 mortgages for Montana or, say, Wisconsin, of course.

Really? Is all this easily set within the average realm of rationally cogent expectations?  Many kinds of perplexing imponderables, perhaps fathomless in nature, do become highly problematic, to say the least.  Realistically speaking, in a world where entire mountains, over the ages, can crumble into dust, how actually permanent, in fact, is permanent?   One may be, thus, reasonably skeptical.2

Under much present law and typical practices, nothing less, however, is being normally expected, of course.  If a sensate and presumably intelligent reader, however, has not begun to choke at this thought, then it is a sign of a case of plausible proof of brain death.  It is so highly unrealistic and plainly absurd to think that the vast majority of records typically now deemed permanent will, in fact, be assuredly kept and properly conserved, as to their information, for many untold eons or ages of time.  And, will be then fully accessible (readable), of course.

Intelligent people ought, logically, to question quite seriously the true suitability of a permanent designation for types or categories of records. Time limits of some apposite kind ought to be rationally imposed upon any genuine effort to properly retain such documentation thought to be vitally useful for future generations, meaning, in particular, the majority of such records (e. g., 90% of them).   Are the vast majority, the predominant bulk, of such records truly worthy of being held for what is assumed to be eternity, since nothing less is actually being implied by having been chosen for the special category of permanent records qua information and as perpetually maintained, somehow or other?

Noetic phenomenology comes into play here as to multiplicitous unknowns involved, both existentially and experientially understood, concerning seen considerations of knowledge tectonics, logistics, engineering, and management.  What most people today may genuinely consider to be absolutely vital or tremendously essential information, critical for sustaining civilized life at all costs, may not be so thought needed by, e. g., the year 100,000 AD.

As is known, such things as science, technology, culture, language, knowledge content, etc. do change over vast (and sometimes shorter) periods of time, for the categorization of certain records for a literal perpetuity is, in fact, a plain canard.  Over a “mere” period of time of just, say, 1500 years, a speaker of Old English would have a really difficult time talking with a modern English speaker.

What might English, if it still exists, be like in about 10,000 or, perhaps, 50,000 years?   It might be then as fundamentally indecipherable as, in fact, were Egyptian hieroglyphics before the coming of Jean-François Champollion and the congenially trilingual Rosetta Stone.   At the very least, therefore, some great profundity of careful and coherent thought is or should be involved here.  How so?

Otherwise, critically speaking, it is sheer nonsense and blatant haughtiness to so assume that mere imperfect mortals can definitively know, with an absolute and fixed certainty, what some (presumably) intelligent beings will want to have documentary access to some thousands, hundreds of thousands, or, perhaps, millions of years from now.  Nothing less is implied by the retaining of supposedly perpetual records.  Get real!

Only some currently unknown and presently incredible technological advance, well past any contemporary ranges of knowledge, could so conceivably overcome the perceived barriers toward successfully achieving truly perpetual ways and means of recording information, toward the explicitly demanded timescale of (what is to exist as) a realizable pragmatic infinity.  Can such an effort at selected records retention be that truly reasonable, that fairly sensible?

This surely is, at a minimum, neither rationally tenable nor practically possible, as to a true cognizant achievement, thus, seeking a direct empirical realization in fact.  Exorbitant and untenable expectations, in this regard, are much like betting all one’s chips on the supposed equivalent of finding massive quantities of the Dead Sea Scrolls, literally, untold epochs from now.  Doesn’t an alternative exist, one which can much more fairly meet the vast existential, experiential, empirical, conditional, and phenomenological logistics and realities involved?

A reasonable suggestion here is given, which is considered to be much more suitable and fairly practical, is to then chronically divide “permanent” records into at least three basic and broad analytical categories yet possessing defined characteristics.

The lowest type of priority can be temporarily long-term records of, say, 100 to 1,000 years maximum (at least 70% of them); the next could be 1,001 to 10,000 years maximum (20% of them); and anything set above 10,000 years to be specially guarded, highly protected, and exceptionally media-conversion managed in an exceptional attempt for seeking a hopeful perpetuity (10%) of the information involved.  And yet, admittedly, this last effort would be the most difficult of attainment, if ever substantially attempted.  Such clear specifications qua designations would, thus, help to significantly give, nonetheless, both a more concrete meaning and manifest definition to the designation of permanent.

There can be thinking pertaining to documents that is structured, in a divided manner, on the suggested: 1.) short-term range of retention, 2.) the intermediate range, and 3.) the long-term, preservation-focused effort directed unto forever, as various resources might permit, of course.   Limited human and other such practical resources can then be primarily focused upon the presumably and absolutely vital 10% of records deemed truly worthy of such a literally monumental exertion on such truly hyper-supportive retention versus the other two relatively lesser records categories.3

Right now, the practice or intention of keeping untold trillions upon trillions of records, without the above rational categorization and discrimination scheme, as if they all are just totally and intrinsically worthy to exist seemingly everlastingly, meaning held in some media format(s) eternally, is axiomatically absurd, in a quite fundamental sense, to the nth degree.

And yet, this is, in fact, exactly the current, empirical, legal, and actual reality that exists in the known world of permanent recordkeeping. Thus, a cognizant appeal to correct sanity and solid rationality, mental coherence and logical perspicuity, must be properly called here into formal existence, in the face of this obviously ridiculous and simply untenable situation.4

Factually speaking, it can be easily guessed that the vast majority of what has been/will be denominated as permanent will not, in fact, be retained permanently.   Nor, moreover, can anyone really successfully guarantee such an outcome.  The suggestion of this article is that a clear reality check is rightly requisite and reasonably demanded by the limits ranged against the expected outcome of retaining certain records in an assumed kind of retention perpetuity.

More care and concern, attention and consideration, is needed that allows for a greater degree of sustained cognitive reflection; this is, surely, before seeking to imagine that certain records deserve a kind of absolute retention, whether admitted or not, seeking an assumed form of eternity for permanent records.  How substantively plausible and sensible, therefore, can this really be?  Can such an effort at informational “perpetualism” be achieved?   Or, is it, in the end, simply utopian?

Thoughtful reflection can be made upon those many societies and entire civilizations that may have thought of themselves, their buildings, their documents as having some sort of an eternal reality, as with, e. g., Rome being called the Eternal City.  Permanence has not been, in fact, the truly central feature of human constructs, inclusive of whole cultures, societies, and civilizations, so how can mere records as artifacts be thought to be of acquiring a permanent nature?

In hard terms of historical realism, meaning after about 1,000 or 10,000 years or so, about 90% of such artifacts are lucky not to have just become some kind or other of merely accumulated debris long, long ago.  After all, even the truly largest pyramids of Egypt, if given enough time, would be very fortunate not to have simply turned into dust.5

Any optimism, therefore, clearly works against the hard Law of Entropy; a pessimistic viewpoint about such things is, therefore, realistically much more justified than not.  A vast list of imponderables must, logically, impinge critically upon vagrant or other calculations of the possibility of substantial hordes of deemed essential records being so successfully retained, professionally maintained, and appropriately conserved for, quite literally, many unknown spans of time.  How reasonably tenable, rationally plausible, is all that?

Perhaps, as favored by this article, a compromise point of view may assist at the wanted effort to perceive ways to keep some records for the longest period, meaning being of both practical and possible of attainment as such.  The idea that certain types of information are meant to last forever is, in its essence, presumptuous nonsense to the nth degree because all materials things disintegrate or decay over long enough periods of time.

If surely gigantic mountains cannot really last into perpetuity, how then can any mere pieces of paper, microfilms, digital tapes, or digital discs? Realism must, logically, come to intelligently refute the aforementioned fetishism surrounding the existing notion of permanent records.  Why, however, can this be logically said?

This is because the pivotal factor of time ought to help illustrate the (unintended?) fraud involved.  There is the amazing supposition, based entirely upon hope that what got designated in 2018 as a permanent record will be needed in, say, the year 100,000, which is still simply quite a presumption.  No actual knowledge, therefore, can ever viably exist by which to definitively know that this hope, as a planted axiom, will be proven to be a, thus, genuine fact in that now far, far distant time period, set so well beyond any mere human’s entire lifetime.

The ever-fleeting present becomes rapidly the past, while people so act assuming that there is a future for a past to build upon, through what had been once the then present actions, within terrestrial time and space; nonetheless, retaining certain files/data/records in an assumed perpetuity is only based, as was noted, upon hope, which is substantially fraudulent. Why?

There are no truly absolute guarantees that could be confidently rendered, by which one can just so assuredly know, that a fairly sensate (and presumably intelligent) being will thoughtfully regard some documents from 2018 as being vital for civilized life or, perhaps, at least some really needful knowledge, in the year 100,000.  It can only be possibly hoped at best, not at all known, for any absolute certainty.6


The solid recommendation made, in this article, to reasonably subdivide the “permanent” category into more manageable empirical chunks of reality should assist greatly with present and future recordkeeping/retention practices.  Furthermore, technology, in addition, has its limits when it approaches the rather coldly deranged embrace of the present insanity of permanent records retention practices; these are, in effect, seen hurtling into now untold periods of projected time, with perpetual records no less, reaching toward eternity itself.

The current alternative is asinine and, moreover, evidently impossible concerning its inherent inability to be physically sustainable, financially practical, humanly conceivable, and rationally deliverable, meaning as to the appropriate retaining of so-called permanent records for presumed, extremely lengthy, archival-historical storage.

Any attempt to simply keep an X number of records, in perpetuity, is not a rational proposition in and of itself, though an effort to try to possibly retain some selected information in an ongoing manner, through various media transitions over projected time periods, could be tried (with difficulty no doubt), as was above stated.  A both sensible and more practical records preservation effort, for the selected 10%, can be reasonably attempted, though fully knowing it will always be problematic at best.



  1.  This may raise the interesting issue of why mere mortal creatures seek to somehow or other immortalize their artifacts (in this case records) by thinking that they can designate things to be retained permanently on the face of this planet.  Is it for the supposed attempted “apotheosis” of civil society, as to a manifestation of it seen in printed or written documents, as is so put on various media?

Basically ephemeral, existentially transient, beings have haughtily taken it upon themselves to, thus, glorify their scripted intelligence qua records media relics for many, many assumed eons to come.  This ludicrous effort is laughable, besides being inherently pathetic.  It is an effort at a senseless kind of inverse proportion simply gone insane: simply mortal creatures seek to create an ersatz immortality for their mere documentary remains seeking a supposed, future enshrined antiquity.

And, moreover, few there are who do dare to ever seriously question this tremendous insanity and, by definition, disproportionate hubris of just finite animated creatures.   Records have been, over many centuries, subject to fires, floods, and a various assortment of other natural and manmade disasters.  How can anyone then rationally guarantee, therefore, that certain “permanent” records/records series will, in fact, be available many (unknown) millenniums from now?

  1. When dealing with ever presumably great magnitudes of time, how could anyone truly, meaning rationally, calculate fully the literally heterogeneous conglomeration of incalculable estimations needed by which one could formulate a desired research or investigative outcome to occur epochs from the present time?  If that person’s head does not figuratively start to spin, then such a being is, of course, either a liar or just a plain fool (though, perhaps, both).
  2. Yes, it is freely conceded that the chosen chronological date sets are arbitrary and that the percentages would seem as equally capricious in their own choices. But, however, is not simply assuming the designation of permanent to be realistic, when applied to many trillions of documents or records series, just as fundamentally arbitrary or capricious?

The proposal, set in this text, is the basic effort to apply some proper degree of fair rationality versus the blatant insanity of seeking the immortalizing of these human artifacts, all for untold periods of time, aiming toward an unknown infinity.  Get real!   Advocacy of this article’s point of view is, therefore, being here suggested as something that serious records and information managers should at least consider; otherwise, a major lack of professional seriousness and dedication can, it seems, be rightly suspected.

  1. The State of Texas, as just one political example, includes 254 counties at present.  It could be said that, since the well over 200 counties are actually in existence as of the year 2018, there must be a certain amount of historical redundancy to the intended keeping of all the officially designated permanent records, meaning in at least some or, perhaps, many of those counties.

The thoroughgoing studious keeping of absolutely all such records/documents, supposedly forever, suggests an extreme degree of officiousness set well beyond reason. How might this be dealt with to some extent?   Objective criteria for records samplings, as set by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, could be established by which historical redundancy can be reasonably avoided, though allowing for certain notable exceptions to the sampling rule, e. g., when rationally thought needed, of course.

This would help to allow local governments to better concentrate their limited resources to trying to intelligently save critically selected records series or documents in a substantially improved manner by refocusing efforts at preservation of the information itself, regarding of the media involved.  Additionally, the taxpayers would benefit, of course.   Overall, this would be a rather pleasant inducement toward the respect for sanity that is often lacking, when it feels like everything, including the kitchen sink, gets declared to be a permanent record.

  1. Only some presently unknown or, perhaps, inconceivable futuristic scenario could provide the currently nonexistent solution to this monumental problem; the author of this article claims no clairvoyance as to possible future developments that can absolutely guarantee, in this order, the obvious, integral, and inherent permanent records media demands of 1.) Indestructability, 2.) Universalized accessibility and 3.) Permissible transmitability if/when needed.

Nothing less, therefore, has to be logically and rationally expected from information sources qua records to actually, factually, be then somehow or other retained in an assumed future perpetuity toward, admittedly, an unknown future time.  It is, indeed, quite a tall order for consideration.  Currently, at the least, much of what is being permanently saved will turn out to be, literally, just many mountains of junk.

6.   And, if about 5% of pre-22nd century information survives, perhaps, to the year 100,000, will it be then pronounced as having been the best of what had survived, as with the ancient Classical Literature example?   One wonders.



[This brief compilation below is only meant to illustrate that the matter of permanent records is, in fact, treated with all seriousness.]…/Are_Permanent_records_really_kept_forever_25…/initiatives/files/permanent-records.pdf…/record-keeping/docs/Permanent_Record_…/Preparation_of_Records_for_Transfer…… GUIDELINES FOR THE PERMANENT RETENTION OF RECORDS BY WISCONSIN STATE AGENCIES-Adopted By the Public Records Board-November 2001

Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima’s Appearance: Somber Reflections

Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima’s Appearance: Somber Reflections

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Yes, it will be, if no great 100th Anniversary signs and wonders appear, a time of enormous sinfulness and blasphemous doubt of the truths of the Roman Catholic Faith, regardless of there having been three shepherd children visited six times by the Holy Mother of God, every 13th of the month, May through October of 1917.

Too many millions have become unfortunately dependent upon the debatable need for seeking enormous auguries and divinations contrary to true faith, to the principles of authentic religion, versus ignorant superstition. How so?

Both in May and October of 2017, the hundredth year commemorations of the very certainly forever extraordinary events at Fátima, Portugal will be the dramatic scene of tremendous expectations and extravagant anticipations, elaborate hopes and fantastic imaginings, in the minds of millions both there and, literally, around the world.   This year is expected to be eventful, to say the least.

But, will millions of Roman Catholics end up, perhaps, questioning or doubting their religion, meaning if highly special “somethings” – equivalent to wonderful Hollywood epics – do not occur, either in May or October of this year?   Time will tell.

The Fátima Miracle Industry, Inc.

A recent search online, on Bing browser alone, showed 40,800,000 hits for: Fátima Centennial 2017. Obviously, to say that there is a great deal of contemporary interest in this subject would be an understatement.  Thousands of websites and blogs are, of course, seriously devoted to this theme.

Given the amazing nature of what had occurred, a hundred years ago, involving the Miracle of the Sun, it would be fairly inevitable that such natural (and supernatural) interest would be exhibited, with such a massive display of communicational devotion, to this rather important topic.  The Shrine of Our Lady Fatima is just 70 miles north of Lisbon and is undoubtedly one of most famous and heralded pilgrimage sites in the whole world. Each year, there are about four million people who regularly go to see the shrine, museums, and historic sites at and around that location.  It is assumed that a record crowd will gather, logically, for this centenary year.

Modern Fátima, according to many of those who have visited it, exists now as a typical, tawdry tourist trap. No doubt the tourists, for the once-in-a-lifetime 100th Anniversary, are going to be milked for all they have, or even more so, if the eager and prolific venders typically have their materialistic way.  Expectations are now reaching, figuratively, several miles high this year; and, there are many reasons, given below, for that quite significant situation.

Turmoil, chaos, mayhem, confusion, disorder, and often bold anarchy itself in the world seems at a mighty fever pitch, Moslems are willfully invading Europe, in the millions, with no end in sight; many wars on earth tend to seem interminable, especially when fought by the United States of America.  And, all that, one could add, is only just some parts of the troubles existing.

Pope Francis no less has been denounced publicly as both either a heretic or a vile apostate, the Church is in a tremendously severe crisis that appears to many as being simply permanent; rampant sodomy, pornography, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. are now just daily realities seeking normalization and, thus, total societal, cultural, and moral acceptance as well. In short, it is a world truly ripe and needful of a salvific miracle. The Satanic triumph of modernity, of secularization, has left many begging for God’s mercy.  (But, would an unexpected miracle be found acceptable?)

Millions are, therefore, frantic and desperate, agitated and distressed, and looking for some true hope and some kind of deliverance from all those above cited and yet many more evils. Plaster saints, without a doubt, will be voluminously sold at Fátima at a premium, in set terms of the higher priced sales because of the now, unsurprisingly, elevated demand and aroused expectation, the spiritually-induced suspense; it is, for many, now at a fever pitch.

Of course, this basic sort of thing, as to commercialization, has truly gone on since at least the earliest medieval fairs.  Skepticism often grows in the fertile soil of disappointed credulity, for caution and sober thoughts are requisite for mature consideration and a decent reflection.  What is meant?

The word “tawdry” itself came from the St. Audrey (St. Ethelreda) Fair held in Ely, England; goods sold at this fair were notoriously cheap, quite common in quality, and, thus, gave rise to the expression ‘of St. Audry’, which was, later, simply abridged to tawdry.

One hopes, however, that Catholicism has little or, better yet, absolutely nothing to do with the many vile, unwanted shenanigans that will surely occur at Fátima this year. Literally, many tons of books, pamphlets, devotionals, holy cards, etc. have been/will be published revolving around or about, directly and indirectly, the Miracle of Our Lady of Fátima, no real doubt about that assertion.  But, the significantly heightened expectations, brought out by the coming Fátima apparition’s significant centennial, may yet be dashed.

What may be said?  This energized coruscation of minds and hearts, with hot emotions soaring to the far skies, is concerning what had occurred, somewhere near (or not excessively far from)  the location of what an online ad says is, “Just 400 metres from the Fátima Sanctuary, Cova da Iria Hotel offers air-conditioned rooms with free Wi-Fi and a private balcony.”  (There’s nothing quite like having one’s “revelations” experienced in some maximum comfort, you know.  See:

One hopes that the above-cited actual establishment is not endorsed by the local prelate, but who really knows these days?   Reports, nonetheless, have it that Fátima has been substantially “desacralized” in main terms of what could be considered to be its both commercialization and secularization of functional intent, especially since the late 1960s and the baleful results of Vatican II.

Regardless of all the above discussion, the matter is still the subject of private revelation, not of the integral and central beliefs of Roman Catholicism.  This fact should be, thus, kept properly in mind for maintaining thinking on this issue within that appropriate perspective.

Indeed, the subject itself, of course, is of legitimate importance, though not all of the materially weighty stuff that has been, for better or worse, connected to it, or, usually, for worse, one sadly suspects.  It usually takes some expertise, much knowledge, to separate the gold from the dross of all that has been said, written, and tangentially speculated about as to its meaning.  And, the right exercise of a calm prudence may be wisely recommended.

Nonetheless, the eyes of a suffering world, an oppressed humanity, are urgently turning toward Fátima in expectation of something absolutely marvelous that will either shake up the world for the good or, perhaps, just destroy it completely.  Why are things, in the minds of vast hordes of people in the world, heading toward such a boiling point of high emotional tension and vitalized anticipation?   It is certainly because of the ever increasing, century-long impact by now of a private revelation, of course.

Catholicism v. Private Revelation

Some theology is vitally needed here. However venerable a private revelation may be, it is still not held as being dogmatic unless and until it has been declared officially to be a de fide matter that would then spiritually, morally, and intellectually force its acceptance as fully binding upon all loyal, faithful, and practicing Roman Catholics.

Then, it so becomes held an infallible teaching (meaning something set that should not ever be doubted) of Holy Mother Church, for the impious denying of even one single dogma puts all of the Catholic dogmas into question, as to the clear, inherent logic involved.

For example, way back in the mid-19th century, Great Britain’s Lord Acton had once vociferously denounced the notion of papal infallibility; this was up until it was declared ex cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter) an actual dogma of the Faith, then afterwards he maintained his silence, with the presumption that silence gives consent.  It is an apt illustration of truly proper Catholic behavior as to a proclaimed dogma of the Faith; it should, moreover, never be otherwise.

Of course, the well-documented, witnessed, and verified Miracle of the Sun added considerable validity and cogency to this private revelation, and the Church has publicly endorsed respect for Our Lady of Fátima as having truly been a genuine apparition; this is totally unlike, e. g., the very specious and nastily spurious so-called Lady of Medjugorje, for idolatry is to be always avoided and rejected as immoral.

Nonetheless, the absolute bottom line is that whether or not anything does or does not happen at Fátima this year ought not to ever be any kind of a qualifying determinant or basis of one’s Catholic faith. That would be entirely absurd; more than that, it could be highly sinful if it should lead to apostasy or (an increased) skepticism or doubt of the Catholic religion.

Remember the words of Christ. Jesus said to him: “Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.”   Catholics are required to believe in things that can be both seen and not seen.  The excitements of private revelations need to be prudently judged, cautiously investigated, and sagaciously examined as to those qualities that do rightly submit to orthodox cognition in theology, careful logic, and human reason, not irrationality.

Sadly, if things do not go at Fátima, in May or October, the way that millions seem to think they ought to go, those millions, it is assumed, will be surely disappointed in Our Lady of Fátima; this is because they may expect to see fantastic, wondrous, or, perhaps, some spectacular signs and wonders or, at the very least, some kinds of special auguries sent or made for the faithful.

But, the exact place of this 1917 appearance of Our Lady is not to be thought of as just a mere carnival sideshow. The  Fátima believers, however, may be unpleasantly frustrated or, perhaps, terribly exasperated by not seeing much or more of what they may hope that they might see.  But, do they have their true faith in Christ and His Holy Catholic Church, or is it just a “faith” in their peculiar kind of crippled or limited faith that must be, somehow or other, sustained by what they can or, one presumes, do wish to see? This is, thus, so greatly problematic.

Many Fátima-centered believers may, in fact, have a very weak or tenuous faith not worthy of the sacred name of religion but is just merely instead, upon close analysis and examination, superstition alone acting as if it is religion.  A genuine Catholic will believe, without any real question, that Jesus is genuinely the Christ and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces, regardless, e. g., of what may or may not be seen at the Cova da Iria this year.

If a great miracle or several occur in either May or October, then fine and good. If not, then fine and good.  Christians, especially Catholics, are supposed to pray that the Will of God is done, no matter what.  Either way of what may or may not happen should be equally regarded as being consonant with Divine Providence, not vain human wishes, hopes, or aspirations for many magnificent signs or wonders, perhaps, beheld across the wide glorious skies.

Fátima should not be made a litmus test of one’s Catholicism. Faith, true belief, ought to be based upon solid reasons and knowledge, not emotional inclinations or mere feelings.  If the world, for instance, does not end next month or in October, this should not diminish belief in the Faith of Our Fathers; this is as if any events or the lack thereof, in a place in Portugal, should determine all possible future cognizance of human and/or spiritual reality thereafter or forever more to infinity.

God deems to send people what they need for their salvation, not what they think they may deserve or possibly could use. What may be wisely sent could be a sign of contradiction, as is the Sign of the Cross, especially in the warped minds of secularists.

There could be experienced a silence, as with a silent contempt by God, for the thoroughly obnoxious sinfulness of secularism and apostasy existing on a truly gargantuan scale. That would not, one suspects, please the masses of people seeking something much different, something more spiritually exhilarating and marvelous to behold, an epic revelation.

There may be rudely given to the people at Fátima, for instance, an admonishment concerning the need for repentance, done on a massive scale of profound endeavor, in requisite reparation to God, for the aforementioned severely heinous and blasphemous secularization of the world that has so shamefully occurred. Such a spiritual rebuke ought to be fully accepted.

Of course, this might not be so highly appreciated by many of the Fátima believers, especially those hoping for some genuine moment of religious exaltation or a rare spiritual high, the true experience of a lifetime, a (supposedly) mightily superior instance of “quality time.” Neither of those expectations, however, might occur.

Some have speculated, e. g., that the Devil was given just one hundred years from 1917 to do all the horrid mischief possible toward the spiritual destruction of humanity and that a time of retribution is then to occur against Satan.

However, such types of definitive “predictions” or pronouncements ought to be critically held in the realm of mere speculation, until such time as they may be sufficiently verified by unfolding events. Otherwise, various degrees of disillusion and disappointment are probably to occur for many folks, awaiting the equivalent of something like Moses at Mount Sinai.

But, what are people really expecting?   If they leave, after May or especially after October, with only a greatly deflated experience, should nothing much occur there of a manifestly spectacular nature, meaning of an anticipated enormous magnitude, what would that then empirically say of the (rather poor) quality of the Catholic faith of these Fátima believers?

Fátima may not necessarily be the begin all or end all of all things. Events in the future, or the probable lack thereof, will prove the truth of what may be known.  All else may be just pure speculation, not any expression of absolute certainty.   Miracle or no miracle this year, Jesus is still the Christ, the only Son of the living God, as is made known by Catholicism. Certainty ought to logically preclude apparent speculation no matter how pious it may possibly seem.

What this particular situation, making it religiously historic for 2017, may surprisingly reveal is the test of whether or not the faith of Fátima is to be held as being properly congruent with the Roman Catholic Faith.  And, this is surely the ever greatest consideration or question involved in this entire matter.

Many non-Catholic Christians, also, are looking eagerly toward that place in Portugal to actually see if anything happens on this particular set anniversary. Something may occur.  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  However, a belief in a private revelation, no matter how seemingly venerable, is still not any Catholic requirement for the salvation of one’s soul.  And, this is true.

One sadly suspects, it seems, that the equivalent of a Hollywood epic is to be, thus, supposedly experienced for real either in, around, or somewhere or somewhat near the famous Cova da Iria this year.   But, perhaps not.  Signs and wonders, moreover, ought not to constitute the definitive basis of any religion as a whole, for true religion is not any sort of vile superstition.

Extravagant expectations of magnificent types of spiritually-directed glorification may prove too excess, if that must be the assumed result of a pilgrimage to this particular place on the Iberian Peninsula.  That would be, therefore, so terribly ludicrous beyond measure, to say the least. Catholicism, moreover, should or ought to mean much more than an idiosyncratic, limited, or, in fact, any extremely Fátima-centric worldview.  In short, it should not matter if absolutely nothing at all significantly spectacular or really remarkable happens there.  Why?

God still reigns in Heaven, Divine Providence governs all. Praise the Lord’s Holy Name forever.  Honor and love the Roman Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ forever.  This is all substantially part of Catholicism, the true Faith.


The Centennial of Our Lady of Fátima should not, therefore, be ever hyped beyond all rational thought. Should a prodigious apparition or incredible event improbably engulf those at the Cova da Iria, let it be positively related to any cognate elements or orthodox teachings of the Catholic Faith, not otherwise.  St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics would have agreed.

But, alternatively, if absolutely nothing ever happens in May or October, there should be no gnashing of teeth or uproar of substantial indignation against Holy Mary the Mother of God.  True faith, thus, always so rightly precludes such certainly gross nonsense and, furthermore, appropriately denounces it as being just contemptible and condemnable superstition, which it definitely is.

In confirmation and reiteration, one should, thus, repeat the wise words, spoken by Jesus, and interestingly directed toward St. John the Baptist: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swaying in the breeze?  No! Then what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in fine clothes?  Look, those who go in magnificent clothes and live luxuriously are to be found at royal courts!”

In the preceding New Testament citation, Christ was stressing realism.  Making an Idol out of Fátima, by rejecting a realistic orthodox perspective, is to be completely and unquestionably condemned.  A chastisement would, therefore, be much better.

For those who may go to the actual location of the Miracle of the Sun and may see only mere reeds “swaying in the breeze,” the religious hope, therefore, is that they will not then become sinfully idolatrous by making the worship greater than God.  Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, Sancta Maria, Mater Dei! 

Athanasius contra mundum!

Pope Francis: The Degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff Exalting Himself

Pope Francis: The Degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff Exalting Himself

But, is it really worth the price of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism?

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Admittedly, it is difficult trying to properly grasp the full nature of a pop culture figure who happens to be a widely known religious leader of many hundreds of millions of people, the presumed believers. Popularity, as a result, can often so obscure the true image of such a public figure, a dramatic character, who looms rather large upon the world stage.

As is known (or should be), Francis, an egoist, is the first pope of his kind by being a Jesuit pope and coming from Latin America, from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first non-European Vicar of Christ since the days of that Syrian Pope Gregory III who had reigned from 731 to 741 AD.   His unique nature inordinately bolsters his expansive pride of self and disproportionate sense of historical importance, besides, e. g., existential or phenomenological considerations as to the Papacy itself.

Necessarily, misjudgments are, on average, not just simply possible but fairly predictable as a direct consequence of not fully appreciating and seriously analyzing the weighty reality of the person being confronted, intellectually and otherwise. The indicative matter to be most clearly and significantly focused upon concerns what appears to be a totally neglected issue, namely, the great horror of degeneracy, both theological and religious being here entirely inclusive.  How is this critically meant?

A Frightening Sight to Behold: Medusa

Most (deficient) analyses of the current Vicar of Christ either wish to charge him with some degrees of Communist influence or, alternately, deny fundamentally such influence. Both miss the deeper reality, the true moral ugliness, involved.  The man is a confirmed heretic, not just a neo-Marxist.  The best way, thus, to intellectually and honestly approach Francis is to understand that his central religious view is a neo-Pelagian one, and it has had negative consequences; this is meaning as to the ultimate heresy he so prefers, while it is true, in addition, that he has congenially embraced other heresies as well no doubt.

In brief, the original heresy goes back to its basis in Pelagianism; in essence, it is the haughty denial of the pernicious results of the existence of Original Sin, though other features were, of course, attendant to the theologically radical, heterodox, thinking of the heretic priest Pelagius (354 – 420 AD).   This British troublemaker, also called a moralist, had made a name for himself in Rome with his God-defiant thinking seen in his so terribly perverse soteriological speculations, especially that Jesus Christ was not really important concerning salvation.

He openly rejected the Augustinian idea of predestination and, instead, declared adamantly in favor of an absolutist version of the doctrine of free will.  People, he preached, can simply attain their salvation by, in effect, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, the exaltation of the self. Pelagius had totally denied the need for the requirement of divine aid, meaning grace, in the performance of any good works.

Human nature was not, therefore, ever corrupted by Original Sin and, thus, people could, by their mere will, fulfill the entire law of moral conduct and attain spiritual perfection, moreover, without any need for divine grace whatsoever. Metaphysical order, for Pelagius, was made basically superfluous as to the possibilities of Man, when the orthodox theocentric viewpoint is rejected in favor of a seemingly vibrant anthropocentricism.

The Pelagians, being obvious proto-Protestants, referred to Deuteronomy 24:16 in public affirmation of their obviously radical and scriptural position against fundamental Christianity.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Council of Carthage, recognizing a religious deviant when they clearly saw one, had so naturally declared him a heretic.  Thereafter, this Pelagian/heretical interpretation of the assumed doctrine of free will was then denominated as Pelagianism.

Among others, Calvinism and Arminianism, of course, are logically and necessarily related to the noted basic foundation of this rather pivotal ancient heresy attacking the very foundations of (orthodox) Christianity and, thus, creating a crisis.  Moral law, according to the Church, is meant to inform and strengthen the human conscience, not to be set at war against it as the modernists would so wrongly have it.

The Roman Catholic Church, for many centuries, was fortunately able to suppress Pelagianism, until its reification had occurred, at the infamous and notorious Second Vatican Council.   Ideological influences crept into the brains of the dedicated modernists at the Council, particularly the pernicious doctrines of Hegelianism as to thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which relates back to philosophical nominalism in general, of course.

The ideologized version of the heresy is seen in neo-Pelagianism, which was sustained and reinforced by Hegelianism, and was so willingly embraced by the future Pope Francis who had imbibed freely in the Spirit of Vatican II way back in the mid-1960s.  Thus, he is, quite manifestly for those who presciently know, a neo-Pelagian Pope who seeks to reconstruct the Church into an image more suitable to his personal deviant wishes and heterodox opinions, regardless of the highly sorrowful cost to religious purity and theological sanctity.  This needs to be firmly accepted as being true, otherwise, misinterpretations will logically occur.

Almost all commentators on the Holy Pontiff, however, do not know this very vital fact as to the correct interpretation, understanding, and comprehension of this current Bishop of Rome.  It is, in this sense, quite superficial to just label him either a “Marxist” or “neo-Marxist” and to move on to other matters.  This is too simplistic, as is, also, the bold denial of his often noted Communist leanings.

While it is surely true that he is an overt supporter of neo-Marxist Liberation Theology, with all of its own implications and ramifications attendant thereto, yet, that realization stops far short of the much deeper roots of the truly radical-heretical thinking and cognate prejudices that do directively guide his (perverse) thoughts, words, and actions.

After all, one can insightfully perceive that it is not any “Communism” that provokes his sympathies toward embracing aspects of Lutheranism for the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, rather, he is strongly attracted to the Pelagian elements within Lutheranism.  This refers to the Lutheran denial that good works are necessary for salvation, thus, axiomatically also excluding any need for divine grace connected to such works.

Pope Francis, logically, has an ideological and strong spiritual affinity for many heresies to the cognate extent that they may have their (destructive) roots in Pelagianism, which all fully reinforces his great and observed hatred of Roman Catholic theological orthodoxy.  One can see that immanentism, that vain attack upon being defined by metaphysical order, subtly undergirds the thinking elaborated that celebrates nominalism, by obliterating objectivity in moral and other questions; and so, this is to be evilly done through wrongly seeking to “creatively” illegitimate dogmatic ecclesial knowledge, which is yet preeminently demonic in its covert aspirations, of course.

Nothing less, sad to say here, is now being immorally attempted forcefully by this quite miscreant Holy Father and those worldly-minded ecclesiastics allied to him who are most certainly secular-oriented accommodationists, Protestant-minded appeasers.  Thus, as Christopher Ferrara would probably agree, have no doubt that significantly much worse is yet to come that will go well beyond mere indifferentism or latitudinarianism.

Modernism, as was rightly condemned by Pope St. Pius X, will now see its particular dangerous fruition, through a neo-Pelagian orientation toward the Church’s religious activities, based upon a demonically perverted theology having a sinister backwards form of reasoning.  Millions of more souls, as a result, are to have a merrier way of going to Hell, through such immoral efforts, done in the name of good intentions and, also, having a relativist regard for redefined “charity, mercy, and compassion,” of course.

The sagacious ability to keenly perceive these highly significant matters clearly and immediately assists in increasing rapidly the profound cognizance highly requisite to properly analyzing various whys and wherefores involved in past, current, and future decision making by the Pope.   He is, e. g., never really acting in any supposedly fashionable obstreperous or, perhaps, oddly cantankerous manner by being willful as to suspect actions taken or words spoken; rather, this so quite crafty and cunning prelate is seeking to be deliberately heretical, not accidentally so.  One should see certain method in his madness.

There is a definite method to the wrongly assumed or often casually dismissed spontaneity of approach to issues that he very much favors and, therefore, pushes along ever fully athwart orthodox Catholic teachings and doctrines.  But, further instructive thought must be here rendered for clarification and substantiation of what actually needs to be ever intelligently noticed.

Failure to see this ugly reality of the perversely subversive mind of the octogenarian Pope Francis is, certainly, tantamount to absurdly believing that, in fact, he really doesn’t mean what he says or does, which is unquestionably not true.   Papa Bergoglio, thus, seeks to become a quite dedicated heresiarch as, indeed, was Martin Luther, one of his major religious-cultural heroes.

His neo-Pelagian cognition, the supposed touchstone of all valid truth, both guides and fortifies, directs and sustains, him in his ardent desire and effort to revolutionize Holy Mother Church in a Protestant manner.  This will, openly, be observed in his forcefully commendatory words and actions warmly and enthusiastically co-celebrating the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, starting only initially with Lutheranism but, as will be easily seen, not ending there, of course.

The Vicar of Christ is going to imperiously demand, in various ways, that Catholicism more and more vigorously emulate and, thus, help warmly validate the so-called Reformed Religion; and, moreover, let no one naively doubt this plain and presented assertion of fact regarding this papal effort at subversion.

This evil effort is to be directed toward demonically undermining and subverting the Church while, one suspects, protesting that his “good intentions” are pure.   The nominalist cause of Protestantism is found worthy, in the eyes of Francis, who takes a syncretistic attitude toward various heresies, as if only mere semantics and not any vital moral substance divides Christians, as a result of the so-called Reformation, which is to be emulated vigorously.  What may be properly said?

All the Catholic martyrs loyal to the Counter-Reformation (or Roman Catholic Reformation) must be spinning in their graves by witnessing the many blasphemous and sacrilegious antics of this Argentinian high prelate.  The precious and holy blood of the martyrs can only adamantly curse the wicked neo-Pelagianism observed.

Pope Francis, thus, is to be rightly noted as a true champion and paladin of inherent wickedness, of consummate malevolence, aimed contemptuously and deliberately at the Catholic Faith, the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself.  Nothing less should be accounted as to the allied intention involved, in actively seeking to demonically subvert Catholicism, by its doctrinal and pastoral dissolution through the cunning practice of artful tergiversation and, in effect, the evident silence of consent.

Some members of the Roman hierarchy, possessing a distaste for heresy, have decided to go public and be the whistle blowers or dissenters from this neo-Protestant Revolution being foisted upon the Roman Catholic Church.   Although dissenters such as Christopher Ferrara or whistle blowers are normally, in the popular mind, supposed to be fairly honored and admired figures, the Pope wishes everyone to only hold these people in cold contempt.  There is exhibited not merely an unofficial rejection but a firm contempt for theological orthodoxy.

The popular image of a supposedly humble and meek Pope is false, when opposed to his own manifest imperious contempt, a notably prideful one, for those who do disagree vehemently with his extremist opinions, as is presented (by proxy) in such documents as Amoris Laetitia.  The mean spiritedness of the vile papal wrath is manifested in the strong climate of fear that exists in the Vatican created by his paranoia and vindictiveness reaching out to vilely infect the entire household of the See of the St. Peter.   With mockery, many do refer to him now as the Holy Father, who seeks to make pariahs out of those who theologically and religiously disagree with his “love” for heresy that surely brings him joy.

Submission to Amoris Laetitia is the latest litmus test being applied, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to all Catholics who are to affirm heretical beliefs for the sake of pleasing the intentions of Vatican policy and, of course, its chief occupant.  It is recognized, nonetheless, that judgment can become problematic when seeking to get to the complete justice of judgment concerning a papal reign and the person who is or was the Holy Pontiff.

The Vatican II pontiffs have nearly uniformly neglected their most central role of pastors of the universal Church by diluting orthodoxy such that the existent Catholicism had become incoherent, theologically and doctrinally, in the pursuit of popularity, adulation, praise, and overall fame.

What should have been the central theological focus of authoritatively and righteously affirming the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith to a largely often hostile and indifferent world ought, thus, to have been given the logical top priority; this is, need it be said, as to the everlastingly important mission of salvation; unfortunately, for the sake of the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it was not. This is not to deny, however, that much good had been, in fact, accomplished.

But, the annoying cultic papacies of John Paul II and Francis are diametrically opposite to the always fundamental centrality of the primary concerns and reality of what the Vatican is to represent to the world, not just what Catholicism is generally supposed to be proclaiming.

The popes of the post-Vatican II Era have been degenerates, in the correct epistemological sense meant by C. E. M. Joad, in that they had “lost the object” of what they, essentially, are ever to be about as to Catholic truth, not any quest for wide popularity certainly. How so?   They mainly neglected, as does the current holder of the Holy Office, to powerfully exercise their pastoral authority, from the Chair of St. Peter, to reverse mightily the ongoing dissolution of the Church’s teachings and mission.  Authority improperly exercised becomes corrupt, as power tends to corrupt, but the lack of using warranted (Catholic) power is degenerate, as is seen particularly in the theological and religious failure of the postconciliar popes to both forcefully and unequivocally defend, e. g., the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ in the world. Q. E. D.

Pope Francis, therefore, is quite obviously a nauseatingly degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff publicly and privately exalting himself in his obnoxious status as a papal cult figure. Such is an abusive and so unconscionable status absolutely unworthy of any true Servant of the Servants of Christ and, at the least, corrupts terribly the important fact that he is also the Holy Bishop of Rome of the Church Universal.

He is also an idolater in making the worship, meaning his desires qua theological opinions, greater than the God being worshipped; he has, thus, lost the object.  The very stiff attitude being displayed by the current Pontiff will surely, furthermore, lead to the horror of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism, if his intransigence remains vehement and defiant in the sinful cause of willful heterodoxy.  It is not just his paranoia being well noticed.

It is, moreover, a blasphemous and sacrilegious scandal of immense scope and magnitude that such a degenerate is, of course, simultaneously and necessarily the Vicar of Christ on earth. One can, legitimately and readily, say that it is appalling almost beyond description to sadly witness such a truly loathsome, vilely despicable, spectacle that makes even the tawdry and nasty reign of Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) look fairly respectable in contrast, for at least that surely unctuous, Renaissance scoundrel and reprobate was, in fact, still orthodox as to his theology.

Although it was a term once used several times by Michelangelo to harshly describe Pope Julius II, the designation of Francis as a “Medusa” is not really that far from the truth, if only people could come to a view of this cultic Pontiff; this is if ever freed from the typical seeing of him through rose-colored glasses, as is normally supplied by the popular media, his clerical supporters, and other such sycophants.

Because of his ethically and morally disreputable theological and religious opinions and advocacy, this Vicar of Christ is, without question, both a living horror and moral monster vilely parading around as an assumed exemplar of papal virtue and related righteousness; he is, in this 21st century, a rather frightening sight to behold, not a model bishop or holy prelate certainly.  But, it is still a major significant misjudgment to think, as almost all are wont to do, that the sheer or simple immorality involved is what principally propels the supposed seeming urgency for revolutionizing Church doctrines, in a devilishly backwards manner, through deviant pastoral practice.

Much more is related to this highly sinister effort that makes it not just nasty in its import but thoroughly insidious in its intended consequences and ramifications thereto. How so?   Few see very plainly that the modern dynamism of neo-Pelagianism is aided by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values.  By cleverly saying that the doctrines are to remain untouched and only practice is to be modified, Francis wishes, so to speak, to now pour new wine into old bottles, a neo-Protestantism, for better fooling people.

This is why, therefore, that the noted Nietzschean element should be keenly kept perceptively in mind; this is when rightly evaluating and intelligently considering the greater fuller context and so more comprehensive implications concerning the important matters discussed. The Holy Father’s paranoid religiosity ought not to excuse him or, always more importantly, his terrible errors of judgment.

The Response to Pope Francis

Most or, perhaps, almost all of the Church appears to be more or less sanguine about the basic direction toward which this Vicar of Christ wishes to lead the entire ecclesiastical body. The proper catechesis of the vast majority of Roman Catholics has been downplayed so extremely, in the last few generations, such that the average believer remains logically clueless as to what the disputes may be about; this is as to their vital substance, indicative implications, and pertinent ramifications as well.

So, the average parishioner can be generally excused from having the necessary theological insights and informed knowledge, regarding various specific doctrinal matters, that now normally do appear quite abstruse, abstract, or, perhaps, just plainly unknown. This should not, in truth, be that surprising at all.

At the time of the writing of this article, there seems to be the reality that the majority or vast majority of the hierarchy is, directly or indirectly, acquiescing and assenting to the many heretical dictates being promulgated; one then sees this is by which pastoral practice, the proverbial “tail,” is to “wag the dog,” meaning the quite sacramental and dogmatic teachings of Holy Mother Church itself.

Francis, as his own existentialist-cultic hero, has set things and matters simultaneously upside down, inside out, and backwards to better absurdly accommodate his ardent neo-Pelagian affectations and necessarily odd heterodox idiosyncrasies.   Such many vain and disgusting pomposities, in the harmful antagonisms propounded through so much deceptive language, do offend the Sacred Heart of Jesus, besides gaining the displeasure, one suspects, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

These surely pernicious pretensions and egomaniacal eccentricities are, in turn, emblematic, indeed, of profoundly blasphemous and sacrilegious orientations so directed as demonic daggers against the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, that’s all. But, one would think that would be, thus, very easily enough to make frantic alarm bells ring out throughout the Catholic world at large, though this appears not to be the case, sad to say.

Fortunately, the majority of the African bishops are absolutely alert to this most vicious nonsense and theological depravity, besides some bishops and cardinals in the Western realm of the Church.   Open resistance and the urgent need to remonstrate vigorously with Francis have been, so far, limited and somewhat, at times, more furtive than typically apparent.  One may hope that the struggle will increase, especially as classical Natural Law teachings are not to be neglected.

Some of the hierarchy have gone public with their needed disagreement in the hope of provoking some charitable clarification on the part of the Holy Pontiff, though it seems to be entirely in vain at present; this is when judging the troubling situation by his open desire to be greatly combative, not informative at all.

Antipathy and contempt are, however, ranged against faith and conciliation concerning the evil crisis provoked deliberately by the neo-Pelagian Pope, meaning in his pursuit of unquestioning fidelity toward heterodox pronouncements of questionable doctrinal validity at best. Pastoral practice so-called is to be schizophrenically set athwart the recognized doctrinal and sacramental teachings of the Church as they have been known and taught for, quite literally, many centuries of time.

The teachings of the Church are known. But, Francis the Imperious, filled with pejorative denunciations, seething intolerance, and not exactly the healthy spirit of good Christian charity, will have none of this.  May God have mercy on his soul.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, along with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, submitted the Dubia, a statement asking five yes or no questions, in September 2016, looking for clarity from Pope Francis on whether the exhortation Amoris Laetitia genuinely conforms to Catholic moral teaching.   This response is energetic and deferential, of course, but not really forceful enough given the very important exigency concerned, meaning the crisis that, in fact, has been so wrongly created by the Holy Sovereign Pontiff.

When the Pope failed to issue any expected response after about two months, the cardinals then felt the added moral and spiritual need to release the Dubia publicly, which the Holy Father then took as a figurative slap in the face.   At all times, proper procedures were taken in accordance with Canon Law provisions with many prayers given, no doubt, for his salvation.  But, he yet took it as an unkind rebuke.

After this very valid attempt at both respectful and courteous dialogue proved fully useless of results, Cardinal Burke courageously disclosed that an instituted formal act of correction would, therefore, be made appropriately necessary; this was, of course, if the Pope was both determinedly recalcitrant and had still declined to properly elucidate the true sense or meaning of his at least ambiguous exhortation. Cardinal Burke, contrary to some of his pro- Bergoglio critics, is not the one being schismatic regarding this critical matter; in fact, the direct contrary, however, seems much more logically to be true.

While obviously exceptional, this advocated matter, as to an attempted admonition seeking a true recantation of erroneous papal opinions, is not at all without historical precedent, as in the prominent case, e. g., of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316 to 1334) occurring in the 14th century.  John submitted, and he recanted his errors concerning the Holy Beatific Vision.  A crisis in the Church was, thus, amicably and correctly solved toward an appropriate solution authentically preserving the complete integrity of the Papacy and, much more importantly, the eternally valued Honor of the Holy Lord God.  The hurt feelings of John XXII did not matter nor should that be a consideration about Francis.

It is highly doubtful, given now what is publicly known of the excessively vindictive and so haughtily prideful nature of Francis, if he ever would.  This small-minded and too petty Vicar of Christ, being a dedicated, neo-Pelagian stalwart of the worst sort imaginable, holds the Honor of God in cold contempt, so why should he care?   Also, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, fully supports the Pope’s heterodox position on communion for certain categories of divorced Catholics.

As yet another prominent example, Cardinal Schönborn insists that Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is a great catechesis on marital and familial love that all Catholics ought to admire and embrace.   Cardinal Müller, in addition, has stated that there is to be no required correction of the Pope because there Is, in his opinion, no danger at all to the Faith.

Unless a Church council should convene to depose Francis, nothing short of his death – or some kind of a small miracle — could actually come to successfully resolve this quite terrible crisis, for there is no real or substantive humility present within his hardened heart, intolerant mind, or snappish soul.  And, his supporters, seeing no heresies whatsoever, have formed into a sort of Pretorian Guard to make sure that his imperial will is not to be thwarted.  Thus, Müller, Schönborn, and the rest are to see to that outcome supposedly.  But, such is far from the main point to be understood.

As was carefully proven, earlier in this article, an observably egotistical and degenerate prelate sits atop the papal throne pridefully and nastily defies any and all who would dare to say him nay.   Some naively would make an appeal to, of all things, the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council and uselessly hope for what has been called “the reform of the reform.”

This cannot realistically ever be.  Why so?   Vatican II’s aftermath axiomatically thinks of itself as truly being, in fact, the ongoing permanent reform, sort of analogously like Leon Trotsky’s absurd ideal of the Permanent Revolution.  Thus, many confused Catholics, also, cite Vatican II against Pope Francis’ errors without seeing any contradictions whatsoever, nor seeing the Hegelian Dialectic being present within neo-orthodox postconciliar thinking.

Pope John Paul II, through numerous encyclicals, etc. actually had tried that thrust at presumed reform, without any real success whatsoever. Error, ultimate error, can only be refuted, not reformed; the so-called Reformed Religion has empirically and intellectually proven its inherent failure through the easily observed and continuing multiplication of divergent Protestant sects and cults, many or, sometimes, most of which do claim (directly or indirectly) to be the only one true Church.

What has, by now, the ever attempted reform of the reform of the reform produced?  Pope Francis.  Need one say more?

The machinations of the Pontiff, a charismatic figure exalted by the press, are usually misunderstood or misinterpreted, due especially to poor catechesis, in a world terribly engulfed by rabid existentialism, pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, gestalt, and the overall relativism of situation ethics.   The evil involved tends to be discounted as possibly coincidental or simply not intended.  Such is not the case.

While the pagan ancients, as with Plato, thought that the doing of evil was because of an ignorant lack of knowledge of the good, Christianity realizes that people can, in fact, so willfully choose to do evil.  Perniciousness and malevolence can be intentional, as the Pope’s demonstrated hatred of Catholicism qua orthodoxy is empirically palpable, which is, upon examination, an understatement.  What is the danger?

There are consequences to having a heretical leader of the Church. Ironically, the best response to Francis is to be, in a sense, more papist than the Pope in defending the Papacy by admonishing the Vicar of Christ regarding his highly important papal responsibilities, duties, and obligations.  The Holy Pontiff should not, and if he would what to spiritually and religiously avoid any sort of malevolence, ought not to do anything adverse to the Holy Magisterium of the Church, for Holy Scripture, Holy Magisterium, and Holy Tradition are never to be in conflict.  This means within the proper context of authentic orthodoxy.1

The obvious conflict through the heretical opinions created by Francis is, therefore, logically opposed to the desired rightness and needed righteousness that ought to be responsibly exhibited by the Papacy, as to its vital prerogatives and privileges in defense of the Catholic Faith.  If his mind were not so set upon the anomalous commission of evil, then he would readily recognize and firmly uphold these matters as being substantively congruent with affirming Catholicism; and, it would be reciprocal concerning the basis of the Papacy in its authoritative capacity for instructing the faithful; thus, the Vicar of Christ on earth is to be, by definition, the primary Shepherd of the entire flock of Christ for defending the Faith.

Having a mind consumed with sin, regarding the heretical notions that the Pontiff supports, makes him participate, directly and indirectly, in the moral destruction and spiritual rot of the Holy Office; this is by undermining its basis of being, with its implications and ramifications, as to empirically irresponsible conduct shown by the past unfortunate papal endorsement of the heretical exhortation promulgated so insensitively contrary to Church teachings, namely, the Amoris Laetitia.  But, as to genuine Catholic truth, taken as a whole, it is joyless and perverse, cheerless and demented.

Repentance and renunciation should occur. Instead, the Pope has taken an entirely intransigent, fully intractable, attitude involving the condemnation and ongoing vilification of any objectors who oppose the heresies he favors, which bodes ill, of course, for the immediate future of the Church and, moreover, will have the sad presence of much long-term harm seen in its wake.  But, Catholicism will survive, even if it gets as isolated to desperate places of refuge as is Iona, yet, those hardy Irish (and typically stubborn) monks of the early Middle Ages kept it yet alive against the savage barbarians.  There will always remain a minority, a remnant, tenacious enough to strongly guard and save the Faith; and, if or when necessary, as with Iona, under conditions certainly far from being thought ideal.

Nonetheless, the elected papal monarch wishes to now run roughshod over any disruptive Catholic subjects of his realm with a vengeful monarchical disregard, which will corrupt the principle of monarchy by embracing a form of tyranny as he, thus, equally debases the Papacy as well. May God have mercy on his soul.2

The response to the Pope needs to alert him to the dangers and sorrows of tyrannizing over any of the faithful who wish to merely remind him of his important duty, obligations, and responsibilities concerning the ever requisite safeguarding of Catholicism from any doctrinal contamination or dissolution by deliberately perverting pastoral practice.   Such is no small matter to consider, of course.

It needs to be critically recognized, therefore, that what he is consciously doing is, in fact, evil because his mind has been wrongly set upon the intended commission of such malevolence, wickedness, to then better clearly uphold the neo-Pelagianism, the heresy, so verifiably near and dear to his wicked heart and dreadful ambitions.

An indicatively salient point must be informatively made.   One must, correctly, perceive here the active choice of measured malice, done on the part of Francis, to more perceptively gauge and intensely comprehend the repulsive fact that he really wishes to do evil, not that he is, supposedly, just being only unknowingly wayward, mischievous, or miscreant in some odd manner.

Almost all of his critics, overawed by the Holy Office of the Papacy, refuse to perceive the horrible truth, concede him the (false) idea that good intentions are involved, and actually excuse this Vicar of Christ; this is as if only mere peccadillos, slight failings, were involved in his noted perpetrated debasement efforts demonically directed against Catholicism, meaning all fundamental theological and religious orthodoxy, of course.

What is being heretically done by the Pope is not simply haphazard, incoherent, or uncoordinated by active intent. There is no rationally requisite requirement to so render him the assumed benefit of a doubt; his many words and actions are clear and verified, documented and definite, not obscure or uncertain.   Too many times have his defenders said that he was supposedly misinterpreted or mistranslated to then better help cover up the truth about his malevolence and spite, pertaining to the attitudes and heretical opinions, by which he so wishes to revolutionize the Church toward a definitely neo-Protestant direction. 3

He, then, thinks that mere human will can determine what gets accepted or promulgated as to dogmatic Church teachings, not the true need to conform teachings to the will of God. Consequently, Francis, being so hubristic, perceives himself as the actual center or focus of the Church and its supreme head, not Jesus Christ.

This demonstrable fact should be fairly apparent, by now, except among the most naïve or misinformed Catholics unaware of perennial Church teachings or, perhaps, those who, basically, stand in (mindless) awe of the Bishop of Rome because of the sacred existence of the Holy Office itself. Yet, this necessarily creates dangerous distortions of perception and much attendant faulty knowledge of the authentic nature of what needs to be vitally known.

The Pope is not God on earth, only the Vicar of Christ, not any divine substitute in flesh, unlike, for instance, the Dalai Lama who is regarded, by his loyal followers, as being a god occupying a merely physical body at present.   Admittedly, it is hard to absolutely sever perfectly the known office from the man concerning the Supreme Pontiff, however, he and all Catholics (for the assumption is that Francis still professes to be one) are both morally and spiritually obligated to defend the Faith; and, this is, logically, even more so for the supreme leader, the Shepherd, of the Faith for protecting the believers and, of course, for ultimately affirming the greater Glory of God.

Cardinal Burke’s aforementioned worthy effort of seeking an appropriate ecclesiastic forum by which to discipline and admonish the Pope would seem, given the current and observed degenerate state of the majority of the Church hierarchy, rather farfetched and nearly impossible, especially under present poor circumstances and the immediately foreseeable future.  Few in the hierarchy, e. g., could fully comprehend and intellectually defend the imperative necessity of Catholicism’s ontological theology.4

However, with Pope Francis now being 80 years old and not an extremely healthy man with only one lung, the better alternative, in a more practical sense, is to lay the hopeful foundation, the prepared infrastructure, for positive actions consequent to the coming of the then next Bishop of Rome. Realism would, on the whole, appear to be needed unless some truly divine intervention may surprisingly arise to resolve the situation either amicably or, perhaps, more readily.  Many prayers, penances, and sacrifices, however, would be needed for that possibility.

Without a minor miracle to spur on the normally reluctant hierarchy in the direction of faithful orthodoxy and with the added willingness to then defend it vigorously, nonetheless, there is little likelihood of any real basic success for effectively dissuading Francis and seeking a recantation and abjuration of the ugly heresies he so very strongly favors; it is, as such, a quite realistic assessment because the whole of Catholicism is ever greater than any pope.

The overall situation of the Church, however, will not be helped because most of the faithful are now really neo-Catholics supported in their beliefs by the neo-orthodoxy established through allegiance to the Second Vatican Council.  Over several past generations, increasing degrees of relativism and situation ethics have been imbued into the consciousness of so many such that they cannot easily come to oppose, much less properly understand, arguments that would greatly support Catholic dogmas without question.

Catechesis among Catholics has been woefully deficient for many decades by now, the clergy has been dumbed down too in the Novus Ordo seminaries, and much religious thought slides toward either a general indifference or a willingness to simply tolerate what ought to be seen as intolerable heterodoxy.  And, also, many who may think of themselves as being fairly orthodox Catholics will still come to side with the Pope out of a weary spiritual slough eager to avoid conflict, even for upholding the righteous Honor of God against the Pope.

None of those four above cited conditions, moreover, seems to be undergoing any massive change any time soon. Ambiguities in the notably modernist teachings, furthermore, that have become fairly pervasive by now mean that few of them, in the Novus Ordo, can actually comprehend and recognize the exact foundations of the profound dispute, much less ever to come to a critical awareness of the seriousness involved.  And, one may logically add, this is so suitably matched to and reinforced by the relativist attitudes freely, publicly, exhibited by Francis himself.  What could today be clearer?   The situation could be hardly worse.

He has a hardened heart that so nastily spurns all Christian charity toward his many sincere opponents in this matter who have a theocentric point of view, the ever legitimate desire to serve the Holy God, versus the Pope’s rather contemptuous anthropocentricism, meaning his neo-Pelagianism; that heresy has an inherent devotion to heterodoxy at all costs, and Francis will, therefore, fight for it with all the powers at his imperious command.  His personal tenacity ought not to be ignorantly underestimated or, perhaps, moderately discounted concerning the corrupt nature of his both spiritually and woefully defective character.

Why would this be said? Those who may doubt this do not really know and correctly understand the feisty man Bergoglio who demands that such things must go his way and that his critics be shown, in effect, the highway.  He is an old gutter fighter, known as such to people in Argentina, willing fully to brawl it out with enemies who has only contempt for gentlemanly manners or, to him, courteous affectations, when he engages people in struggle.  A known supporter of Marxist Liberation Theology, which he is, could not think otherwise.  Nor would he have any personal incentives, moreover, to do or act otherwise as long as he totally remains in power as the Pope of the whole Church.

In basic terms of sheer unadorned viciousness, therefore, Cardinal Burke is clearly outclassed and seems to be underestimating the kind of person, of the ruthless character, he is dealing with, meaning concerning this sly and cunning Servant of the Servants of Christ. Francis, of course, thinks that he has all the big cards in his hands and is going to play any of them needed and would not, moreover, ever hesitate to load the deck, whenever or wherever required to ultimately get his way, with a kind of neo-Protestantism.

No one should here naively doubt this harsh fact of reality qua current papal reality, for when he sets the Holy Magisterium in supposed opposition to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, he so then becomes fully God-defiant, not simply miscreant in thought and action.  Let this be clear.  Let no one doubt the truth.  What is actually going on is the deliberate commission of mortal sins, which should be obvious beyond question.  How may this be better understood and confirmed as to its veracity and certainty?

If Francis had to confront the preconciliar Church of the 19th century’s First Vatican Council, there would be no question whatsoever as to the logically assumed success of trying to control an aberrant or deviant pope.  Today, however, such an attempted confrontation is, one so realistically suspects, at best problematic and, at the least, severely doubtful of any good fruition to just put the matter quite mildly.

The Pope will, as in the sad days of the Arian Heresy, call all his staunch opponents schismatics and, thus, claim that he is the true defender of the Faith, for it will take significant moral and spiritual courage to rightly defend needed orthodoxy during this crisis of faith.

For Francis, going too far is never really far enough to stray from Catholic dogmas to then better serve his notably wayward and too corrupt intentions; a mere figurative slap on the wrist cannot deter him from revolutionizing the Church into having a real anthropocentric orientation, meaning the worship of Man on earth, being that he is, in truth, a disciple of evil. As such, it is no major prediction here that he will become, given the predilection already exhibited for simplification, an iconoclast toward the end of his pontificate.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.  Amen.


And so, Catholics enter still into the Third Millennium of the Roman Catholic Church, in this late second decade of the 21st century, with the real prospect of a schism, given the observably uncharitable and quite clearly intolerant attitude of the notably vindictive and visibly unforgiving Holy Pontiff.

Thus, neo-Pelagianism, reinforced by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values, is stridently in the saddle and is now confidently riding forth toward even yet greater infamies to come, while Pope Francis is in charge of the Church.  Not to notice this salient fact is to be rather unfortunately blind to reality or, perhaps, simply naïve beyond belief where credulity itself becomes fairly utopian in inspiration.

The terribly both beleaguered and outnumbered forces of right orthodoxy and good human decency are, therefore, going to have to then become so righteously shrewd and, also, militantly prudent; this is when confronting such a formidable papal foe who is, as one perceives, adamantly determined to win, even at the sad cost of schism.   Cardinal Burke, one reasonably suspects, must then somehow seize the moral high ground and use it to the fullest extent and advantage possible, whether Dubia or no Dubia.

This should be by publicly saying that all his criticisms are not at all personal but, rather, constructive and affirmative for, then, better acknowledging the true rights and responsibilities of the Papacy itself, not done for any attack upon the present occupant of the Holy Office. The arguments ought to be theological and religious, moral and ethical, not ever aimed for seeking any personal animadversions.

To help avoid the struggle from giving the unwanted appearance of a personal duel between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis, a good tactic should be the skillful use of Bishop Athanasius Schneider as the main spokesman for an ecclesiastical and canonical inquiry into the uncharitable obstinacy of Francis.   Flanking maneuvers are best, not a direct assault, as to the overall prudent and sagacious strategy to be employed in steadily mounting any growing pressure upon the notably stubborn Holy Father.

Of course, in the long-run there is always hope, either a Church council or, perhaps,  a future pope will basically or fundamentally correct the errors of this era, for no individual aberrant pontiff guides fully the course of the ecclesiastical body; only the Holy Ghost, who sanctifies the Church, does that forever, not Francis.  Heresies, inclusive of his odd version of neo-Protestantism, all eventually get intellectually crushed because they are lies, and only the truth can set men free, meaning (orthodox) Catholicism.5

There will be, no doubt, much short-term anguish and frustration, agony and distress, until eventually the wrongdoing has been deal with by the future triumph of orthodoxy, once again.

Athanasius contra mundum!



  1. It helps to both correctly and theologically discern the lower from the higher Magisterium.
  2. The Pope’s pro-Lutheran public sympathies and related affinities are fairly well known by now.
  3. The Holy Father’s ambition to help bring about the equivalent of a Protestant revolution, by embracing the nominalist elements of the so-called Reformed Religion, should be rather obvious.
  4.  What does not get taught at Catholic seminaries these days could, of course, easily fill volumes.
  5.  Roman Catholicism, by definition, is theological and religious orthodoxy as to its verifiable truth.



Pastoral care after divorce cannot contradict the indissoluble nature of marriage

Therapeutic State’s Inherent Evil versus Roman Catholic Faith

Therapeutic State’s Inherent Evil versus Roman Catholic Faith

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

“There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint.”  – Léon Bloy

With its virulent roots deep within the 20th century, the phenomenon known as the Therapeutic State has, unfortunately and logically, arisen in tandem with the Regulatory State, Administrative State, and Bureaucratic State into the 21st century.  In brief, it is a world without God, i. e., the secularist Utopia believed to exist in the contemporary world, though rarely and honestly called by that name, if ever.1

Elements of it include: Gestalt Theory, Freudian psychiatry, Jungian psychology, and other such means toward seeking to bring about a therapeutic attitude toward all of human life and allied relationships and interrelations thereof. It has, generation by thoughtless generation, become truly much more than just the medicalization of American and Western life.  Now, there is a therapy available for just about any or all human ailments, possibly real or, perhaps, if only merely imagined to be thought real or not.

The “Therapeutic State” is a phrase coined by Dr. Thomas Szasz in 1963.  It was the so quite naturally institutional-oriented collaboration between psychiatry and government that has resulted in to what Szasz had called the Therapeutic State.  This helped, in turn, lead to the normalization of statism and statist attitudes so generally prevalent in contemporary society and culture, for the ideology of statism favors greatly the often haughtily presumed normalcy of the (usually covert) insanity of the therapeutic attitude and cognate justifications thereof.

Reading may include: The Rise of the Therapeutic State by Andrew J. Polsky and The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century’s End by James L. Nolan Jr., Counseling and the Therapeutic State by James L. Chriss; and, of course, The Therapeutic State by Thomas Szasz. Cognate reading would be: Jeffrey Schaler, ed., Szasz Under Fire: A Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics.

Philip Rieff, by 1987, called the situation and process “the triumph of the therapeutic” to so indicate its surely quite dominant pervasiveness for many societal and cultural perspectives as such.  For Roman Catholics, the theme to be pressed forward concerns the secularization of the State and how the lack of faith, the rise of a broadly based atheist humanism, has then corrupted human life and degraded human existence, though this is too often not recognized, if at all, by any dedicated secularists.

Examination of Glorified Secularism: Myth, Magic, and Superstition Galore

Since this topic is too enormous to be fully taken on here, this discussion will focus mainly upon how modern, urban, industrialized society deals with PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder.  Because millions no longer see their inherent dignity coming from being made in the image of God, the then secularized society and culture deals with effects or symptoms, not real causes of mental and emotional difficulties.  Connections between, e. g., the Welfare State and the Therapeutic State are definitely there but beyond the immediately selected scope of this particular discussion.2

Today, any public employee or most private employees would lose their jobs if they dared to denounce or, perhaps, possibly challenge the publicly acknowledged “sacredness” of the Therapeutic State and its dictatorial mandates.  Veterans, police officers, fire fighters, emergency care workers, and many other categories of personnel can be diagnosed with PTSD, which now covers even those veterans who may, in fact, not ever have been in combat, which fiercely denotes its incredibly pandemic nature.   Veterans and others are, for instance, given therapy dogs as life companions, if felt needed, to deal with such tragedy.

While, say, some 5% to a possible maximum of 10% of people may be that very terribly emotionally or psychologically afflicted; however, the remaining 90% to about 95% do then raise serious questions, to say the least.  When, e. g., back in 17th, 18th, and 19th century frontier America, meaning when wild savages could literally strike out of the forests at any moment, was life then much less filled with excessive real anxiety, trauma, danger, fretfulness, distress, strain, etc.?   Were there actually less severe and tragic traumas back then?  Probably not.

During the early Middle Ages or, say, when being a Christian under the Roman Empire meant more than a mere chance at bloody martyrdom, were these the “good old days” for the common folk having no actual care in the world? Besides such things as the Black Death, in some estimates, having wiped out at least about one third of Europe’s entire population, leaving dead bodies piling up quite discordantly no doubt, and eras of mass starvation in the world, were people then less prone to profound suffering at extreme levels?   Probably not.

But, unlike the people fixated by modernity and its secularist attitude, ancient, medieval, and those people not yet influenced by an abundance of modernity up to about the 20th century had, for the most part, a religious sense of life and reality.  Death and disaster, certainly more common even in so-called civilized societies of the past, were not without meaning.  For Christians, faith, hope, and charity were not wiped off the face of the earth in preference for purely therapeutic notions or, dare one say it (?), modernist superstitions.

In the premodern world and especially within Christendom, all of tragedy was placed, in a more natural manner, into an ever much wider perspective in terms of salvation. Christianity, moreover, offers such means of intimate and profound solace even at the worst of times, and Roman Catholicism has, of course, endured for over 2,000 years of human history and suffering, for the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against it and, moreover, St. Peter is still the Rock of Jesus the Christ.

There were no, back then, grand-scale existentialist, phenomenological, or positivist exercises to rob spiritual meaning from the lives of human beings, unlike the doings related to the advancement of modernity and, now, postmodernity in the world. Secularization has, thus, substituted PTSD as the terrene explanation for what earlier ages would have attributed to spiritual suffering by people unable to reconcile themselves intimately with the deep sorrow and grief, agonizing distress and anguish, due to the human condition.  But, they knew that salvation was in, by, and through Christ the Lord.

Fallen creatures living in a fallen world are necessarily subject to the dictates of their having been the existence of Original Sin and the ongoing consequences thereof of sin in this earthly place of suffering, torment, loss, frustration, deprivation, etc. Secularization normally blinds people to the harsh truth and, therefore, compounds human troubles by removing the ground of being from consideration, by seeking to abscond with the Supreme Being of all metaphysical order.  When God is removed from reality, the perception of what is real gets related to what is amenable to the therapeutic ideal, as is sanctioned by the secularist-humanist attitude toward life.

For the spiritual disorder of those suffering from PTSD cannot be addressed by secular therapies alone stressing the externalities of outer turmoil, meaning with no substantial regard for the inner reality of that person’s individual soul. Religion gets forcefully discounted and, thus, superstitiously ignored for the most part as a result of the humanist-materialist fixations upon therapeutic values, not the profound spiritual concerns of suffering human beings.3

Secularism made substantial advances by the dividing of Christendom by Protestantism, moreover, and its many baleful and continuing influences that did lead, eventually, to the ending of any real sense of Christendom after World War I. Martin Luther’s obnoxious denigration of human reason, e. g., led to the intensification of emotions and feelings as when guiding of many religious sentiments toward a spiritual individualism, for “the spirit” was felt to supposedly move people, not the disparaged reason of a man’s mind.  Emotionalism had largely replaced concern for dogmas, doctrines, and the formalities of institutional religion.

This absurd individualism of private judgment, wherein each man becomes his own pope, encouraged a desacralization of human life into separate compartments, favoring more and more secular societal and cultural attitudes.   PTSD has become, therefore, the bold acronym for the enjoyment of the dubious “blessings” of a highly secularized society and, thus, its truly decadent culture.  The insanely rabid kind of dreary compartmentalization, rationalization, routinization, and bureaucratization of societal and cultural efforts has, truly, encouraged the cult of victimization; millions, through the therapeutic dispensation, now want to seem special by being victims, including, of course, the victims of PTSD, ADHD, ADD, etc.

There are many severe consequences. They no longer have the good knowledge, capacity or, perhaps, willingness to see their dignity as children of God, made in the image of the Creator, as to their being, by definition, special beings, not random acts of mindless evolution.  Millions now see themselves as being the mere victims of evolution, though the Lord Almighty is actually the measure of all things.  As a result, various therapies exist to make people feel special, for they are doubly “blessed” in all becoming classed as among the victims that exist and who are, thus, formally recognized as such.

Any special relationship with the Lord God is, therefore, to be cut off through secularization, for the gospels of evolutionism, humanism, pragmatism, positivism, relativism, materialism, hedonism, and naturalism all teach people otherwise. They, these horrid modes of thought, are the highly abusive intellectualist underpinnings of the now rampant Therapeutic State, which is then cognitively armed with its integral rapacious demands made always upon human character and personality.

This is, therefore, to the nth degree of disgusting intolerance and possessiveness, ugly fanaticism and greediness for earthly power over the human heart, mind, and will.  The PTSD diagnosis, thus, deals with the mere effects of the suffering and never attempts to try to get to the real inner cause of the effects, which are, in fact, spiritually related.  But, it could not be logically otherwise.

Mental crutches are absurdly provided, usually for life, by various kinds of therapists who do thereby invidiously assist in preventing the needed wholeness that human beings seek, as they naturally may reach out for spiritual help for their immortal souls, not just their wounded psyches.  The therapeutic comprehension of human tragedy oddly and strangely “celebrates” and “commemorates” the nature of tragedy by trying to superficially cure symptoms, not the cause(s) of the intense suffering and agony.

Thus, the cause of secularization that creates the effects upon lost people thinking that they live in some sort of existentialist or phenomenological vacuum of a world lost to God, of an experiential mode lost to metaphysical order and its realm. What is needed here to be understood?   People in past ages, the vast majority, were able to much better cope with misfortunes and terrors because they were close to the Lord, not made increasingly distant from the Almighty due to the ever enervating, so grossly weakening, superstitions, myths, and magical formulations of an arrogant and very aggressive secularism, meaning pragmatism, evolutionism, naturalism, humanism, etc.

It is the secularly intentional deprivation of spiritual sustenance that has wrongly robbed millions of people of the requisite ability to properly seek healing from the divine source of all healing, all mercy, and all compassion, meaning God.   There can be no real substitute found in any supposed liberating therapeutics for, say, any PTSD in that the vast majority on average will remain, more or less, mental-psychological cripples their entire lives.

This will be with the growing need for drugs, psychiatric sessions, therapy dogs, and the ever available panoply, exemplary of myth, magic, and superstition, merely distracting them from turning to God for authentic solace and genuine salvation.  It is, thus, no real surprise that various forms of neopaganism has arisen among the Western populace, meaning as always much needed faith in the one true God has substantially decreased.

Many people suffer from what may be termed ISSS (invidious secular suffocation syndrome) that keeps them distanced from the Supreme Being, meaning as they pursue different or, sometimes, multiple therapies and/or drug treatments.  After all, it is known that, e. g., Sigmund Freud had, eventually, reached the secularist conclusion that all profound human problems could be solved by getting people on to narcotic drugs and, thus, simply maintaining them there during their lives, for he himself became a cocaine addict.

Freud, moreover, had to receive reconstructive surgery for the extreme damage he did to his nose from snorting the stuff, and people are to be amazed at his “virtue” of actually practicing what he preached?  It must be rightly and logically concluded, however, that there would be almost no cases of (supposed) PTSD if religion, once again, because the truly central and controlling aspects and reality of the lives of extremely distraught people.

What is needed, from the Christian point of view, is the reconciliation of the wounded hearts and minds with the souls of the people afflicted by seeing their salvation in Jesus Christ by forgiving and loving their enemies.   All things, all experiences of human suffering and trauma, are to be seen in, by, and through the reality of Christ for the lives of all people.

Unfortunately, most people do not know the difference between loving and liking; one is not required to like one’s enemy; many of the saints of the Church did not like each other but tried very hard to love each other for the love of God.  The often noted severity and presumed profundity of almost all traumas would be greatly minimized or, perhaps, eliminated, for the vast majority of the sufferers, if they would truly see the liberating light of the Lord in their lives.

For instance, Christian soldiers in combat ought to fight with the spirit of chivalry by hating the evil that the enemy represents, while trying to know that the love of God extends also to the enemy; of course, the opponents are to be killed when essential to saving one’s life or those of one’s comrades or civilians; and, this logically requires, at the least, the ability to dislike them reasonably enough to shoot at them to inflict death when needed.

But, with the unfortunate fading away of the beneficent fullness of Christianity and its implications and ramifications, today’s typical secularized soldier, firefighter, police office, etc. facing potential death and destruction is found unable to find the needed peace of Christ that properly enables the ever requisite reconciliation of mind, heart, and soul.   The secularization of society and culture mandates that millions will, therefore, necessarily remain with severe mental-psychological wounds making them cognitive and emotional cripples for their entire lives; this is because the therapies, inclusive of therapy dogs, are only equipped to deal merely with the surface effects and not the deep cause of the affliction to be found in the soul.

Secularity, thus, has its ongoing disastrous, surely terrible, and remorseless consequences, for there can then be only the extreme rarity, if ever, of true and final spiritual healing (through the possibly applied therapies), which is what is actually needed for achieving the wanted and loving wholeness within one’s soul.  The always greater and surer path toward such spiritual liberation is by rightly seeking Christ and His Kingdom first, not the vainglorious allures or alleged therapies of this world that are, in the end, only distractions.  Faith in Christ is primary, not the sorry illusions of the Therapeutic State certainly.

Secularization, though rarely admitted to these days, blinds people to the real need to seek spiritual wholeness; this is by which, in turn, mental and psychological peace and reconcilement can be obtained because the pursuit of holiness, not earthly personal exaltation, is what is properly required for better achieving spiritual wholeness, for overcoming traumas and their effects and affects.

The cure of mind and body from the excessive shock, stress, and strain of significant traumas must be concerned primarily with the condition of the person’s soul, not with value-neutral judgments-attitudes or relativistic opinions.  The therapeutic point of view, necessarily oriented toward secular “salvation,” is obsessed with the treating of mere symptoms that do then relate to a quite superficial understanding of and myopic view toward man’s precious humanity.

Therapies that do claim to be humanistic are, in actuality, mechanistic in approach more than would be ever admitted, of course. Man is also a spiritual animal, not just a creature of various appetites.  Secular society deals operationally and functionally with the primary manifestations of inward disorder in those pragmatic, positivist, and materialist terms of practical reference appropriate, of course, to a Godless perspective.

Secularity of outlook must ever tend toward a “logical” reductionism in thinking as a direct result. The results, predetermined as it were, then must deal oddly with symptoms, not causes, as when adults, as with war veterans, are bizarrely given the equivalent of a baby’s pacifier by being assigned a therapy dog.  What does this ridiculous situation really imply?  What is here the reprehensible scandal involved?

Neither spiritual maturity nor mental-emotional maturity are, thus, permitted to be obtained whenever the supplying of, in effect, four-footed pacifiers become poor substitutes for the realization of the need for genuinely seeking that true peace and inner comfort that, in fact, only Christ can give. Until then, only infantile attitudes get professionally encouraged and, moreover, intellectually supported, through these therapeutic gambits of sadly making presumably substantial social science paradigms, out of mere disguised infantility oddly denominated as being helpful therapy.

So, yes, this is what one strangely gets when so relying upon the secularist dictates of a degraded and degrading, decadent and depraved, societal and cultural reality sliding off, ultimately, toward nihilism that must lead, in its turn, to eventual insanity. This is to be perceived in the glorification and attempt at the assumed professionalization of modal cognitive infantility, as codified by certified professionals, who need, one suspects, to find appropriate places for themselves in lunatic asylums.  Instead, they have a completely unapologetic and shameless regard for what is being seriously or routinely offered as the modern treatments and therapies.

Of course, speaking of any of the above harsh truths among a congregation of professional therapists, psychiatrists, etc. would bring upon the supposed “heretic” massive amounts of denunciations, scorn, derision, and personal vilification, as being just an ignorant, heartless, vile, and inhumane cynic.  It is supposed to be much more humane and caring, humanitarian and considerate, to help keep people as, perhaps, permanently being mental and/or emotional cripples for their entire lives if needed, rather than for them to leave Plato’s Cave to gloriously seek the real world.

And, as for Christians, to find their much needed salvation by achieving spiritual wholeness, ethical and moral completeness, for their souls through, by, and with Christ.  Dedicated humanists and atheist-naturalists, however, have only their supposedly sophisticated contempt and definite disdain for such blatant nonsense.  This all terribly assists, unfortunately, in maintaining and supporting the prevalent therapeutic mentality that upholds the ugly fanaticism usually so encountered; this is whenever the demands and superstitions of the Therapeutic State are properly and righteously questioned and confronted by an educated, concerned, knowledgeable, and compassionate opposition.

Insane Abolition of the Human Condition

Contrary to the quite worldly ways of the majority, there is a decided difference, markedly so, between vain aspirations to live as a successful, well-adjusted secularist and, on the other hand, striving mightily for the needed holiness of a confirmed Christian life. The two widely different choices are, therefore, both inherently incommensurate and indicatively incompatible goals, to say the least.

Upon critical analysis, what is going on consists of the abnormal desire to normalize insanity through various euphemisms. Pain, suffering, anguish, loss, deprivation, shock, etc. used to be considered parts of just normal human life; Moreover, the reading of history so easily demonstrates that, e. g., war, not peace, is much closer to the true norm of things and reality.

So, what is really going on here in deceitful terms of the Therapeutic State and its often unmentioned intentions?  It is, in reiteration, when honestly observed, the quite vainly attempted normalization of insanity to then supposedly remove all social and psychological stigmas attached to it, by this highly absurd effort, to, thus, do the impossible on earth.

Of course, to the now amassed professional armies of ardent defenders of ADHD, PTSD, ADD, etc., these words sound deliberately offensive, harshly impolite, necessarily discordant, and, in all honesty, even very nasty. Yes, the truth hurts.  For if it was not the truth, then people could just, perhaps, shrug all their collective shoulders and then say, so what? If what has been asserted were, in fact, not the truth, there would be no negative reaction from social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, etc. who do vigorously adhere to the therapeutic creed or faith adamantly affirmed by modernity in thought.

In the very early 13th Century, Pope Innocent III wrote his On the Misery of the Human Condition to so dramatically help highlight the sadness, corruption, sinfulness, and frailties of such mortal creatures.  The Therapeutic State, in sharp opposition, wishes emphatically to deny the existence, the reality, of the human condition, which covers fits of insanity, mental/emotional derangement, and plain insanity itself, of course.  Any other view, naturally speaking, simply presents an unreal world that would be inhabited by many equally fictional people; but, Catholicism offers an alternative and opposite vision of life.

Supporters of PTSD and related matters seek an exemption or an odd reprieve or, perhaps, a supposed remediation of the human condition, which, this side of death, is still just impossible to ever achieve on earth; the condition of humanity is, therefore, fully coincident and congruent with human nature itself, not foreign to it nor can it become alienable through therapeutic superstition or magic; this is, usually, backed up by  the mythic structuralizations of a pseudo-reality conjured into existence by the “priests” of modernity or, now, postmodernity.

Because it really does need to be constantly repeated, as if it is just a mantra, human beings are fallen creatures living in a fallen world; and, consequently, the tremendously idyllic conditions of the Garden of Eden, regardless of all utopian/collectivist attempts made to the contrary, cannot be ever brought back into being in this sorry world.  The human condition, in reiteration, is an absolutely definitive and inescapable reality naturally pertaining to what actual human nature is all about on this terrestrial globe; it is, in truth, entirely unavoidable.  What are, however, the rather necessary implications involved?

This then means, logically, any effort to fruitlessly, uselessly, try to ever to find any supposed real exemptions from man’s obviously innate humanity becomes, by definition, insane. The final project of modernity, which has been sadly carried now into most of postmodernity, is always the so ludicrous attempt to somehow or other normalize insanity for achieving the reification of human nature against the will of God.

Consequently, the heresy of immanentism, backed by philosophical nominalism, manifestly so resides within the demonic aspiration for achieving Utopia on earth, even when millions of people must be terribly sacrificed on the bloody altar of Moloch (by whatever euphemism). Though unrecognized and, of course, unacknowledged as such, (professional) therapeutic support for PTSD, etc. is, therefore, directly related to this Satanic lust for normalizing insanity for the, thus, cognate degradation of man’s humanity, of course.

Where this architectonic concern for glorified emotionalism and the rather intensive cultivation of sensitivities leads can be perceived right empirically; this is in how the college and university campuses are generously overfilled with too many precious snowflakes, emotionally overcharged and intellectually undereducated students, who wish to overtly manifest symptoms of infantilism.  It is really no joke or exaggeration on how such things as coloring books, which have advanced forth for today’s increasing adult use, and play dough have actually gotten distributed to the young adults who wish to escape the urgent demands of mature adulthood, of course.

It is extremely frightening to consider that most of these oh-so-tender snowflakes, graduating from the elite, Ivy League universities no less, are sincerely being groomed prepped become many of the future major leaders and shakers of America and, by extension, the Western world.  There is no rational doubt, moreover, that PTSD diagnoses will then inevitably be extended, one knows, to these notable hapless idiots, schooled pantywastes and wastrels, who are seen as functionally incapable of reaching any truly meaningful mental adulthood.  Many, of course, have been assigned therapy dogs to sooth their nerves.

And, of course, their highly pathetic protests and enervatively emotive gripes, very childish petulant screaming and obnoxious crying, are simply just expected to be taken both seriously and respectfully. What is needed by them will, unfortunately, never occur: a good, vigorous, and decisive spanking of each and every one of these spoiled-rotten children, most of whom are so certainly children of privilege, taking up academic space, at the Ivy League level.  For this is the way it must be, meaning as long as religion and informative traditional theology remains foreign to the actual realities of the secularized campus.

Since the time, generations ago, when William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote his revealing God and Man at Yale, it is so easily known that conditions there and elsewhere have now definitely become, at a bare minimum, many times worse.   When Buckley wrote it, there was, at least, the semblance of the veneer or façade of some Christianity that could so, perhaps, plausibly claim still a fair linkage to some broadly Christian aspirations, more or less.

Today, the brutal victory of secularism in academia, minus the yet overtly religious institutions that are in the distinct minority, is readily evident beyond the need to supposedly document the too obvious fact asserted confidently here.  Of course, suitable to the bigotry of the enforced conformity to be found, no therapies or counseling sessions are to be found for those assumed miscreants who may object to the secularization.  And, further in this specific context and regard, the suspicion arises naturally as to why there is no PTSD diagnosis to be discovered for those who do suffer the agonies of secular society and culture.

In this case, as G. K. Chesterton might have ironically remarked, they won’t even do them the mere assumed courtesy of sending any of them to the canine therapists. What has now happened to human beings?   Modernity has sought to increasingly anesthetize and cushion mankind from what used to be the basic reality of people normally experiencing the profoundest depths of suffering, shock, and trauma that do define the sad human condition.   It is fundamentally inconceivable, therefore, that, for instance, any of the metromen snowflakes would be eagerly prepared to volunteer themselves for any present or future American wars/foreign conflicts.   (God forbid that any military draft be reinstituted!)

Such tremendous hardships and mind-shattering horrors to be found upon typical battlefields are to be kept far away from these pathetic specimens, precious pansies, who do faint at the mere thought of any severe adversity. People who absolutely cannot tolerate any ideological viewpoints contrary to their own are not likely to willingly endure the much greater and graver impacts of life’s so truly deeper and important traumas, which surely bodes ill for America in particular and the Western world in general.  They are, no doubt at all, the true children of the Therapeutic State.

Reflecting seriously upon such troubling thoughts does not aid, to put matters here rather mildly, in the encouragement of optimism; appropriately contrary judgments, however, would fairly seem much more realistic and, thus, justifiably applicable for proper rational and reasoned consideration.  Academia, in its mainstream reality or plain manifestation, will be usually turning out emotional retardates and psychological misfits basically incapable of any sustained or, perhaps, truly sustainable adult maturation process to be seen in their lives.  And, they are mainly people without any theological training and religious hope for their then degenerate and, typically, meaningless lives.

This should be perceived, furthermore, as being both a societal and cultural horror of a definitely serious magnitude, at the least, with so shuddering implications and abominable ramifications for civilization’s merely basic requisite maintenance as such.  An at least partial generational disaster is now manifestly looming, on the immediate horizon, as millions of these pitifully wretched creatures get themselves poured out of the institutions of the higher learning and, thence, into the larger society.

Not nearly enough kindergarten cribs, coloring books, and nicely soothing toys are yet available to handle their predetermined disappointment with the many annoying and uncomfortable hardships and sufferings of just normal adult life.  Oh, Captain Kangaroo, where are you when we need you?

It is not realized that, contrary to the shallow beliefs of pragmatists, humanists, and positivists, that societal and cultural secularization freely allows for the true weakening of human minds and wills, especially through sinfulness and its operation; for as Chesterton had so sagaciously noted, moreover, once people cease believing in God they are made susceptible to believe in anything, including myth, magic, and superstition galore.

One can come to realize, especially through (orthodox) Roman Catholic theology and its religion, that the epitome of the therapeuticized infantilisation of thought can be vividly seen in the absurd effort to irradiate and extirpate all evil from the world, meaning under the demonic auspices of the secularist Therapeutic State.   But, it is definitionally impossible for, in effect, Satan to make war upon Satan, so this version of social-welfare statism can, in fact, never deliver what it supposedly promises to its many “true believers” and “fellow travelers.”

Admittedly, they would completely deny, however, the truth of this aforementioned assertion as to their ultimate but covert goal behind the demonic spreading of their many superstitions, myths, and vainglorious efforts at magical conjuring through skillful usage of psychotherapeutic terminology.  The Devil, as with, e. g., the legions of therapists allied to the Therapeutic State, always claims to be doing good, for they do mightily resent being questioned as to the positive intentions ever asseverated.


Meanwhile, among the certainly very best that can be somehow or other “magnanimously” done by the seemingly dedicated secularist society is to just keep handing out more and more trained therapy dogs.   And, this is what gets so absurdly and strangely called modern compassion, professional concern, and informed understanding for the nation’s highly honored veterans no less – send them all to the dogs!

The point being that a genuinely good society and a frankly good culture, dedicated forthrightly to the advancement of the sincerely best qualities of humanity, ought to truly do much better and, moreover, as both history and Christianity actually teaches can, in fact, do much better.

By providing the necessary means of spiritual salvation, especially as seen through orthodox Roman Catholicism, Christianity offers the proven and time-tested alternative to the furious fanaticism and mendacious methodologies meanly proffered by the Therapeutic State and its many misdirected minions.  In short, the human condition, as was above noted earlier, cannot ever, in fact, be abolished; and, the assigning of doggy companions, for suffering people, is not the same as seeking the genuine spiritual healing of souls.

One ought to correctly and rightly see, therefore, by all that has been carefully discussed previously, that the ever proverbial road to the Infernal Regions is yet notably paved with supposed benevolent intentions on the part of the secularist-humanist therapists and their (too) many naturally allied legions of supporters and believers.  For truly, one ought to religiously see that only Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not the delusional Therapeutic State.


Athanasius contra mundum!




  2. Ramifications of the greatly perverse thinking of the Therapeutic State can be easily seen, these days, almost everywhere, inclusive of popular culture, of course, as with many contemporary movies. A movie, e. g., entitled The Blind Side ought, if decent truth be told, to have been much better titled: “The Celebration of the Saga of Self-inflicted Pain.”

The Blind Side is a film that is supremely perfect for depicting the stereotype of bleeding-heart, White Liberals seeking to do Christian “missionary work” among the local “heathen” Black people.  It is the poignant true story of a mentally retarded, African-American, high school football player who was so solicitously “redeemed” by a White, upper-class family.  All righteous sympathies are directed, by this film, toward the self-inflicted pain of the depicted drug-addict, unmarried mother of the football player; this is by which his family, meaning dysfunctional, lower-class, family life, gets involved in the entire saga centering on his, no doubt, clearly unfortunate early life.  But, that is not the point in dispute.

Of course, in fairness, there is no denying that actual human suffering and misfortune has been, in fact, definitely involved in this both admittedly horrendous and presented situation. But, the former ghetto resident, the athlete, is redeemed by being made a part of the missionary family, by which there is seen the triumph of hope against tragedy.  But, this is, nonetheless, ultimately all false.  As Léon Bloy rightly said, “There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint.”

The mother had over a dozen children, by a number of indifferent fathers, who left for parts unknown, of which this particular son had been born with mental limitations; it was, however, made a minimal handicap by his having quite substantial athletic prowess to become a remarkable, champion, collegiate football player to his, of course, undeniable credit. This cloying and unctuous cinematic production, however, toward the very end, depicts the telling of the tale of another Black man whose life was cut short, for he had not been as fortunate to have received redemption.

The impression is left with the viewers that if only there existed a much better Welfare State, then these tragedies could be avoided. No thought is given to the rather important fact that it is the Welfare State itself that inherently creates these terrible calamities, by sustaining and enabling a sadly dependent and warped Black subculture, called the inner-city ghetto. Q. E. D.

3.    Admittedly, for instance, mental disorder versus actual demonic possession is to be most carefully discerned by knowledgeable, holy, and skilled priests. Some matters that logically and reasonably point toward there being rather definite mental, physiological, and psychological ailments not amenable to religious help and counseling, even to the extent, when needed, of outright exorcism do, in fact, exist.

The directive discussion in this article covers, however, the vast majority of cases that would be properly assisted toward cures, when the spiritual dimension of human beings, the existence of immortal souls, is both freely and openly acknowledged as being, in fact, true. And, this is precisely what, in point of fact, the mainly predominant thrust, justification, and logic of the Therapeutic State denies, categorically and axiomatically, as to such an asseverated veracity.  Thus, the Therapeutic State must ever be thoroughly denounced and totally rejected in the name of (orthodox) Roman Catholicism.  Why?

The seeming paradox exists of what may be called the cruelty of kindness and the kindness of cruelty. With the exception of the criminally insane, almost no one, these days, really wants to put people into institutions for the mentally ill, mentally disturbed.  It is thought to be much more humane for them to, if necessary, wander the streets endlessly until they are found dead someday due to their own neglect, not that due to any institutional harm being possibly inflicted.

Thus, a maggot-filled corpse found in a public gutter is supposed, one guesses, to be greatly preferable and more humane than having any maggot-filled dead body found inside an institution for the insane or mentally impaired. The latter tends to get the added publicity and concern, heartfelt sympathy, and righteous outrage and allied indignation, the former usually gets, in typical comparison, only the shrug of any occasional shoulder.  Thus, there is the shocking cruelty of kindness and the kindness of cruelty exhibited by human beings toward their fellow (and suffering) creatures.

Nonetheless, an axiomatically anti-institutional bias normally is quite praised for being so very sophisticated, enlightened, humanitarian, concerned, and, of course, entirely humane in its, thus, public or empirical solicitation and supposedly genuine regard for people qua human beings.  But, is it?   Is it really so?  It would be significantly better, on average, for a new Christendom to have as one of its tasks the care of these unfortunate people, for they are still validly among the children of God.


Full Gospel Christianity Isn’t Real

Full Gospel Christianity Isn’t Real: The Roman Catholic Perspective

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

Yes, the four Gospels are from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.   No, the actual entirety of the true fullness of the Gospel, the Good News, goes considerably well beyond just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  How is this to be known?   There is a limitedness, a circumscription, to Holy Scripture, which will be expatiated and elucidated upon, in this article, critically questioning the so-called Reformed Religion.

Moreover, any Sola Fide religion based upon Sola Scriptura can only, by its very restricted nature, offer up a merely partial Gospel that, by definition, can never really be the full Gospel of Christ.  The logic and reasoning to be presented is absolutely impeccable and, as such, irrefutable as to the set definitional reality.  Neither faith nor reason, therefore, should be seen in isolation of each other.

In historical fact, there was the existence of full Christianity, which Catholics can so freely refer to as Catholicism, prior to the official codification of those selected scriptures that, later, became the New Testament. Reason knows this to be a fact.

The Roman Catholic Church, therefore, had helped to create, define, protect, and preserve the Christian Bible, through St. Jerome and other efforts, for many centuries, meaning well prior to the later modern rise of Protestantism. But, the careful exegesis to be given here, however, requires a profundity of both thought and reflection, cognition and discernment, for the better informing of Christian faith.

It is, thus, a consequent and staggering fact that any so-called Reformed Religion presents only a very deformed, reduced, or partial Gospel at best, a weirdly “Christianistic” parody at worst. The full Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is, thus, always far greater than the Bible and existed, in fact, before the New Testament was finally all written down for the future reading of it, which notable point ought to set intelligent Protestants to thinking.

Inadequacy of Mere Scripture Exposed

As a result, e. g., any Protestant denomination billing itself as a “full Gospel Church” is, by definition, just a plain fraud. Only Catholicism contains the fullness of the Gospel, because it is theologically framed within the greater context of Holy Tradition and Holy Magisterium, the full wholeness of Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

For clarification, this brief article is directed toward those who hate Catholicism and, usually, claim it to be unscriptural or antiscriptural, though at each and every Catholic Mass, Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testament, gets freely cited. What is to be here plainly confronted goes by the detested names of bias, bigotry, prejudice, and, if truth be told, much sheer stupidity backed firmly by a tutored ignorance, as St. Thomas More, martyred by the Protestants, would have so surely agreed.

Before the consolidation of Christian writings into suitably readable texts, what had to exist was Church and its ecclesial tradition, inclusive of the always important oral tradition.  With the various ancient Roman persecutions that included the many burnings of these scriptures when found by the authorities, the oral tradition yet ensured that the sacred knowledge would not be ever completely lost.  And, moreover, this is very significant to note.

Prior to the changes of modernity, with its seemingly endless supply of books and other publications and communicational abilities, people were, routinely, expected to have really good or great memories for retaining vast quantities of knowledge.  Memories were valued.

This is clearly why, among other reasons, the Catholic Church properly recognizes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Magisterium, the last being the holy teaching office, authority, and power of Holy Mother Church.  And, one manifestly sees why, logically, that the requisite fullness or completeness of the Gospel does not ever historically exist with nor did simply begin, supposedly, with Protestantism.

In short, the highly important historical reality and substantiveness of Christianity did not just begin in the early 16th century, in Europe, for the much greater the knowledge of Church history gained, the greater, thus, becomes the obvious case for Catholicism and proper acceptance of it.

The direct contrary is, however, evidently true.  Through several centuries, inclusive of many harsh times involving extreme persecution of the faithful and the wide proscription of Christian texts, it was up to the Sacred Tradition and Magisterium to necessarily fill in the created gaps and carry on the missionary proclamation of the totality of the Gospel.  The Bible alone was not enough.  And, more importantly, the vast bulk of Protestants do not intelligently understand or comprehend that any such overconcentration upon the Bible would have then greatly retarded and made much more enormously difficult the wanted spread of Christianity, of Catholicism, the Good News.

Only a fool, therefore, would ever asininely assert that all that Jesus ever did or said is contained in the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not able, being mere human beings, to write down everything actually pertaining to the life on earth of the Christ, of the Savior. Human imperfection so requires that a “Trinitarian” solution be provided for this inherent problem; thus, Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium all do come together and contribute to the larger process of always better ensuring that the truly full and universal Gospel can, hence, be really preached to the entire world.

While it admittedly took the labors of thousands of monks, priests, and scribes throughout the early, intermediate, and later Middle Ages, the composition, writing, of Bibles was only a part of the great effort regarding the needed transmission of Catholicism, generation by generation.   And yet, at best, each Gospel by the four Evangelists is only a kind of attempted synopsis, not any absolute compendium, of all of what Christ communicated to the people of that era or of all the actions that he committed.

It simply would not have been possible to actually record everything.  There is a good reason why, for instance, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are, in fact, referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

The overt witness of St. John, in the last lines of Chapter 21 and closing his Gospel, makes the so surely notable point, “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”   To which, it must be logically said: Amen!

The above citation, rendered by St. John himself remember, is a rather explicit acknowledgement that what exists, in addition, as the New Testament is so woefully incomplete, terribly inadequate, as justly being the right wholeness of the true Gospel message presented to the whole world at large, to all Christians in particular; that most salient fact, moreover, forever invalidates Protestantism’s (false) claim to giving out with a full Gospel, meaning with its then necessarily myopic regard for the Bible only as the (limited) word of God.

In point of obvious fact, the Lord’s word is absolutely unlimited, it must then, by definition, go always beyond the New Testament, beyond the whole Bible; it is seen best fulfilled in the Roman Catholic Church and its confession of the Truth; the Truth being that it is the only Church really founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, which all the Reformed Religion ignorant followers, liars, and hypocrites do, thus, vehemently deny to the peril of their immortal souls’ salvation.

It is a fair certainty, of course, that the Acts of the Apostles simply does not contain all and everything done by all of the Apostles in the time of the early Church. Thus, again, the need for both Tradition and Magisterium to requisitely provide much useful and pertinent coverage for what otherwise might have very well been lacking, in the rather myopic (read: Protestant) provision, for having only Scripture alone.  Of course, whenever Scripture is turned against the Reformed Religionists, then, suddenly do develop an aversion for it because it may not conform to their own highly selective Sola Scriptura prejudices and preferences.

Will they then think it quite so expedient to, in effect, silence the Gospel of St. John for the sake of their heretical beliefs?  After all, it is not historically unprecedented, for it is known that Martin Luther had once preferred to expunge the entire Book of St. James because it did not, in fact, conform to the heterodox Protestant demand for Sola Fide belief as the Reformed Religion’s orthodox.  This supremely proves, once again, how every heresy, with degrees of urgency, seeks to become its own orthodoxy, sooner or later, as one may both independently and easily witness the empirically observed phenomenon of Protestant denominationalism, of the horror of Reformed factionalism.

As Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert from Protestantism, noticed, the more one knows the history of the Church, especially in depth about ancient and medieval times, the more it becomes quite impossible, reasonably untenable, to just absurdly remain a Protestant, for the dramatic logic of becoming a Catholic becomes, then, so greatly compelling.  Getting at the true fullness and magnitude of meaning of the Gospel requires having a historical mindset that duly recognizes the significance and critical nature of having a respect for Tradition and Magisterium, not just a singular overconcentration upon Holy Scripture alone.

Prior to the neat regularization and uniformity that officially descended upon the Church by having, at last, a written presentation of what ended up being the Holy Bible, with both the Old Testament and New Testament, there was only, in fact, the spoken word-of-mouth and the existence of the Church as founded by Christ. Out of empirical and historical necessity, the three main pillars of the Church, of the Faith, became Tradition (God the Father), Scripture (God the Son), and Magisterium (God the Holy Ghost), with all three properly confirming each other and, in addition, none contradicting the other two.

Therefore, the true sum of all three exists as being ever greater than a mere composite structure, where the whole is, indeed, of much more consequence than the mere sum of the individual parts, for the full Godhead, explicitly, witnesses to the important truth known as the Trinitarian Dogma.  What had truly happened was due to the rampant nominalism of Protestantism with its vilely inherent reductionism, which produced an endless number of sects, sub-sects, and cults apparently without an end, which is a scandal of Christianity, as well as of just basic logic itself.

The Gospel, as to the true fullness of the Gospel message, got reduced or limited to the Holy Scriptures and variegated interpretations that all could not be consistent but had to, sooner or later, conflict. This necessarily points directly to the ever expanding denominationalism of Protestantism, for heresy itself is fruitful of ever more heresies, as error spawns further errors.

The completion of the Gospel concerns how it has been properly supplemented by Church Tradition and Church Magisterium; this is why all of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, etc. can only yield a partial Gospel or sense thereof, not the entirety, the wholeness, of the Gospel truth. One can come to the practical realization that, for instance, the Lutheran Church was, actually, founded by Martin Luther, of course, not by Jesus Christ.  The same can be exactly said for Calvinism, etc.

All these different denominations had, in fact, various different founders, though all impossibly claim to be the one true Church of Christ, which is simply illogical at best, scandalous at worst.

But, regardless of all these false claimants, there is still only the one Roman Catholic Church that has physical proof (St. Peter’s bones, etc.) in Rome, theological justification (the Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome, etc.) and tremendously much else besides to vindicate the truth, the Catholic truth.  The 11th century schism of the Greek Orthodox Church does not at all lessen the claim to absolute validity, since it took the obvious prior existence of Rome for there being something to, thus, break away from in the first place.

The Petrine Doctrine, the Rock of St. Peter, remains fully with Catholicism, not otherwise. For if it were otherwise, then Jesus Christ was just a mere churlish and contemptuous liar, which, obviously, HE is not, in His being the Son of God no less.

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Jesus said nothing about multiple churches (the scandal of Protestantism) founded upon multiple rocks or even pebbles for that matter, though all Protestants, willfully, do still insist otherwise, contrary directly to Holy Scripture no less.  Of course, they often go through incredible feats of odd biblical exegeses that torture logic so violently, to sophistically deny the very Primacy of St. Peter, as to make even a hardened Jesuit blush at the “Jesuitical reasoning,” so quite amazingly applied – one guesses it – by tendentious Protestant apologists.

Innumerable converts from Protestantism, over many centuries, including St. Edmund Campion, John Dryden, Orestes A. Brownson, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mother Mary Alphonsa, G. K. Chesterton, Msgr. Ronald Knox, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, Malcolm Muggeridge, Mortimer J. Adler, St. Edith Stein, etc., among many others, had freely recognized the truth and then totally agreed with it; the logic, reasoning, and rationality of the Catholic faith have, moreover, been overwhelming in their impact upon unprejudiced minds.

Nonetheless, the holy words of Jesus must be ever sincerely repeated to Protestants and all others who wrongfully and bigotedly continue to reject and deny the Truth of the full Gospel: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church.” Against each and every Reformed Religion lie this ought to be, must be ever, fearlessly and endlessly reiterated for upholding Holy Scripture, if for no other reason.  Furthermore, the sanctity of biblical truth must, then, be defended against Protestantism and all of its errors because Christ is not a liar.

The Protestant, thus, openly defames, slanders and denigrates Jesus.  If the Rock is, in fact, not the Big Fisherman, then all the other holy words in the New Testament can be also questioned and doubted, by asserting the validity of a single lie, supposedly uttered by the Savior.  This is not rationally tenable.

The Reformed Religion followers commit the old “onion fallacy” of trying to vigorously strip away, as the Puritans had claimed to radically purify Christianity, by supposedly then getting at the real onion.  The ridiculous claim is that if only all the excesses, excrescences, appendages, or such other alleged things are simply removed for, thus, attaining religious or theological purity, then there will be seen a pristine Christianity revealed in a heavenly new light.  Such attempted or asserted perfectionism, however, is not of this world filled with fallen (sinful) creatures in a fallen world.

Such utter nonsense pouring forth by revolutionary doctrines attacking the Body and Blood of Christ is an obscenity before God and His Holy Church. They repudiate the Papacy, the history of the Church, if or when it includes Catholicism; and needed veneration (not worship) of the Blessed Virgin Mary; often times, the panoply of saints, Purgatory, all, most, or some sacraments, etc. But, this ardent stripping away of all or most things Catholic is, of course, the same kind of bold reductionism and radicalism analogously seen in Liberalism and Leftism.

Revolutionism is political-ideological Protestantism, for both these quite virulent aspects of modernity triumphant do, thus, attain the fundamental essence of the revolt set against proper order, hierarchy, authority, tradition, custom, and, ultimately, upon undergoing a clear and cogent analysis, God Himself.

As there are degrees of reductionism to be found, so, also, there are many degrees of Protestantism or, perhaps, more appropriate to speak of a Protestantization being involved; this ranges, of course, all the way from High Church Anglicanism through Methodism to Puritanism and onward toward Unitarianism, Universalism, and Quakerism, all along the further and further radicalization spectrum of the well noted reductionism concerned with such nonsense.

They piously refuse to recognize the logical truth that the entire onion, not any absurdly stripped down version thereof, is the full object and aspect of any truly good Christian’s desire and devotion, namely, the Roman Catholic Church.

But, Protestants, being ingrained in their hypocrisy, deny the manifest literalness of what was said and is meant, while, in contradistinction, often affirming that literalness is demanded of the Bible, especially in those places of their own choosing, of course. And, as ever, it is publicly so known that a multiplicity of Reformed Religion believers, with their religious revolutionary notions, can certainly cite a multiplicity of interpretations of Holy Scripture, at their merely beckoned command.

What an objective person would clearly recognize as subjectivism and relativism at work, however, gets usually denominated as inspired Christian interpretation or, perhaps, an exegesis done “in the spirit.”

However, Catholics must righteously defend the unadulterated Word of God that ought never to be made vilely subject to the idolatry, though usually covert, of a convenient tergiversation to so better uphold Protestant apologetics because of its inherent nominalism. One can understand, by now, that only Catholicism, because it fully witnesses to the aforementioned and demonstrated reality of the Holy Scriptures, contains the blessedness and fullness of the Gospel, of the truthful message of the salvation of souls in, by, and through Christ the Lord.

Someday, it may be hoped that millions of Protestants will cease to be idolaters; for it is no wonder that, e. g., the Puritans had greatly idolized the Hebrews who, as to the Jewish descendants, had fully rejected Jesus as the Christ; the Hebraicism of the Puritans should, thus, be obvious in their concentration upon the Bible. They too wanted to be a people of the Book, as in the City on a Hill.

As with all “Reformed Religion,” in general, these believers have made the worship, their devotion to Biblicism, greater than God, which is, by definition, idolatry.  Equally, the reductionism involved in Protestant thought is too often simply unrecognized because of the nominalism so naturally and pragmatically inherent within Protestantism, within heresy.

To truly be a genuine Protestant is, therefore, to be an actual idolater, for there is no middle ground, as with the pompous Anglicans, thinking of themselves as the via media. As the Lord God rightly detests idolatry, so He must, logically and completely, also abhor and definitely then reject all of Protestantism, which ought to be so manifestly obvious, meaning as to the authentic truth, the full Gospel, of what can be actually known as such.  The situation that exists is simply not wrong; it is entirely ludicrous.

A so-called Bible-centered “Christianity” must, necessarily, become obsessively fixated upon a clearly myopic theology that must, in its turn, strenuously seek to self-justify itself by, thus, reducing all to the Sola Fide requirement incestuously demanded by the Sola Scriptura (supposed) mandate.  Heterodoxy, unsurprisingly, has easily found fertile ground, for when the only primary tool (the Bible) exists as the hammer of God, all the other objects then begin to look like nails.  As Richard Weaver correctly pointed out long ago, therefore, ideas do have consequences.

Because of Reformed Religion’s integral reductionism, its attendant nominalism cannot really tolerate any genuine orthodoxy within the radical theology and, as a so direct logical consequence, the many resultant religions, all of them, piously or routinely, are claiming the overtly presented purity of being Christianity. Fallacies do build upon fallacies when the logic gets corrupted to serve a highly flawed kind of reasoning, which, of course, gets called Protestantism and in all of its many variations thereof.   It lacks, by definition, the Catholic fullness of combining Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and Holy Magisterium, kept all together.

What is, therefore, the here absolutely inherent problem in successfully practicing a cogent logic and reasoning?   The many reformed religionists must be able, in effect, to (supposedly) believe something and its very opposite to be true at one and the same time, same instant.  But, to all such rather blatant nonsense, Catholics would rationally have to say to all these sorrowfully deluded Protestants: Get real! 1

The Protestant Revolution, called the Reformation, helped to vilely destroy the only historically real time of the existence of and true meaning of ecumenism when there once existed, in the Medieval Era, the ecumenical reality of Christendom. This is no insignificant fact.  It was not, of course, any perfection on earth, it was, however, a true Catholic community of interest, a koinos kosmos (the sense of a shared humanity of culture).

The enormous lack of there being Christendom, let there be no rational doubt, led to many aggressive nationalisms, the rapacity of State Capitalism, formation of atheistic ideologies, both World War I and World War II, the rise of a belligerent secularist modernity, and the pandemic Culture of Death.

Moreover, the horrid and definite stepchild of Protestant culture became Liberalism with the ongoing advancement of the spreading secularization that, logically, had accompanied the Protestantization of most of Western civilization. Pragmatism, positivism, relativism, materialism, and hedonism advanced under fabulously shining and bright banners wildly proclaiming freedom and liberation from the past, meaning, of course, deliverance from the Roman Catholic Church.  A revolutionary spirit, iconoclastic to its core, was violently let loose upon the world that wished to uproot and destroy the existing order.

The Protestant Revolution led to the murders of millions of human beings; the French, Soviet, Chinese, and other Leftist revolutions had consumed well over 100,000,000 lives and still counting, with Cuba, Venezuela, and elsewhere still forwarding the evil Communist agenda of endless hate, bloodshed, and malice.

The above noted absence of Christendom, of a Roman Catholic ecumenical world-society, is not merely solely unfortunate or, as often denounced, just simply nostalgic for medievalism; it is absolutely tragic, beyond any question, in its surely monumental meaning and solid significance, beyond mere human imagination, which is, really, only a most minimal statement of fact.  The unfortunately permanent dividing of the former Christian commonwealth into fractious and still multiplying denominations has greatly helped to spread immorality, relativism, and hedonism leading, first, to nihilism and, finally, insanity itself set well into the 21st century.

Rationalization and Streamlining of Religion

When one fully appreciates the amount of blood spilled, in just the past 20th century alone, the total lack of any real ecumenism that would have had the force of Christendom reveals the profound depth of the errors of Protestantism in its always vain quest for the absolute supremacy of Sola Scriptura.   Ideas have consequences.

Vile attacks upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Protestants, has not helped the situation.2   Moreover, the scandalous existence, the ongoing denominationalist obsession, of the terrible Protestant worldview, its horrid Zeitgeist, has had its results, its demonic favoring of an anti-Christendom attitude that had surely encouraged secularization.

The “Bible or burn” approach to human reality, world-historical reality, has had its many so massively shocking and lamentable costs, which could not be, in fact, religiously compatible with the theological message of the Christian peace favored by Gospel truth.   Until all Protestants realize this rather obvious verity, there can be no real and actually substantive and substantial ecumenism anywhere on this face of this sad earth, for it would mean the needed and requisite affirmation for and righteous recognition of a new Christendom in the world.

And, the ugly and abominable heresy of Sola Fide would be, therefore, utterly rejected as a terrible lie, a reprehensible falsehood, truly offensive to the Lord God Almighty because such a limited Gospel, the Reformed Religion, is not Christian nor exemplary of any genuine Christianity.  For if it were Christian, it would not seek to offend the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by denying transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith.  Q. E. D.

For the Morning Star of the Reformation, Martin Luther, with his vilely barbaric contempt for human reason, totally rejected one of the brilliant fundamental elements of advanced Western civilization by his spurning of Hellenization and its validity; even Desiderius Erasmus, among the main leaders of the New Learning as it was called, had been able to easily recognize a confirmed barbarian when he saw one.

This bold attack upon all rationality, which ought not to be confused with the ideology of Rationalism, twisted and deformed most of Western reasoning, cognition, for centuries thereafter; it lead to the two truths theory’s revival on a massive scale by which, e. g., science was held to be in conflict with faith, which is not true at all. As St. Thomas Aquinas and others had properly taught, truth does not contradict or conflict with truth, for the ultimate Truth, by definition, is God.

Protestantism had, thus, let loose fits of irrationality that, in turn, supported emotionalism as a means of substituting it for proper reason in religion.  On this matter, one can read Fr. Ronald Knox’s rather instructive book entitled: Enthusiasm.

Indicatively, the need for explicitness and the attempt at the demystification of religion by a reformed theology opened the flood gates for Rationalism, not the advancement of a reasoned religion, which already existed with Catholicism anyway.   The objective of the need to rationalize faith produces not an improved religion but, rather, the kind of rationalization that corrupts faiths with necessarily cognate efforts at applying various degrees and kinds of reductionisms within religious beliefs.

One leaves behind Catholic transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist to go to many varying degrees of Protestant consubstantiation that gradually, as the theological radicalization process continues, leads to merely more and vaguer kinds of supposed symbolizations of meaning. These assumed symbolizations, in their “logical” turn, do become then too symbolic as to be, in fact, worthless for both intent and meaning, which ought not to be that too surprising, given the vapid and ugly premises of the overall rationalization of religion desired.

Over the centuries, as Protestantization has had time to work its many wonders, rationalist beliefs tended to cover an increasing spectrum of feelings and spirituality all claiming, more or less, to be Christian in either origin or inspiration, as is conveniently alleged.  This rationalization and streamlining of religion, versus what used to be denounced or dismissed as just mere Papist nonsense or mystical priestcraft becoming bizarre, is often not recognized as a direct threat against any attempt to bring about a new Christendom.

Rationalism and explicitness in cognition, being the result of the reducing of Protestantism into secular terms of reference, gave birth to social, cultural, and political Liberalism as with, first, the creation of classical Liberalism with it individualism and, then, modern Liberalism with its collectivism; being two sides of the same coin of modernity.  Unsurprisingly, whether classical or modern in orientation, a real (secularist) Liberal is, in effect, an inverted Protestant, a thoroughly secularized kind of Puritan.  And, this observation has been made by many Catholics and non-Catholics over many generations by now.

The dissolution of religion, therefore, became increasingly inevitable as the inherent principles of the Reformed Religion got themselves rationalized further toward the secularization of thought and life, cognizance and lived culture.

An absurd presumption found to be truly fallacious is that this lead toward a more rational and reasoned world totally (or nearly so) freed from past ancient or musty medieval (read: Roman Catholic) concerns for superstition, myth, and magic. On the contrary, both the features of modernity and postmodernity became greatly absorbed with these terrible errors of reasoning.   When true religion, the Catholic Faith, was violently kicked out the front door in the (false) name of liberation, then corrupted metaphysics was variously smuggled in through the back entrance.3

Because, ultimately, of Original Sin and human sinfulness in general, the highly mendacious promise of rationalization and its rationality is as old as the promise of the Devil in the Garden of Eden made to Adam and Eve.  Human beings, when guided by Rationalism, are not made into true earthly gods, they merely become less human, meaning less humane, and act more beastly by becoming mortal predators set against their fellow mortal beings.

Thus, for instance, the French Revolution of 1789, so loudly proclaiming its liberté, égalité, fraternité, produced instead, as to the latest estimates, about a million dead bodies and allied wicked bloodshed galore, in the “glorious” name of the Enlightenment no less.  Napoleon, in his many wars of needless conquest and with his demonic personal ambition, added at least 5,000,000 more to the total, as to the fuller price to be paid.

Yes, once again, ideas do have consequences, which can include what gets called the law of unintended consequences, as when Luther’s preaching had stirred up the Peasants War, for which he publicly urged the Protestant Princes to suppress the peasants as brutally as possible.

It has been, furthermore, observed that it is historically rare for great heresies not to provoke bloodshed in their social, cultural, and political course through societies.  Protestantism, thus, surely bears the true Mark of Cain from its ugly birth, through the massive carnage, mayhem, havoc, slaughter, and butchery provoked, by its truly revolutionary spirit and intensity.

In the quest for fairness, could all or most of the so-called Reformers foresee what the rationalization and streamlining of Christian religion would then necessarily lead to?   Certainly not.  They believed, most of them, that they had many good intentions and appropriately moral aims, of course.

However, the path toward the Infernal Regions is paved with presumably many nice goals in mind; they just neglected to properly consider the effects of Original Sin and its horrid results among human beings, not creatures of a New Eden.  The Reformed Religion was, without any doubt, tainted at its very birth with too much unexamined utopianism and various elements of millennialism, mixed oddly into a potent brew, which made spiritual drunkards of those who wrongly thought themselves to be rather quite sober Christians.

The religious radicalization process, in addition, opened the terrible door to degrees of immanentism, under different guises and names, as denominationalism ignorantly spread and spread forth mightily across Western and Eastern Europe and, ultimately, the world at large.

Of course, these days, with a heretical Pope Francis, being publicly questioned about his faith by no less prominent ecclesial personages than Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, trying to get people, especially non-Catholics, interested in matters contained in this article has become much more difficult.   Nonetheless, this ardent defense of the Catholic Faith, made against errant Biblicism or the entirety of Sola Scriptura fanaticism, must still be requisitely made; and, moreover, this is whether or not the world is largely indifferent because, let it be known, God is not indifferent to the Truth, for the Truth is, in fact, synonymous with God.

It is an open affirmation of the metaphysical order of reality and, furthermore, its spiritual rightness and holy righteousness, as well as the proclamation of Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, forever and ever.  Thus, the Holy Father’s recent theologically and religiously horrid co-celebration of Lutheranism, of the asserted Reformation, with the Lutherans should be logically seen as having been completely inapplicable to and absolutely incommensurate with Catholicism and its important reality as to orthodox faith versus any forms of heterodoxy, i. e., Protestantism.  Q. E. D.


With all the above argumentation kept cogently in mind, it becomes simply apparent that although Catholicism, for over 2,000 years has had a sensus Catholicus, no such equivalent religious claim, by definition, could be ever made by Protestantism with its odd multiplicity of conflicting denominations.  Hence, upon critical and open examination, an orthodox Calvinism or orthodox Lutheranism would, therefore, be an oxymoron, as would be any supposed claims to a Protestant orthodoxy, since it would be a mere intellectual solecism, indeed.

One could, e. g., speak of mainstream Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc., of course, versus other variants, but theological orthodoxy means much more than specified denominationalism.

What gets even more so epistemologically odd is to hear of any Reformed Lutheranism, Reformed Baptist, Reformed Calvinist, etc. sects. Protestantism, in fact, had claimed to be itself the Reformed Religion.  To paradoxically discuss either such a thing as orthodoxy within the heresy of, for instance, Lutheranism or the nature of a Reformed Baptist religion ought to give one pause, as to the set inherent contradictions involved in confusing and conflating such matters.

The typical Lutheran today, moreover, has shifted so far to the ideological Left such that he would be, of course, rather quite shocked by the (relatively) conservative views of Martin Luther himself.

But, (an orthodox) Roman Catholic can, e. g., assent to the Nicene Creed as could any (orthodox) Roman Catholic more than a thousand years ago because there is the sensus Catholicus being fully present in the agreement with the declarations of the Nicene Creed.  Assemble, say, perhaps some several dozen Calvinists, Methodists, Unitarians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians in a room, and it will be so certain that no absolute Protestant consensus dogma could be found by which all or the majority would agree with it.  Moreover, any such possibly theoretical “agreement” would be anti-Protestant in nature.

The obvious theological individualism of Protestantism, which parallels the individualism of what gets called classical Liberalism, comes to be seen and, more to the point, provides empirical proof of the lack of any so-called Reformed Religion orthodoxy.   In manifest contrast, all traditionalist, non-Novus Ordo Catholics can, however, concur completely with the fundamental assertion of orthodox Catholic beliefs as to the appropriate theological sensus fide, also, appearing in the Apostles’ Creed.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

None of this is a small matter, for such a creed acts as the affirmation of Gospel truth, the distillation, so to speak, of the substance of what the belief in the Good News is really all about, as to proper faith in Jesus Christ, meaning, thus, all that that means.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1.    The quite horrid results of all this amassed reductionism, illogic, and idolatry of Protestantism have created painful and sorrowful results beyond measure. An important example can be pointed given.

The author of this article personally knows someone who refuses to get baptized because one of his beloved and respected grandmothers told him that he was a Christian by faith and never, therefore, needs to be baptized. Since he has been told otherwise, he cannot claim being sent to Hell out of an “invincible ignorance” because he sought, of his own free will, to always deliberately remain ignorant and defiant, consciously oblivious and utterly recalcitrant.

This man is, certainly, on his way toward damnation, not salvation, if he stubbornly remains unbaptized, for even, e.g., Jesus freely submitted Himself to the Baptism given him by St. John the Baptist. Such is surely among the harshly bitter fruits of Reformed Religion that a mere sinner thinks himself better than Jesus Christ concerning this particular important matter.  Of course, he would totally deny such a characterization, but the noted facts are the facts, nonetheless.  His inordinately vapid and obnoxiously obstreperous sense of pious Protestantism, or the so wild interpretation or misinterpretation thereof, demands that he goes to Hell rather than to ever so meekly submit himself to God through Baptism.

2. In the break from the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestants felt the need to, increasingly, distance themselves from the Holy Mother of God, who they absurdly misinterpreted as being worshipped by the Catholics or as being equal to God. The disparagement and slanders, moreover, placed contemptuously against the Blessed Virgin Mary, being that She is, without question, the honored Holy Mother of Jesus the Christ, Theotokos (God-bearer), cannot really be that pleasing to the Son of God.

How either routinely ignoring, ignorantly neglecting, studiously minimizing, or just plainly spitting up Her holy memory is, thus, supposed to be really honoring Jesus all the more is, at a bare minimum, truly one heck of a thing to strangely rationalize on the part of the haughty Reformed Religion. It is, also, another of those paralleling Hebraic aspects of Protestantism (seen more clearly in Puritanism) that, more or less, disrespects the idea of the Immaculate Conception, for an incarnational theology and religion is rejected explicitly by Judaism.

Through the logic presented, one can come to correctly perceive and affirm that Protestantism is, thus, a highly retrogressive theological misconstruction and sadly cognitive deformation of the very nature of Christianity itself!

The dishonorable rejection of Mariolatry, on the part of the heretics, always supremely illustrates the fundamental nature of all such heresy that immorally negates what God directly proposes, in this case the deliberate choosing of a human vessel for the spiritually important effort to help man achieve salvation.  Holy Mary as the true Theotokos is surely the Mediatrix of all Graces.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.


The Roman Catholic Love of God versus Indifferent Gods

The Roman Catholic Love of God versus Indifferent Gods: Different Comprehensions of the Deity

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

We have recognized for ourselves, and put our faith in, the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.” – St. John the Evangelist, Gospel

“God’s love for us is not greater in Heaven than it is now.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibets

It will be contended that Roman Catholicism has to the one and only logically and rationally correct comprehension of the Deity. Thousands of different religions, beliefs, faiths, cults, superstitions, etc. have, as is publicly known, widely different and many varying conceptions of the metaphysical order.

The right kind of acknowledgement of the Supreme Being, the Lord God Almighty, makes Catholicism totally unique as both a theology and cognate religion; it is a radically different religion that is staunchly antipagan to the core. For every theology develops, for better or worse, its own religious culture.1

However, before getting directly to the topic of this article, much speculative and definitional debris must be swept away, in a requisitely heuristic manner; this is for yielding a then heightened sense of substantive clarification, of right expiation, for gaining critical knowledge of what is precisely meant.

Since all polytheisms or pagan beliefs are to be axiomatically excluded because, e. g., Aristotle’s Natural Theology had dispensed with such considerations thousands of years ago, even centuries before Jesus Christ was born on earth. This pagan Aristotle had been able to clearly reason his way toward the so important knowledge that there must necessarily be, in fact, only one true God.

Therefore, refutations of polytheism given here would be just very ridiculously redundant; it would be a total waste of time, print, and effort to, in effect, “reinvent the wheel” for any cognizant or intelligent readers.  The very significant lapse of Roman Catholic catechesis, in America and the western world in general, duly makes this exercise seemingly mandatory to explain the absolute inadequacy of all non-Catholic belief systems still existent today.   What used to be thought quite simply obvious must now be painstakingly brought forth to new generations being fundamentally ignorant of classical Natural Law teachings, the main rudiments of Natural Theology and, of course, the high points of Catholic theology.

Why Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam are All False Religions

Critically speaking, there are only four possible contenders, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam as to an offered monotheism.   Why stating four and not the supposedly traditional three faiths?   Something sensible needs to be affirmed.

There is, actually, no such supposed religion as “Christianity” because such a general knowledge or sense of faith includes covering all of Catholicism, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and variations, and, also, a seemingly endless variety and extensive number of what could be called “Protestantisms” all composing, regularly and irregularly, what gets just generally denominated as being a broadly applied Christianity. But, not all monotheisms are really ever the same thing in the end, for syncretism is ever a heresy, not an assumed greater wisdom of the world.

The next critical consideration as strict analysis of theological and doctrinal credibility concerns purity of the faith. Taking the last consideration first, Islam, under examination, is an amalgam or hodgepodge of ancient tribalistic beliefs and superstitions, Moon worship, selected parts of Judaism, clipped parts of Christianity, some superficial Hellenism, and other rather odd bits and pieces of beliefs covering, in addition, many magical and fantastic genies and jinni; all of which, if ever put on truly neutral display, should embarrass any really thinking and honest Muslim.

It is, when seen objectively, a primitive and heterogeneous belief system good only for primitive minds or for those merely seeking relatively simple attitudes toward a jumbled belief in some diverse type of or, perhaps, sort of a God. Many Natural Law teachings have been corrupted by Islam’s nominalism in its theology, for different comprehensions of the Deity necessarily produce different kinds of religions.

The religious culture created by such a wild fusion of ideas and impulses has directionally created an agitated religious orientation greatly adverse, at a minimum, to Western civilization itself, with most fundamentalists of the creed, if requisite truth be told, longing to return nostalgically to the 7th century.  What is easily observed, especially with the ultraviolent Islamic State, is a retrograde religion tolerant of much savagery and barbarism galore in hot praise of its bloodthirsty Allah and Prophet Muhammad; such a “religious” genuineness is, nonetheless, truly exemplary of Islam and its quite demonic reality seen through the ages.  And, there are real-world consequences.

It is the most inferior and questionable kind of inadequate monotheism yet imaginable. Hilaire Belloc, though a Catholic writer, did Islam the high “courtesy” of at least calling it a Christian heresy, though that assertion is still highly debatable.  At a minimum, no rational and logical mind should accept the absurd religion of Muhammad, especially considering its rather strange militant origins and incredibly slapdash composition as to unfortunate beliefs.

In short, nevertheless, no serious intellect should bother taking Islam seriously or ever deserving of any respect as to the monotheistic test of validity merely because of its long history of brutal and brutalizing converting of peoples. It was and remains a “religion of the sword” that to this day practices slavery, concubinage, oppression, and much else still indicative of its strong affinity for barbarism, paganism, ruthlessness, and heathenism.  Truly ignorant Westerners, such as Victor Davis Hanson, a Protestant (of course), think that Islam can be helped by its having an experience of Reformation, not knowing that Islam fully thinks of itself as being, in fact, the absolutely verified reform of all religion on earth.

At first glance, Judaism, of course, would easily seem more than just superficially to be a yet genuinely prime candidate among monotheistic beliefs. Not so.  During the literally thousands of years that the Hebrews had spent both living among and near many pagan tribes and empires, they had an extremely hard time preserving the purity of their beliefs and that approximately 400 years of captivity in Egypt did not really help, (along with Aaron working on that Golden Calf, at the foot of Mt Sinai no less).

For instance, at one time Yahweh was thought of as only a regional Deity, as when David, finding himself outside the Holy Land, lamented that he was, thus, unable to worship the Lord because of this situation. Judaism is still, moreover, wrestling with its diluted paganism today and, in addition, certain Natural Law proscriptions have been intellectually ruined by Judaism.

If there be any doubt, one can go freely read Torah or what the Christians call the Old Testament for more than ample documentation and affirmation of this very confidently asseverated truth, which is more than just obvious.  Among other many integral defects that forever detract severely from the purity of their religion concerns their rather settled incorporation of the eminently pagan quid pro quo attitude, as could be found, e. g., among the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Paganism posits a functionalistic and operational kind of religion or religious belief with its theology suitably inclined either formally or informally, directly or indirectly, toward the noted quid pro quo understanding held between the believers and their gods.  Judaism has never repudiated this approach that keeps it oriented more toward paganism than its believers would ever care to admit.  It is behind all the past and ongoing rejection of Jesus Christ to this very day.

Because the Messiah did not come as a glorious, fighting, tribalist war-god to utterly best the Romans at their own game of power on earth, the Son of Man was, of course, completely rejected as just being plainly inadequate; this rejection aligned perfectly with Hebraic sensibility as to its reductionistic pagan orientation, meaning that the natural order is reduced to being just an extension of metaphysical order.

For thousands of years, the Jewish people have refused to properly understand that the God of Israel, seen by Christians as God the Father, gives to them what they do need, not what they hubristically, so pridefully, think they do deserve as the Chosen People. The Jewish people, as if through some sort of religious-cultural osmosis, absorbed a definite kind of paganistic pride from the past tribal peoples that they had encountered in their many wanderings.  Judaism, consequently, still retains these theological and religious impurities that prevent any progress toward ever acknowledging the truths of Christianity.

This has given the Jewish people a seriously defective theology and, thus, inherently flawed religion as a direct result, for the option of Christianity remains unthinkable and reprehensible because of that willful pride supported firmly by the unshakeable and aforementioned quid pro quo attitude.  The nature of paganism involves itself in this bargaining aspect with its interactions with Deity; Abraham, who saw this practice among the heathen tribes surrounding his people, had actually tried it with Yahweh who, at last, just settled for ten morally righteous men in Sodom (who, alas, could not be found).

Protestantism, in its now various multiplicitous and miscellaneous varieties of sects, sub-sects, and cults, exists as a defective assortment of beliefs, as only inferior or mighty impure “Catholicisms” at best and a hopeless and endlessly variegated miscellany of sectarian-oriented opinions at worst. The Protestant Revolution, which is still an ongoing but tiny minor force today as easily compared to the initial revolt, has, also, tended to seek paganistic reductionisms within its own belief structures and attitudes.

This is easily seen whenever, e. g., Evangelicals, unable to correctly perceive the actual truth, denounce Catholicism for its supposed paganism, while also not recognizing how Natural Law considerations have been deformed by Protestantism. One can properly read about this is E. B. F. Midgley’s The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations or Heinrich A. Rommen’s The Natural Law.

Protestant religious culture can, indicatively, be heard in its plaintive pietistic hymns; Catholicism is at home, in contradistinction, with lyrical baroque fugues or Gregorian chants; the two cultures are, thus, entirely incommensurate, disproportional, just organizationally uncomplementary, and not really ever compatible as such. A true Protestant world must, by definition, be inherently adverse to any actually Catholic one; and, it could not be, logically speaking, otherwise due to opposed theologies.

The theological and doctrinal purity standard, once again, meets a sustained failure and yet, moreover, embraces it quite steadily within the nominalist philosophical bounds of Protestantism. And, the ever tremendous philosophical problem of persistent nominalism in belief can be perceived as well in both Judaism and Islam, of course.  And, forever set truthfully contrary to the heretic Pope Francis, Islam and Christianity definitely, and Catholicism in particular, do not ever worship the same God.  This is the old heresy, by now, of syncretism that is encouraged openly by the evil Holy Pontiff himself.  But, let the main discussion still go back to the unfortunately deformed or warped Christianity of the Protestants.

The Hebraicism to be found in Puritanism, moreover, splendidly illustrates the reality of how paganism has become engrafted, so weightily, within the basic Protestant creed, though Christianity itself, as is often said, need not be just dismissed as “merely the universalizing of Judaism.”   The colonial Puritans of New England, which point can be researched independently, were so greatly fascinated by Judaism as to their expressing the public desire that Hebrew be so adopted as the new language of an independent America.  In fact, a great deal of their Puritan theology, unsurprisingly, was Old Testament oriented.

Lutheranism, furthermore, willingly adopted the largely paganistic, fatalistic attitude overtly found in Martin Luther’s bold irrational denial of the rational existence of free will. It was an odd christening of a retrograde pagan fatalism, placed under a pseudo-Christian disguise by Luther, to give it an updated but yet false credibility.  Thus, Catholics should pray for the Pope’s soul, concerning this co-celebration of Lutheranism, that he the avoid believing in such heretical beliefs as supposedly being merely variants of Catholicism, which is, of course, just absolutely untrue.

No doubt the so-called Reformation let loose upon the world various forms and types of paganism or, more properly, neopaganism, as was true, e. g., of the 16th century Millenarian Anabaptists who took over Münster, Germany, along with their encouragements of sexual license (rape).

Calvinism, as another example, exemplifies readily the quid pro quo mentality, again, by stressing how God’s favor gets empirically indicated by how wealthy a man becomes, thus, so surely “proving” God’s anointment of him.  And, the world is still suffering from the evil consequences of the Reformation or Reformed Religion.  One comes fairly to perceive manifestly, upon both doing an intelligent analysis and objective investigation, how much paganism has, indeed, gotten retained in all of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, without any rational or reasonable doubt whatsoever, as to the truth of this assertion.

What needs to be properly understood is that these religions represent different but still quite highly complementary sorts of comprehension of the Supreme Being, with Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism having really much more in common than is popularly realized; Catholicism and its form of spirituality, in contrast, has a much more distinct and dissimilar comprehension of the nature of God, especially when compared to those other monotheistic faiths oriented toward naturalism (materiality).

In contradistinction, Catholicism, the truly needed fight for the salvation of souls, possesses a radically different theology, as G. K. Chesterton came to realize.   And, it takes much greater courage than ever to say this bold and liberating truth in a very heavily PC-dominated society and culture gone insane with, e. g., well over 300 genders – and still counting, though no doubt the combative Chesterton would have had a certainly glorious field day tearing to bits all or any multi-gender reams of absurd propaganda.

Spirituality as aimed toward religion with concern for proper theology ought to replace considerations favoring materiality, even, e. g., to the avoiding of having a hording mentality such as the sad need to accumulate objects, inclusive of such inconsequential things as books, as an example. Centuries ago, admittedly, they were relatively precious objects due alone, if for no other reason, to their simple scarcity.  Today, for too many people, they have become “burdens” of materiality that do hinder the development and needed progress toward spirituality, which, for Catholics, so means the desire for attaining holiness to lead truly spiritual lives.

The things of this earth are to be, in effect, held in complete contempt, including such things as books, compared to the requisite desire for God and the eternal life in Heaven, meaning the salvation of one’s immortal soul, not, e. g., the amassment of a great library for ego satisfaction. There are, in fact, people wrongly obsessed with possessing texts, tomes, and volumes.   Books, as with all such worldly objects, however, should only act as mere limited means, not ever ends in themselves, which, e. g., even such a dedicated bibliophile as Mortimer J. Adler would, in the end, have rationally agreed.

This passing world, moreover, when put into the blazing light of eternity is as nothing, for Christ is ever everything. In the end, whatever any Christians may have, do, or realize, in their entire lives, must then unquestionably be rightly oriented always toward Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.   Catholics are to willingly seek the true light of Christ in their lives.  Thus, any and all pagan or materialistic obsessions or excessive preoccupations, inclusive of any bibliomania, are to be always properly reviled and freely rejected for gaining better the needed love of God, spouses, family members, and neighbors.

What needs to be said?   Various forms ad degrees of paganism and modernist neopaganism inclusive prefer, to whatever extent, an indifferent God for different but, ultimately, related reasons.  People seek an easier way by blindly following age-old traditions as if symbolism and ritualism will magically yield the only path to salvation as with, e. g., Judaism, or linking their spiritual lives Hebraically to a book, as with Islam’s Koran or Protestantism’s Bible, notably or, perhaps, usually the King James’ version thereof.

But, that which needs to be rightly understood is that the true God is always an inconvenient Deity who really does not want human beings to “hide” themselves in any mere book, whether Torah, Koran, or Bible.   This retreat or regression to a wrongful form of religious primitivism, though still unfortunately unrecognized as such, is unworthy of any of those who profess a truly monotheist faith.  In contrast, practicing Catholics are to only live by, for and with Christ, not in the shadow of a mere text no matter how revered or old it may be.  The result is making the worship done greater than the God, which is, of course, idolatry.

What is being critically noted is too often not correctly perceived as to the truth of genuine faith that involves spiritual risk, especially the invited risk of acknowledging an inconvenient God who is so owed everything. One sees this, dramatically, as when Abraham really thought that he had to sacrifice Isaac.  Indicative of what is very significantly meant is how Jesus, after telling that His flesh and blood must be consumed, saw thousands literally walks away; but, He did not ever run after them to say that the hard doctrines could change to somehow or other suit their relative preferences.  A loving God could not do so because the Lord is Truth itself.

An inconvenient, troublesome, Messiah stood in their very midst and courageously and publicly spoke the real Truth of Being to them, as to the necessary metaphysical ontology involved for being a devout and practicing Catholic.  The choice is forever Christ or chaos.  There is, in fact, no real middle way, no middle ground.   One wonders how so many millions upon millions can remain perpetually blind to this realization, which has, unfortunately, been increasingly obscured by the horrid aftermath of the Second Vatican Council since about the late 1960s.

In firm reiteration, the strongly heathen elements properly noted and seen in Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism do not ever exist, however, within traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholicism, the needed fight for the salvation of souls. Of course, one sees that modernist Catholicism, admittedly, has been both increasingly and unfortunately paganized since the Second Vatican Council, which can be overtly seen, most recently, in Pope Francis’ supported, heretical, and so very morally perverse document: Amoris Laetitia.2

Uniqueness of Traditional Roman Catholicism

Any religion that features strong elements of paganism (aka materiality) exhibits what ought to be seen as the positing of an indifferent God or Gods, which, upon analysis, must ever be the case encountered. The God worshipped by Roman Catholics, in sharp contrast, is not at all indifferent to the reality of the Roman Catholic religion and the theology that developed that particular religion.   Jesus as the Messiah is, also, a readily personal God who is both the friend and brother of all Christians, not an unconcerned or absolutely above-it-all Deity set away far off in a distant universe; it is not the depiction of an 18th century Deists’ version of a “Ghost of a God.”

All Christians, all Catholics, are to be immediately responsive to, loving of, and are, in fact, answerable instantaneously and eternally to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are no exceptions.   There are no qualifications to this straightforward belief, to this ever truthful faith.  All of Protestantism, as to its basis in Sola Scriptura, is, by definition, heretical and, as such, constitutes a false theology and an allied and necessarily untrue religion.  How is this to be better properly known as to the truthful and discoverable, the honest and verifiable, presentation and recognition of Divinity?

Though God the Father is recognized, the supposed “God” of Judaism and the God of the Catholic Faith are not, therefore, the same Deity; the Catholic doctrine of supersessionism states clearly that the New Testament is, indeed, the New Covenant because the Jews broke the Old Covenant by totally rejecting Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior.  Judaic religious culture is, by its very own nature, exclusivist, inner-directed, and most substantially opposed to any attempts at universalizing its religious sentiments, as it inherently lacks, for instance, any missionary spirit.  All this, thus, ought to be obvious as argumentation and historical facts, therefore, do exist forever in quite adamant support.

The High Priest Caiaphas had so publicly, deliberately, blasphemously, and sacrilegiously tore his sacred vestments consecrated to God from the bottom up; the veil of the Temple was ripped, by the power of God, from the top down to also publicly and plainly indicate that the Old Covenant was, indeed, then fully broken forever with the Jewish people.  It could not be otherwise.

Caiaphas, in the name of the entire Jewish people, definitely knew the profound seriousness of what he had done, meaning by so openly and irrevocably breaking faith with God, by tearing his highly sacred and blessed vestments. He, both undeniably and absolutely, had then completely repudiated the Old Covenant by thought, word, deed, and the rather obvious symbolism empirically involved.

His displayed enormous anger and excessive vitriol, moreover, gave affirmative truth to the then open acknowledgement that, in fact, Jesus was the Messiah who had been, nonetheless, rejected utterly. The High Priest of Israel had, in effect, spat at the face of God by angrily and contemptuously rejecting the Son of Man who came to earth to gloriously liberate men from the evil of sin, not Israel from the rule of the Romans, as most had thought.  The Jews, as to the majority of them, only wanted a violent warrior-prophet as the Messiah, not a personal God of love sent for the holy purpose of eternal salvation.

Although most believing Jews, usually the Reformed and Conservative Jews, do fully accept the Ten Commandments, the Orthodox Jews must believe in and accept 613 commandments as part of their faith; the Orthodox faithful, trying to stay true to the earliest origins of belief made impure by pagan elements, think that God can be fooled by human beings. How so?

To carry keys on the Sabbath, a long dangling key chain may actually be worn, meaning as if it were just a supposed unconscious “afterthought” that fits the (technical) prohibition of not doing or being ever involved with any work on the Sabbath. This is so that Yahweh is not to bother noticing how convenient it certainly was for those keys to, somehow or other, manage to get into a pocket that, thus, just had “merely happened” to be available by a coincidence.  Such is the true religious primitivism of paganism.

Thus, it becomes evident, without question, through the above reviews of the other religions given in this article, that the Jews, Moslems, and Protestants all do worship only a false god, not the true Lord God Almighty.  And, this greatly significant fact divides forever all such claimed monotheistic beliefs from the correct understanding of the demonstrated purity and righteousness of the overt standard of theology and religion so possessed by traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholicism.  Q. E. D.

Among monotheistic beliefs, an indifferent kind of Deity can best be seen in Islam in that the real actual meaning of “Allah” is not God but submission, meaning enslavement of one’s mind, thought, spirit and will to the absolutism of such an unapproachable Being.   The impression, directly or indirectly, is given that all of creation can be, at any time, an indifferent sort of concern or regard from this Absolute Being unconcerned about the doings of mere tangential creatures subordinate to the demanded enslavement of will and spirit, of the nature of Islam’s religious culture.

Judaism, connected to the God of the Old Covenant, has seen, in the past 20th century, the response of millions of Jews becoming atheists or, at the least, near atheists by witnessing, in their minds, the lack of God’s expected compassion by allowing the Holocaust to occur.  They, meaning, thus, in their minds due to their religious culture, constituted viewing the horrid sight of an indifferent Deity who had (perhaps carelessly) so permitted such an enormous tragedy to be imposed upon some six million or so Jewish people.

What needs to be beheld here, though not often recognized as such, is also how Protestantism has wrongly constructed for itself the supposed nature of an uninterested or, apparently, dispassionate Supreme Being, which is the direct opposite of Catholicism, of course.

And, this forever very critical difference, relating to divergent religious cultures and their implications and even more significant ramifications, needs to be so appropriately understood. Luther, by willfully asserting there being the very lack of any free will, and Calvin, by then mandating in his mind absolute predestination, had raised up a rather disquieting kind of God who can, haphazardly or casually, make men into earthly playthings no more of concern as if they were, in effect, mere pin ball objects.

This all quite reasonably suggests that anyone, now consciously yet remaining a convinced Protestant, Moslem or Jew, should have his head examined, meaning as to if such a God is worth believing in with these quite terrible and imputed attributes. Why?  Only an indifferent God could satisfy the debased epistemology and corrupted ontology, required by such a theology, mandating conclusions geared to nominalism in reasoning.  It would be so highly funny, if it was not, in fact, so very irredeemably sad, especially regarding that German firebrand with his 95 Theses.3

It takes a rather profound comprehension, being further on as to requisite thought, to critically perceive the many terrible consequences of a decadent spirituality that results naturally from forms of idolatry sanctioned, by accepting an ingrained and hardened nominalism in cognition. How may this be clearly known and rightly recognized?   Decadence, as C. E. M. Joad, had correctly defined it, is the loss of the object.

Decadent spirituality becomes the very definition of the loss of the proper object in terms of correctly recognizing what ought to be the truth about the Godhead being so worshiped, celebrated, honored, recognized, proclaimed, etc.

Christ publicly denounced the Pharisees and Scribes for making the worship greater than God, which is idolatry, which, in its own turn, then became Judaism itself inverted. Spiritual decadence has made the vast majority of Jewish people into basic secularists whose earthly god, as is seen easily in America, has become idolatrous Leftist politics; the minority of truly religious Jews do knowingly reject all forms of secular salvation.

The predominant majority chose the inverted Messianism of radical politics. Moslems, as yet another illustration, favoring iconoclasm produce their own version of idolatry, though in an inverted way, by scorning images while man himself has been, in fact, made in the image of God.  ISIS, now, exists as a truly genuine expression of resurgent and authentic Islam as these evil terrorists do go about willfully destroying many ancient pagan temples and Christian churches, in widely observed open support of their iconoclastic viewpoint.

Protestants, manifesting their own sort of spiritual decadence, have made the ever pervasive idolatry of Sola Scriptura into their earthly god that must be obeyed, regardless of the high cost to theological and religious truth.  Decadent spirituality, as ought to be obvious by now, necessarily then both corrupts and resultantly deforms any attempted creation of a theology that must, logically, come to harshly ruin any such cognate religion proclaimed and adhered to by the believers.  How may this be made known?

For the three principles relating to Catholicism, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi are, axiomatically, so related logically to all theologies that produce religions.  There is an inevitability to all this discussion and philosophizing, regarding theology and any resultant religion, as is particularly as pertaining to a religious culture.  And, it is rather plain that the contemporary world aggressively challenges any such culture by often crudely pitting the entitlement mentality against spiritual gratitude.4

What is, therefore, the important consideration being now so vigorously proposed?   This means that idolatry, whether inverted or otherwise, corrupts the religion that reflects back upon the failures of the theology in question to, then, offer a better appreciation and understanding of man’s need for God, the manner of worship, and theological and religious truth inclusive.

Thus, one can come to better see that Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, meaning their being all false religions, do then logically share certain definitive nominalist affinities that are, in fact, always to be found completely lacking in (orthodox) Roman Catholicism. This is a most significant point to clearly remember, furthermore, and reflects back insightfully to many earlier thoughts and ideas mentioned both analytically and positively.

Affirmative knowledge concerning the attributes about God can be gained, though He Himself will forever remain inscrutable and ineffable, by definition, in terms of the infinity of the reality involved. From ancient times, Catholic thinkers knew fundamental truth as to the Supreme Being, as is noted by St. Augustine, in his De Natura Boni, when he confidently says, “”God alone is immutable; and whatever things He has made, being from nothing, are mutable.”

Regarding the reality confronted, St. John of Damascus, in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, related: “For He does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that he is above all existing things, nay, even above existence itself.”

As St. Thomas Aquinas, in his surely impressive Summa Theologica, there clearly states, “God alone is completely immutable; for that reason true and proper eternity is His alone.”  He, further, adds in his discussion of De Divinis Nominibus, that, “To realize that God is far beyond anything we think, that is the mind’s achievement.”  However, none of this is ever meant, by Catholic thinkers, to be indicative of an indifferent Godhead presiding either forever within or beyond the mere universe experienced by mortal creatures.  Moreover, Catholic Christology completely forbids this notion, as would be correctly affirmed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Realization of this understanding of a personal God was well expressed by Msgr. Robert H. Benson, in his Christ in the Church, when he says that, “If God be Truth, and God be Love, is it not absolutely inevitable that the love of God should bring the truth of God down to the level of the very simplest.” One sees here factually that Catholicism is truly an exoteric, not esoteric, religion supported firmly by a suitable theology, oriented toward urging the salvation of human beings, by proving the means for this through the Church and its cognate sacraments.  For it is, also, known that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Benson further adds to the important thinking involved when, in his The Religion of the Plain Man, one notably there reads: “It was the man in the street who understood our Lord, and the doctor of the law who was perplexed and offended.”  Catholicism, way before the rise of Protestantism as the so-called Reformed Religion, knew that God through Jesus had made Christ immediately accessible and a friend and brother of common men, not just an object, e. g., for religious elites alone.

In critical contrast, Islam, Judaism, and to the extent that the absurd overconcentration upon the Bible as if it were the Christian Torah that seeks to re-Judaize the Protestant religion, all three of these faiths do posit God as the absolute Other, as with, e. g., Martin Buber’s existentialist speculations grinding on toward abstractionization. And, resultantly, the more that false notion of “the wholly Other” that gets expressed, the more indifferent the Divinity is then made to seem or appear to those who may think of themselves as being religious people.

Thus, with traditional Catholicism, the Supreme Being gets not wrongly abstracted into just being the Other; He is, forever, truly and without any question Jesus the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, who suffered and died on the Cross; it is fairly hard to think of a much more personal act, moreover, and to the extremely important point being made concretely here, than being willingly crucified, sacrificed, because of His great love for mankind. Such a compassionate and loving Deity is hardly indifferent.

Against the aforementioned “Jewishness” of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism, the opposed knowledge of a personal God is defended explicitly by Roman Catholicism; and, among many others, one could then easily give St. Francis of Assisi as a reference for this discussion of Catholic truth. The Canticle of the Sun is not just a religious song once composed by Saint Francis, for it surely is an affirmation of his personal theology of intimacy in having a private or intimate relationship with God, which, thus, did not arise as a supposed Protestant idea, as in invoking, e. g., one’s personal Lord and Savior as Jesus.

This is actually because Jesus is not to be thought of as the abstract Other; He is ever the living Christ, the reality of the redeeming Lord and Savior, the Messiah of the universe, both immediately considered and, of course, always forever.

As Blaise Pascal had correctly well noted, in his Pensées, “The Christian’s God is not a God Who is simply author of mathematical truths and of the order of the elements; that is the lot of the heathen and of the Epicureans. He is not merely a God Who employs His providence upon the life and wellbeing of men, in order to bestow on His worshippers a long and prosperous life; that is the heritage of the Jews.” He adds these words, later in the same paragraph, concerning the true God in that the Lord “is a God of love and consolation …”

But, the highly thoughtful and religiously perceptive St. Francis de Sales, in his Spiritual Conferences, so interestingly enlarges upon the theme of Divine love in that, “If God had not created man He would still indeed have been perfect in goodness, but He would not have been actually merciful, since mercy can only be exercised toward the miserable.” Added to all this is the Mystery of Deity, besides the Mystery of Evil and  the Mystery of Good.  As to fallen mortal creatures in an also fallen world, how may this be made better known to a church humanly staffed by, of, and for miserable earthly sinners all standing before a righteous and Holy God?

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman gives the correct understanding and answer of how Catholicism works; this is not by the supposed modernist evolution of dogmas approach, but by describing the proper way Catholic teaching has become more thorough and unequivocal over the centuries, while the later enunciations of any fundamental Catholic doctrine, being orthodox, remain theologically then consistent with the earlier basic declarations; this represents, of course, the holy desire for maintaining a much wanted orthodoxy and truth for better informing Catholicism, the universal faith.

On the other hand, what often sadly exists as Catholic “ecumenism” acts as a deceitful means of hiding Catholic truth, both from believers and nonbeliever alike, in the unutterably vile and reprehensible effort to be, supposedly, more inclusive in today’s world. Such obnoxious “inclusivity” fully deserves unreserved condemnation, however, not praise; it is a true horror that should always be avoided, not sophistically advocated in any possible way, shape, or form whatsoever, contrary to the terrible desires of Pope Francis.

Thus, Pope Francis’ evil and heretical co-celebration of the harmful Lutheran Revolt, set against Holy Mother Church and (what had once been) Christendom itself, ought ever to be so absolutely rejected, spurned, and reviled without any doubt whatsoever. One ought to intelligently and theologically know that this incredible and despicable happening is, therefore, definitely not just a merely slight matter of no lasting importance or significant consequence.  It so clearly violates the doctrinal understanding of Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and its vile irregularities could not be logically or reasonably sustained according to Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

This is a most grave and heretical profanation of an excessive magnitude and scale that so demonically sanctions sacrilege that should not, ought not, to be ever tolerated.   It is, so right manifestly, a truly enormous abomination and contemptuous blasphemy before God; it is blatant idolatry.  The Pope and any and all Catholic prelates and laity involved, moreover, should be openly and thoroughly condemned in the strongest terms imaginable and possible.5

In any event, this article’s larger discourse about theological epistemology should have demonstrated why, given the proper logic of Catholicism as being the only true faith, then all other religions are, by definition, only forms of abhorrent idolatry, which ought to be then shunned or avoided totally.   Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Furthermore, totally unlike paganism, there is no bargaining, no quid pro quo conditions, found with a Christocentric Catholicism in interactions with the one true God who is to be worshipped and loved unconditionally, as a plain fact of metaphysical reality. Love and justice, endless honor and praise, are absolutely due to the Lord God Almighty, nothing is owed to humanity by the Supreme Being, meaning the cause of all being, of all existence in the entire universe and beyond that matter as well.   One learns even from the ancient pagan Plato, without question, that, “God is the measure of all things.”

Moreover, even if human beings supposedly received totally nothing in return, including the possibility of salvation, the Divinity would still be quite axiomatically owed all love, justice, honor, praise, and glory forever and ever, as, also, St. Thomas Aquinas would have fully agreed. All of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, also, confirms the truth of the primacy of God, not the assumed supremacy of Man.

In addition to all that has been said, Catholicism rightly rejects the fallacious “two truths theory” that alleges something can be true in religion but false in science or vice versa. This absurdly posits the totally erroneous notion of an antagonism that is often supposed to exist between science and religion, which is, in fact, always utter nonsense.  As Christopher Dawson knew, this is a central understanding of all genuine Catholic culture.  When each is correctly understood to have its own proper sphere of right expertise neither confronts nor contradicts, neither confutes nor confounds, the other.

One ought to know that any physical or natural science, e. g., that attempts to ever theologize is, by definition, simply illegitimate, not really the practice of true science. As St. Thomas Aquinas truthfully taught, moreover, there can be no conflict between faith and reason when each is properly understood.


While saying that Jesus is the Christ has intellectual consequences, equally, the statement asserting that there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith represented by Catholicism must, therefore, also have its cognitive consequences, not just simply religious or theological. By ever rejecting strongly any decadent spirituality, furthermore, a supportive liturgy, doxology, soteriology, eschatology, Christology, etc. comes to support adamantly the honest truth of what gets asseverated theologically and religiously.

It could not rationally be otherwise. The same goes for the assertion that Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is his Prophet, for there have been, most certainly, many theological and religious results, of course.  Nonetheless, mere declaration is not proof of anything nor is the relative strength or lack thereof of any believer’s faith, whether with or without any quid pro quo style paganism being present.6 In addition, modernity’s too often overlooked or denied significant contribution of myth, magic, and superstition has only greatly aggravated and disoriented the condition of the postmodern world, not improved it.7

The mere idolatrous faith of a Jew, Muslim, or Protestant is, however, set not in question as to, for instance, all possible axiological, epistemological, or ontological realities; the verifiable truth of the Catholic theology and allied religion is, though, not definitely and necessarily held seriously in question, until and if a (supposed) contrary veracity can be established beyond disproof. For what is proven is  according to the Trinitarian dogma and, thus, to be done In nómine Pátris et Fílii et Spíritus Sáncti. Amen.

What can be surely known of the advanced theological epistemology developed by the Church Fathers, Patriarchs, Scholastics, Confessors, Doctors, and others, however, truly upholds the openly presented understanding and comprehension of God that has been articulated and defended as being consistently true. Furthermore, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman would, therefore, have completely agreed, for Catholicism concurs with right reason, common sense, and, as Midgely and Rommen would have fully assented, with Natural Law as well.

Among numerous other signs and indications, attendant proofs and clues, the saints and martyrs of Sancta Mater Ecclesia do freely attest to the truth of the Faith without any question, for all are true valid parts of the known, accessible, and authentic Catholic culture that has been here, in fact, confidently expatiated and intellectually secured as such.


Athanasius contra mundum!


Select Bibliography

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The Natural Law



  1. This article, and others written by the same author, has been attempting to try, however feebly and desperately, to clearly articulate and reconstitute an authentic Roman Catholic religious culture; this is by reminding Catholics, as forcefully as is possible in mere print, of the main reality of what used to be basically understood and comprehended as to the theological and religious sensitivities and proclivities, sympathies and inclinations, of orthodox Catholicism, meaning especially since Vatican Council II. It would help the reader to read what the great Catholic historian (and convert) Christopher Dawson had prominently written about the great importance of authentic Catholic religious culture and the need to defend it.
  3. One can, relatedly, cite Thomas P. Neill’s Makers of the Modern Mind, especially his quite revealing chapter on Martin Luther.
  6. This article’s consideration of how one may objectively judge the different merits or failures of monotheistic belief systems has not meant to slight the reality of the affects, definite influences, of history upon religions. Catholicism is, of course, an assuredly historical religion; Christ was born, died, and resurrected all within historical time, not outside of it.  Furthermore, one factor, among a number, that contributed to the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was, surely, the humanizing process of Hellenization.

Hellenization can be defined as the spread of the ideas and ideals of the ancient Greeks, especially after the conquests of Alexander the Great.   Inferior and cruder societies and cultures, over time and through increased interaction as an osmosis, tended to yield more and more to these quite humanizing Greek attitudes and aspirations, sometimes for better or worse, depending upon a wide variety of historical situations and circumstances, of course.

In general, one could fairly say that the splendid humanization of thought brought culture into a more receptive civilization that, in intent, sought to thoughtfully, philosophically, encompass all of mankind within the greater koinos kosmos (a shared world, common humanity), a truly ecumenical, meaning universal, world for all peoples.

In St. John the Evangelist’s Gospel, the Logos, the Word, was freely adopted to mean Jesus Christ, which is a prominent example of how a definite part of Greek philosophy got itself transmuted into Catholic theology.  Notably, the entire Septuagint, in the 3rd century BC, was a translation of the Old Testament that had, of course, been then written entirely in Greek.  Because it was much too indicative of the true signs of the Messiah, the Jews, only after the rise of Christianity, then rejected it suspiciously as being a supposed poor translation from the Hebrew.

If it confirmed Christianity, ergo, it just then had to be wrong!   The nasty “logic” of sheer bigotry, by definition, always thinks it’s so totally impeccable and should not be ever questioned.

The elders of the synagogues made sure that the Hebrew scribes, especially after the Diaspora, rewrote selected parts to help skillfully exclude any references to the Savior that could in any way be attributed directly to Jesus Christ.   That is why only expurgated versions or editions of the Jewish Torah now exist today, which considerably help to obscure or deny that Jesus is the Christ; and, this obscurantist belief system is, proudly, called Judaism, for Hellenization, after all, had its limits.

To really say more about the impact of Hellenization would only be just redundant, beyond any real need. One can reasonably conclude, therefore, by saying that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had all benefited substantially by the past process of Hellenization since few, if any, religions are truly freed of historical reality.  The main flaw of such Hellenism is, of course, the anthropocentricism to be found hidden at the heart of all paganism, however disguised, since it could not be otherwise.


Catholicism and the Moral Struggle of Contemporary Life: Gratitude versus Entitlement

Catholicism and the Moral Struggle of Contemporary Life: Gratitude versus Entitlement

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of the virtues, but the parent of all the others.”Cicero, Pro Plancio

“Learn, too, to be grateful. May all the wealth of Christ’s inspiration have its shrine among you; now you will have instruction and advice for one another, full of wisdom, now there will be psalms, and hymns, and spiritual music, as you sing with gratitude in your hearts to God.  Whatever you are about, in word and action alike, invoke always the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, offering your thanks to God the Father through Him.”Colossians 3:16-17

Ultimately, though it is granted that variously different words may be so used, there are just two basic attitudes toward life; one leads to the Christian view that is most concentrated within orthodox Roman Catholicism, the other veers inevitably toward either varieties of neopaganism for most people or just outright secularism for some others. How is this to be here posited?

Catholicism is the most radical faith imaginable; all others pale in comparison and into insignificance because they make compromises or adjustments toward the sad world and its very often malleable approaches to generally dealing with life and its consequences, for good or ill.

Not even, e. g. Orthodox Judaism comes close to Catholicism because, e. g., the Jewish tradition requires that someone who does harm must first ask forgiveness of the aggrieved party, before any pardon may be given; in one instance, among many, of an endlessly tremendous ethical, moral and spiritual divide, Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, commands forgiveness and even regardless of the disposition of the evil doer. That, as just a gross understatement, is truly and notably significant.

This is because, although often unrecognized, there is unquestionably unconditional gratitude that is to be given to God in that Catholics are notably privileged to forgive, yes, privileged to forgive, in the hope that they may be so forgiven, as the totally essential and necessary condition of attaining their eternal salvation in Heaven. Before the Supreme Being, there are definitely no entitlements.

The final reward, a permanent blessedness as a saint, is incalculably great; and, all semblance of human pride must be willingly sacrificed by committing the act of forgiveness, with no thought of any supposed entitlements. As St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the Scholastics, had verily taught, God does not even owe human beings justice because He, by definition, is the real source of all justice, all mercy, and all truth.  The actual subordination of mere human beings is not that commonly recognized these days and, because of a rather heightened degree of human hubris, increasingly so.

The Unmitigated Evils of Entitlement and Ingratitude

Why?   Because something needs to be understood and properly comprehended, concerning gratitude due to the Lord, as to the truth and justice and His righteousness.  Thus, this supremely vital reality must be rightly known before anything else.  All the many concerns, thoughts, injustices suffered, problems, sufferings, torments, evils endured, and anything and everything else that has afflicted all human beings, past, present and future, who have, do, and will ever live on this earth are just absolutely nothing, when compared to the rights, honor, and glory of God.1

Without, in effect, getting down on one’s knees to thank God, every day, as a sincere act of needed and owed gratitude, there is then lacking something, quite monumentally missing, in the Catholicism, in the Christianity, of an alleged believer. But, ingratitude is the typical characteristic and touchstone of basic modern reality.  There are many practical consequences of this harmful attitude, in the real world, which certainly affects all of politics, society, economics, culture, and, ultimately, the quality, or lack thereof, of a civilization itself.  Lack of noticing this fact indicates both an insensate intellect and a dead soul.

There is even an ideology that unreservedly reflects and, moreover, openly celebrates ingratitude, and it is usually known as Libertarianism. And, it will be here convincingly and easily demonstrated how such individualism and collectivism, furthermore, do kiss each other passionately, on the matter of a mutually accepted sense of ingratitude; for they are, in fact, simply the two sides of the very same coin of overt modernity.

Thoughtful people often do look around and wonder what has been, for generations now, helping to terribly destroy this country’s society, politics and culture and, of course, all of Western civilization in general. Many various terms or words, no doubt, could be freely used, in either popular or learned descriptive efforts, at properly defining and analyzing the reasons, causes, tendencies, issues, etc. for the effortlessly observed decadence, dissolution, decline, and degradation.

Besides hubris and vanity, behind them all, whether overtly or covertly recognized as such, one would inevitably find the sense of entitlement. Social Security, Supplementary Security Income, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare payments, Unemployment Insurance, and much else exists as part of what are called entitlements, which have assisted in creating the overall vile entitlement mentality that so intimately and increasingly governs now the lives of tens upon tens of millions, whether citizens or even illegal aliens.

\What the churches, private charities, social organizations, and generous people used to do, meaning before the great evils of excessively confiscatory taxation, vilely cancerous government growth, and massive secularization, the Omnicompetent State is now supposed to all provide.

So, everyone is made by the government to think that they are just axiomatically and naturally entitled to everyone else’s (meaning the taxpayers’) income. Socialism, by whatever possible euphemism, has substantively and thoroughly gripped almost all of the minds of the modern Western world that, in turn, actively caters to encouraging decadence, dissolution, decline, and degradation.  But, socialism and its wrongly assumed opposite, individualism, both do specialize in fostering and approving of ingratitude because both affirm, in their different ways, the same entitlement mentality.

Since no gratitude whatsoever need be shown to God by Libertarianism, libertarians, by any name, feel entitled to whatever they may own or have since no Supreme Being has allowed them the opportunity, as far as they are concerned; and, socialists, by any name, do equally feel entitled to anything they may have or can get at the expense of the taxpayers. Ingratitude and entitlement are, thus, surely two sides of exactly the same coin, not antagonistic principles, as either the libertarians or socialists would falsely claim.2

This article, in firm support of its thesis, will present a “Burkean” style defense of the Roman Catholic Faith; this will be given particularly concerning the, thus, titanic moral struggle of contemporary life, by strenuously denouncing the lack of gratitude that most people have and, also, by repudiating adamantly any support for the very regnant entitlement mentality. The great Edmund Burke was correctly said to have solidly stood on exactly the same ground of argumentation when he, first, ardently defended the American Revolution of 1776 and, later, vigorously attacked the French Revolution of 1789.  This missive will, therefore, be a Burkean performance for the entertainment of the readers.

All Christians, especially orthodox Roman Catholics, should religiously repudiate utterly the entitlement, egocentric prerogative, mentality and any notion of ingratitude, rank thanklessness. In contrast, Adam and Eve had exhibited both ungratefulness and a sense of seeking wrongful privilege by wanting to be as gods, in the knowing of good and evil, thus, the permanent commission of Original Sin.

Not being fully content with the enormous bounty both freely and generously provided by the Supreme Being, they still wanted more, much more.  Spitting contemptuously under any due deference and humility, human pride, inordinately desiring an improper equality with the Supreme Being, had mingled with greediness and a bold envy.

These basic attitudes, going over the centuries under many guises and names and whether material or immaterial in actual nature, have sadly stayed, with the fallen human race, ever since as to the mortal propensity to sin within the confines of a fallen world.

As Alexis de Tocqueville so correctly noted, in his justly celebrated Democracy in America, the American people, as with other peoples, could have the possibility to sustain free government, as long as they did not realize that they could institute public theft through the ballot box.  Once that corruption took hold in their minds, corruption was to increase massively and free government would no longer be actually sustainable as “democratic despotism” (sinfully) grabbed at the economic wealth of the nation.

Millions upon millions of citizens, generation by generation, were no longer satisfied with the material and other bounty that God had provided by allowing for the existence of America. They yet wanted more, much more.

With their carefully contrived situation ethics and value-neutral attitudes that do reek of hypocrisy, they face a (deranged) world made supposedly amenable, in their own warped minds, to a moral and ethical subjectivity called, of course, existentialist, value-preference objectivity. With goods and services seen galore, due to an increasing vile lust for a populist statism (aka democratic despotism), there have been many horrid results quite complementary to and truly congenial with both the necessary advancement and valid consolidation of tyranny, of course.  It really could not, therefore, be otherwise.

And, the political-ruling class in this country simply were too eager to supply those wants, meaning as long as the people increasingly gave up civil liberties and civil rights in the process, which has occurred, with the vast expansion of supposedly unlimited entitlements. America is, therefore, a much less freer country, as a direct consequence, than it was just, say, a mere forty or fifty years ago; statism demands its sacrifices, as it is the modern Moloch, which functionally and operationally exists as Thomas Hobbes’ supremely celebrated “Mortal God.“

But, as with all material goods and services, because of the inherent sinfulness of human nature, it will never really be ever enough; more and more is, thus, constantly demanded and necessarily expected. Ingratitude and entitlement, by their very natures and integral characteristics, do feed off each other and intensify each other’s worst features, as a true result.  More is never enough, as night follows day.

Both of these features of mass, advanced, modern societies spawn so enormously greedy desires that become insatiable and axiomatically increase, as the democratic functions and operations of a country becomes crescive as well. The people assume that they can easily just vote themselves into a condition of guaranteed prosperity, which now exists as the American Welfare-Warfare State (aka Administrative State, Regulatory State, or Bureaucratic State).

It is fairly much the same, one suspects, as was written about, some generations ago by now, in Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State and, of course, as was noted in Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or Garet Garrett’s The People’s Pottage.  Now, millions upon millions of Americas and the vast majority of the people of the western world in general are steeped in a passionate ingratitude and do worship the supposed god of entitlement, not seeing the condition of enslavement that inevitably must come.

For as Burke intelligently wrote, centuries ago, “Their passions forge their fetters.”   The sinful lusts of materialism, hedonism, and secularism lead inevitably toward despotism or, if one prefers the term, tyranny.  Sinfulness, when actively and intensively present on a mass scale, calls forth political, social, economic, and cultural corruption to the greatest degrees imaginable, as is abundantly seen in America, in particular, and the Western world in general.  The only real chance for true American renewal is the one that would be, so axiomatically, rejected by the vast majority of the domestic population, meaning orthodox Roman Catholicism.3

As modernity has, in effect, sanctified the Seven Deadly Sins, it is, also, the case that ingratitude has been made a kind of virtue, whereby the people feel simply entitled to whatever they think is the new minimum such as a free (aka taxpayer paid) healthcare system for life and for covering all normal and extraordinary needs. Public schooling, in America, exists freely for both grade and high school, as is provided by the government; free food is provided by food stamps and various other programs; the Obamaphone Program gives out complimentary cell phones.

This renders aid and comfort, significantly speaking, to the ever radical-political enshrinement of much unholy greed, plain and simple; and, it naturally feeds into the human condition as to base sinfulness and moral depravity. It caters to the illusion of something for nothing, which ignores the enthrallment of the then degraded and debased population at large to the demands of statism, meaning tyranny, and, thus, the observed cognate mass secularization of society and culture.  The situation is clearly demonic.

Many suitably envious predispositions are being endlessly encouraged, ideologically stimulated, by the ever abundant government largesse that, logically, affirms publicly and loudly the ugly idea of highly covetous entitlement, which is, of course, the Leftist political rationalization and lustful justification for pure greed perpetually unsatiated.

For as the Communist Karl Marx himself wrote, in knowing full well about usual human weaknesses and imperfections, ”Don’t tell me what people need, tell me what they want.”   Claiming idealism, Socialist ideologists, to better, thus, conceal the ever vicious truth from themselves, confidently lie to themselves freely when they then, always, wrongly do think otherwise.  There is a demonic disregard for the truth.

Soon, given the progressive “logic” involved, voters will eagerly demand that they be well supplied, for life, with free housing and cars, summer-vacation homes, all free electronic equipment, gratis tickets to amusement parks, complimentary movie tickets, and definitely so much else besides. A $15 minimum wage guaranteed by government is just chicken feed; many groups are now demanding $25 and others say up to $50 per hour.  All this, however, does not ever really lessen any demand-supportive mentality, rather, it then so much further powerfully stimulates, as a consequence of Original Sin and the known sinfulness emanating from it, the evil, pernicious, and dreadful human emotion of one of the classic Seven Deadly Sins: Envy.4

Postmodernity, consequently, has spawned a grievance, entitlement, and ingratitude-oriented culture in which all societal conduct exists as a zero-sum game, whereby if any one person gains, then someone else or other people must necessarily lose; socialism, due to its nature, adds to the endless turmoil by insisting that the “economic pie” is, thus, a shrinking entity resulting from this assumed zero-sum game that paints the picture not of a collectivist Utopia but, rather, a contempt-filled dystopia, a Hobbesian world, as to a worst case scenario. And yet, worrying too much, being extremely disquieted, about the things of this world, which are distractions, is clearly un-Christian conduct.

One can readily tell the extent of secularization, in a society and culture, as is seen in the ingratitude to God overtly shown by excessive concerns about: physical appearance to be enhanced by cosmetics, the anxieties and fears connected to paying the bills of one’s existence, the outcomes of professional sports games, need to always see the latest movies and other popular entertainments, etc. Most people worry tremendously within such a civilization concerning, e. g., their standard of living, not the high standard to be set for the proper and needful sake of their souls’ eternal salvation, for the joy and happiness of Heaven; the metaphysical order exists, if ever at all, as just a mere or simply vague afterthought of an inconsiderable kind.

It is no real surprise, therefore, that such ideas as grace, holiness, humility, and piety become so totally incomprehensible. There are only such matters as value-free preferences, value-neutral judgments, and situation ethics allied to positivism, pragmatism, and naturalism to, eventually, yield nihilism ending in an ensuing insanity, though by whatever name.  One sees this easily, for instance, in the literally quite insane positing of there supposedly being anywhere from about 200 to 300 genders or, perhaps, still many more in the future.

This clearly secularist attitude shows a much debased worldview without knowledge of grace and given only to materialist-hedonist calculations of right versus wrong, in a starkly Benthamite manner, with social and economic utilitarian parts constructed for man’s vain earthly cunning and deviousness. The entitlement mentality is, thus, regarded by so many contemporaries as a supposed new virtue because subjectivity has become the new PC objectivity, in that perversity exists a simple synonym for the ever ideologically demanded diversity.  And, nothing should be now plainer to obvious sight as to the current understanding of an obnoxiously plastic or endlessly protean sort of “truth” infinitely amenable for all or any occasions, for such is the nature of madness.

What is said to exist is the presumed amoral “no man’s land” filled with ego enhancement units, known as self-actualized persons, struggling as if in an enormous bee hive, though the deluded participants are supposed to still have utopian aspirations.  Holiness and piety are just odd antiquarian notions with no pragmatic and real cash value.  As a jocular result, the insanity of all this is, of course, rarely recognized because it gets too often quite vainly disguised by Marxism and neo-Marxism, and also known by the many various euphemisms.5

A contrasting good sentiment is indicative, according to classical Natural Law teachings, of what ought to properly prevail. The many benefits of gratitude include an emotion expressing true thankfulness for what one has, which is ever diametrically opposed to a materialistic emphasis on what one wants and, consequently, demands.  Increasingly, one may note, in an ironic manner, that the subject of gratitude is receiving a great deal of contemporary attention as a definite part of positive psychology studies that are accumulating and demonstrating that people can intentionally encourage gratitude so set within themselves and, as a beneficial result, can grow a personal sense well-being and happiness by seeking to do so.

Also, there is the good realization that gratefulness, especially when seeking to express it to others, is normally related with an increased sense of energy, optimism, and sympathy shown toward other people; and, in other words, it has a justly genuine humanizing and truly socializing effect as favoring brotherhood and a decently fair sense of human commonality. For Catholics, this is to be found in the appropriate drive toward a wanted holiness, for the better seeking of the proper obtaining of grace and a belief in right wholesome Christian solidarity, the very best, ultimately, of all the positive features of a true Christianity filled with a right sense of wholesome thankfulness.

Seeking Gratitude: The “Art” and “Science” of Being a Catholic

Gratitude, moreover, points its keen attention toward the greater good. Christians ought to be grateful of many things; Catholics, moreover, should be even more so because of a plentitude of opportunities for gaining grace toward salvation itself and, if for no other reason, the very fact of just simply being a Roman Catholic.  Members of the Church of Rome are, thus, to be grateful for having the Pope and the hierarchy, no matter how despicable, in fact, various members are, for Christ instituted, founded, the Holy Roman Catholic Church and, in addition, the sacred principle of Apostolic succession.

The quality or lack thereof of the numerous actual people involved, many Catholics do forget, is not God’s fault. No matter how terrible things get, because of the priority, in perspective, of the then ever absolute rights, honor and glory of God, human beings are to still remain unquestionably grateful to the Lord Almighty.  Even such an earthly evil human as suffering is yet to be rightly understood as being, through the sincere love of God and showing of gratitude, a truly splendid and joyful privilege.6

Definition can help with clarification of meaning. The following will either be quotes or paraphrases that were taken from George Crabb’s volume titled: Crabb’s English Synonymes: Centennial Edition (1916).  To cite most pertinently here: “Thankfulness, or a fullness of thanks (from Anglo-Saxon thanc, a thought, hence a pleasant thought, a grateful remembrance), is the outward expression of a grateful feeling.  Gratitude, from the Latin gratitudo, is the feeling itself.”

And yet, all that still requires some further needed elucidation and extrapolation. Personal gratitude is measured by the nature of one’s actions.  Nonetheless, it is possible for someone to seem very thankful, at a certain time, who, later, “proves very ungrateful.” Many human beings can, it should not be doubted, be exactly that way.

As a kind of much needed emphasis, concerning the fact of a reciprocity, one also, in Crabb’s English Synonymes, notably reads that, “Thankfulness is the beginning of gratitude; gratitude is the completion of thankfulness.” Both such highly interesting points, as to their own acute instructiveness, are worth remembering, for the former feeling cannot be truly genuine if the latter is not heartily felt, which can present, one suspects, a seeming dilemma or paradox to sagacious minds.

Of course, adverse to the commendatory quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero’s (106 – 43 BC) Pro Plancio, given at the beginning of this article, highly supporting such a morally upright and ethically generative, positive virtue, one could yet come across a negative quote from the ever cynical François VI, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac; this is seen in his Maxims: “Gratitude, in most men, is only a strong and secret hope of greater favors.”

He, generally, gives what could be so easily called “from the rat’s eye” perspective concerning a woefully imperfect humanity and its many failings. True gratitude, set especially in a Christian sense, ought to be always genuine, not ever meanly counterfeit, to help avoid a supposed dilemma that ought not to exist. Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Nonetheless, in terms of genuine Christianity, the gratefulness of all men to God is to be, in effect, as unlimited as is the Supreme Being Himself and, if properly understood, absolutely with no intentions of any quid pro quo, as is true with paganism.  And, in speaking of paganism, even wise Plato knew, totally contrary to the Sophist Protagoras, that “God [not Man] is the measure of all things.”

To acknowledge such truth, all Catholics can say the prayer of Saint Richard of Chichester (1198-1253): “Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, for all the benefits and blessings which you have given me, for all the pains and insults which you have borne for me. Merciful Friend, Brother and Redeemer, may I know you more clearly, love you more dearly, and follow you more nearly, day by day.”

Hence, the true justice of always yielding and rendering, which ought to be obvious beyond question, all ultimate thankfulness to the infinite Creator of all things. And, from this, as to its imperativeness and so cognate implications, one could properly derive both the need to love God and, as an allied function of that, one’s neighbor as well, for the Lord’s sake, not just our own.   As the Creator loves all His creation, humans are to reciprocate that love of all His human creatures, which should not, however, be confused with liking everybody.  There are, in fact, significant differences for proper consideration.

The saints certainly loved their fellows as they were obliged for obtaining holiness, though they were all not known for liking them all. One must intelligently come to correctly perceive that loving and liking are, therefore, not (always) the same thing.   A Catholic father must, e. g., unrestrictedly love his son, but if the child sadly becomes a slothful, slovenly, wayward, unrepentant, and corrupt adult, he does not have to admire, respect, or even like him at all.  Christian love does not, therefore, demand some sort of inherent and strangely implacable stupidity or, perhaps, quite an excessive indifference to the very plain truth about certain human beings and their so observably nasty or downright reprehensible conduct.   All people are, therefore, to be loved but need not be liked.

It is the duty of Catholics, no matter how extremely difficult and very sorrowful that it may surely be, to, for instance, always love and pray for Pope Francis, though he ought to be still rightly disrespected and disliked for any evil that he does.  For the higher sake of one’s soul’s salvation and a life geared toward holiness, the unreserved gratitude that ought to be always felt toward the Almighty God so necessarily mandates, thus, all such requisite and proper love.  One’s needed thankfulness to the Lord makes love and prayers for the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, absolutely and without question ever mandatory.

Again, however, the still distinct matters of liking and loving are really different, not just supposedly equivalent, which may yet need to be significantly reiterated, in the closing off of this particular topic related to an obligation for the love of God. For to acquire the right attitude, especially against the evil entitlement mentality, human beings are nothing compared to the Lord God Almighty, in that the things of Heaven that people ought to crave should then make all earthly matters axiomatically pale into an increasing insignificance.

In Luke 17:11-19, there is the interesting and evocative story of the ten suffering lepers, for when Jesus was traveling between Samaria and Galilee, He entered a town. There, these ten lepers had urgently implored Him, from an appropriate distance, to have mercy on them.  Jesus, knowing full well the Judaic Law, responded by telling them to go show themselves to the priests.  Lepers could be allow back into society only after they had been actually certified by priests that they, in fact, were totally cleansed of the leprosy.

But, just one (a mere 10%) of the entire ten, a Samaritan, came back to Jesus to sincerely express his earnest gratitude. After reverently prostrating himself before the feet of Jesus and rendering great thanks, the Samaritan heard Christ declare publicly to all who were present: “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?  Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” (Luke 17:17-18).

It is the case that the Messiah wanted, most definitely, all of the listeners, meaning without any doubt, to get the noted point, which He considered to be of very obvious importance. In effect, He was openly rebuking all unrepentant sinners, not just simply commenting on the nine other former lepers, as to their noted behavior or, rather, gross misbehavior in this morally critical matter.

This New Testament passage certainly makes it rather manifest that gratitude pleases Jesus very much, while its lack brings Him sorrow.  The fact that Jesus did not simply cure all ten lepers immediately fully allowed them the reflective occasion to so decide whether they should come back to Him directly and express their appropriate gratitude, as soon as their cures had taken place.  The so deliberately delayed miracle easily permits the story to explicitly underscore the extreme significance of proper gratitude and, moreover, summonses all Christians to keenly perceive why Jesus values it so highly.

And, moreover, the evident lack or absence thereof, offends Jesus so greatly. This point ought, then, to be undeniably crystal clear for all to so readily see and without question.  Thus, among other necessarily important considerations, any deliberate ingratitude, on such a scale, is a mortal sin, which logically relates to the resultant damnation of souls.

And, though serious sin and damnation are rarely, if ever, on the jaded minds of average contemporary people, the truth of all this survives; this yet remains, however, especially for those who may say that they adhere to Catholicism as their faith, as being a lesson. Such a point ought not, therefore, to be wrongly lost.  The ugly ingratitude, the repugnant thanklessness, of the nine lepers, also, indicates strongly how terribly sordid and vile the concomitant modern attitude of the entitlement mentality really is, for its integral evil celebrates the true spirit of Godlessness.

A practicing Catholic’s life and love is, therefore, to be always Christocentric, not ever anthropocentric or naturalist-secularist-humanist oriented because the Lord God, the King of King, is, it should be so manifest, the true measure of all things. And, this thought is never to be thought of as just a mere jest.  Furthermore, due to the reality of the Cross of Christ, the ultimate price to be fiercely paid for genuinely holding this important belief can, in fact, be one’s utter destruction unto desolation and death, meaning that ultimate form of Christian gratitude shown toward God in martyrdom.7

Christians, as it ought to be true of all people, are to praise God for everything, the good and the bad, no matter how very hard it may, at times, be; pain and joy, life and death, sadness and gladness, suffering and elation, are all times for praising the Lord, for being and beingness are good, not evil. This is fully opposed to the modern environmental-ecological movement, endorsed by the vilely evil Pontiff Francis,8 which looks upon man as just a horrible, unnatural cancer upon the earth to then be, eventually, utterly wiped out by ZPG, abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc.  It is the conveniently postmodernist home and Green Power emanation of age-old immanentism, as to a much glorified secularization, in all of its so disgustingly demonic “splendor.”

In all things, nonetheless, God is to be honestly thanked, since He is the absolute source of all being and beingness because of the existence of the Creator, the Supreme Being of all, besides the gratis eternal gift of instituting the Roman Catholic Church through Jesus Christ.

Admittedly, times have surely changed. It has been a long time since the right gallant Robert E. Lee, one of the greatest men in American history, said that the word “duty” was among the most sublime words in the English language; this was considering the denotative and connotative qualities involved with that word.  But, for Christians, as Lee knew, they ought to know that it is a privilege, honor, obligation, and duty to love God, which is the ultimate thankfulness that humans are capable of showing.  What this all relates to, as the bottom line, is the honest ability to express a genuine humility.  The proud can never enter Heaven because they are, as the old saying goes, just too big from their own britches.

True gratitude, however, requires the human precondition of humility. And, authentic humility is part of the main ticket toward the admission price expected and needed for attaining Christian beatitude and salvation.  Humble hearts can, of course, express thankfulness readily; truly arrogant and egocentric minds are, unfortunately, too consumed by the entitlement mentality that praises itself for being in a demanding mood, so suitable for a degenerate secular society and culture, and knowing no God.

For ever seeking gratitude, Christians, and more so for practicing Catholics, know full well their eternally great indebtedness to the Lord God Almighty and, as to Catholicism, the Church and its set sacraments inclusive. Only the Crucifixion of Christ was able to pay the debt created by Adam and Eve by opening the doors of Heaven forever, nothing less. Thus, Catholicism involves adhering to the humility of being truly grateful and, with that real thankfulness and pursuit of holiness to obtain grace, remaining a good Catholic, therefore, unto death itself.


And, every Catholic ought to know that the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Thanksgiving for God’s chance at gaining redemption, for the best practice of one’s Catholic faith necessarily revolves around the good idea of gratitude. This is directly seen, of course, in the traditional Catholic Mass. In contrast, entitlements are, in effect, many satanic claws grasping greedily at many people, especially at professed Christians, who really ought to know better than to serve Satan or, rather, his secularist surrogate, the modern State in all of its profane unholiness.  Bitterness, envy, greed, and grievances are allied to this supremely secularist attitude calling forth endless recriminations, malice, resentments, and spite.

It needs to be so rightly understood, therefore, that gratitude is the virtue by which a person properly recognizes, interiorly and exteriorly, assistances gained and seeks to make at least some recompense appropriate for the assistances or favors rendered. The attitude of gratitude is, basically, synonymous with Catholicism itself, as is the true thanksgiving so represented by each and every Holy Mass.  To be a practicing Roman Catholic is, moreover, to be ever grateful and indebted to God in a both practical and spiritual manner.

The prayer before meals illustrates perfectly what the Christian life, the Catholic life, of truly boundless gratitude is to be all about: “Bless us, O Lord, for these thy gifts, which we are about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ, our Lord. Amen.”   The true religious and, thus, undoubted need for such explicit thankfulness, overt appreciation, could hardly be made that much clearer.

Athanasius contra mundum!


  2. These matters can be instructively expatiated upon for some useful amplification. Contrary, e. g., to the libertarian Thomas Woods, Jr., therefore, Catholicism is not really compatible with the ideology of Libertarianism (by whatever euphemism) or, for that matter, any ideology; in opposition to the very anti-libertarian Christopher Ferrara, Catholicism, also, is not to be ever seen as being harmonious with Socialism (by whatever euphemism).  Since Catholicism is, in fact, not an ideology; it can then, as a truly radical religion, thoroughly repudiate both the evils of the entitlement mentality and the ingratitude shown by both individualism and collectivism, in their different but still complementary ways.

Woods, Jr., author of Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion, and Ferrara, author of Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama, used to be good friends turned quite bitter rivals who, nonetheless, are yet intimately united by their ingratitude and entitlement fixations.  Real antagonists, as engaged disputants and competitors, do have much more in common than they would ever realize or, of course, care to admit, especially by, directly or indirectly, mirror-imaging each other so much.  Such a conflict is, thus, quite morally painful to watch.


4.   See: Helmut Schoek’s masterpiece volume Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour

5.   Among a literal plethora of fallacies, Marxism, courtesy of Karl Marx himself, made the so incredibly stupid mistake of positing a form of perfectionism. He had, so asininely, just calmly assumed that what he blandly defined as Capitalism had totally eliminated forever the economic problem of scarcity and calculations, thus, necessarily and naturally dependent upon the empirical economic fact of scarcity.  For him, this definitely meant that Communism could, in its turn, build up upon this (alleged) achievement (actually, a sand castle) and, thus, come to outdo Capitalism itself, in the process of bringing about the New Eden on earth without, of course, God.

This supposed elimination of the definitive core economic problem is quite highly illustrative of the utopianism inherent always within Marxism and all of its many collectivist, Keynesian, etc. variants to this present day and for all time.  It is but one fatal instance, among so very many, of true Marxist brainlessness.  Scarcity and price function are “mysterious” matters that “collectivist economics,” an oxymoron if ever there was one, which do remain forever beyond the intellectual capacity of all these utopian dreamers.  One can, instructively, read Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (3rd edition) and his Socialism to understand the empirically verifiable truth of what is written here.

Relative paucity (by whatever designation) and its omnipresent economic reality on earth renders, by definition, all of Communism/Utopia forever impossible. Marx, being a supremely radical-bourgeois urbanite, was just incapable of possessing the concrete knowledge of even the simplest peasant that perfection can never exist in this world.  It literally takes millions of people, the more the better, to help make a modern freemarket economy function; no hubristic central planners have the collective brain power or capacity, much less the humility, to run entire economies better than the freemarket itself can.

Thus, collectivism always inevitably fails, as easily witness one of the latest examples of such insanely attempted Utopia building: Venezuela, where people are literally starving to death in the gutters. And, this is, of course, called with quite hellish irony yet another “Worker’s Paradise.”





Discerning the Higher Magisterium

Discerning the Higher Magisterium: Catholic Orthodoxy Demands Allegiance to Truth

By   Joseph Andrew Settanni

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, unto the consummation of the world.”  (Mt 28:18-20)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”  (Mt 16:18-19)

Who was it who once said, I smell a skunk?  There must come here a knowledgeable prolegomena, so to speak, introducing discernably right from wrong cognition, on this important subject, so often distorted by partisan pleadings.  Things are happening, have no doubt, that are in the nature of the truly demonic.  However, what’s the more immediately serious matter, one may ask?

Prevarication, increasingly, has been the prevalent modus vivendi coming from the Vatican, especially since the current pontificate started to really get into high gear, in the last few years.  Clarifications and definitions do aid clear thinking and right reason, nonetheless, as St. Thomas Aquinas would have fully agreed.

Before discussing many details of the magisterium proper, it is necessary to distinguish between what is known as the infallible sacred Magisterium (that will be noted by giving it a capital M) and the fallible ordinary magisterium; this is because many theologians and sundry others, religious commentators and pundits, often do erroneously confuse and confound them as being, perhaps, so necessarily or supposed as ultimately the very same thing.

This is overtly false and should, moreover, be always appropriately recognized as such, for the significant sake of theological truth in particular and overall religious veracity in general.

History and Theology Here Unites

When, e. g., any bishops, in the 15th century, had called Joan of Arc a witch, heretic, and/or apostate, that or those designation(s) used were only a part of the exercise of the ordinary magisterium, which can be wrong, not infallible.   Moreover, though 500 long years later, the young Maid of Orleans was, in fact, finally and solemnly canonized; but, it often takes the Church some time, in this case centuries later, to properly correct any errors or mistakes possibly made in the course of exercising the ordinary magisterium.

And, this properly noted fact, in the course of this entire article, should be studiously kept in mind as an important reference and supportive evidence solidly positing, postulating, the religious and theological argumentation and demonstration of the overt truth presented for logical consideration.

Centuries earlier, when about 90%, approximately, of the hierarchy of the Church was then basically dominated by the Arian Heresy, no rational theologian, no Catholic prelate worthy to be listened to, would dare to facetiously say that such heresy should be regarded plainly as being exemplary of the infallible sacred Magisterium.   No heresy whatsoever can become incorporated into Catholicism, even if it gets generally approved of, for centuries of history, by the majority of the hierarchy.

It was not at all rightly aligned, for instance, with any surely orthodox knowledge and teaching of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or any of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Furthermore, anyone who contends otherwise, against all the historical facts, is just a bold liar deserving of complete contempt.

At best, it was just a faux example, an imposture, of a (supposed) ordinary magisterium that, indeed, had contradicted the true Magisterium, which is, of course, always the truly authentic, universal voice of the entire ecclesiastical organization qua Church founded by Jesus Christ.  No Catholic, moreover, is ever supposed to deny this obvious truth pertaining to the core reality of Roman Catholicism.

Let a useful and informative definition be suitably given: The infallible sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the pope when, in fact, officially speaking ex cathedra and of those validly declared ecumenical councils, which are traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees, as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  It is also known as the solemn Magisterium.  This then appropriately conforms to the strict and known requirements of orthodoxy within Catholicism.

Let another definition be rendered: The ordinary magisterium, in easy contrast, includes a wide variety and different degrees of potentially fallible teachings of the pope (i.e., not given ex cathedra), bishops, and ecumenical councils and, as is normally more commonly the case, of individual bishops or possible assemblages of bishops as taken separately from the whole College of them, as with, e.g., the College of Cardinals.

Such teachings, usually filled with personal opinions, subjectivism, and speculative assertions, are yet fallible and could possibly contain various kinds of errors; they are necessarily often subject to revisions or even, though rarely, actual revocation.

In the case of the teachings of individual bishops, as an instance, announced to their diocese, there can, of course, be even major or severe disagreements among the different individual bishops on a potential variety of issues. With this matter, orthodoxy can and may just play a secondary or, sometimes, tertiary role, before certain issues get resolved, that can then and only then substantially and substantively raise the decision(s) to the more imperative and, thus, much higher level of the infallible sacred Magisterium.

The infallible sacred Magisterium, and whatever gets attached to it, is always fundamentally definitive, absolute, permanent, decisive, unquestionable, and, therefore, necessarily becomes de fide as to primary beliefs that must be, unreservedly and unconditionally, believed in by all faithful Catholics; in set contrast, what may exist as merely the ordinary magisterium is not de fide, absolute, or beyond questioning; it is rather conditional and can, moreover, be reviewed, revised, modified, amended, and, if found necessary, even discarded or totally revoked as to any real claim upon belief.

Therefore, it is clear that the two very different kinds of magisterium should be easily distinguished and understood as ever having two quite different levels of authority and affirmation, applicable degree and possible confirmation, pertaining to the demands of Catholic belief.

It is to be correctly understood de fide that whatsoever has been imparted by the Church since the time of Christ’s ministry, whether instituted formally through any “solemn” declarations made by councils or popes, or if done by undisputed or unanimous “ordinary” every day teaching given by the Church, must be unquestionably believed in by all Catholics.

This is an absolutely mandatory aspect of Catholic belief, furthermore, that refers all the way back to what Jesus Christ Himself said in Scripture and, in addition, what the First Vatican Council had publicly affirmed.  Any member of the faithful who may obstinately refuse to do so is to be called a heretic, as had happened with Martin Luther, and is placed completely outside of the Holy Catholic Church as an excommunicate.

But, let Pope Leo XIII, in his Satis Cognitum,  speak definitively to this highly important issue, as when he properly said, ”Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative, and permanent magisterium, which He strengthened by His own power, taught by the Spirit of truth, and confirmed by miracles.  He willed and ordered under the gravest penalties that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.”   None of this Catholic truth would have been denied by either Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman or St. Thomas Aquinas, of course.

One may, also, say that Pope Pius XII, in his Humani Generis, further insightfully extrapolates that, “God has given to His Church a living teaching authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly.  This deposit of faith our divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church.”  No facts could be clearer.

Such “teaching authority” is to be absolute and universal, meaning that it is to equally apply to all non-Catholics as well, though the Church has, in fact, long ceased to have such any extensive power of enforcement, of course, or evenly to publicly claim it.

In this light, the immense gravity of the profound harm deliberately intended by the Vatican, by the “traitorous” Vicar of Christ, should be here exposed as both seriously violative and integrally abusive of permanent Church teachings.  Therefore, in any proper discerning of the higher Magisterium versus the lesser kind precisely means that Catholic orthodoxy, in this matter, certainly demands allegiance to the ultimate truth, to the Catholic faith, not to the Pope.

And, this theological and religious admonition is totally unconditional, for as St Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, had correctly said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”  Catholicism always takes full precedence to any pope (or even an “angel from heaven”) uttering mere opinions or speculations, even if formulated and presented in Papal-approved statements.

Clever defenders of the heretic1  Pope Francis are falsely claiming, e. g., that his very controversial Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) is not shockingly filled with a number of clearly blasphemous and sacrilegious notions absolutely unworthy of any papal sanction, much less supposedly appropriate Catholic teachings.

Nonetheless, the Holy Father and his so solicitous knaves and rather crafty tergiversationists wish to yet foist upon the laity and prelacy the disingenuous idea that these greatly illicit and immoral teachings are just a plainly genuine coin of the realm, not just the bogus relativist-subjectivist nonsense that it actually undoubtedly is.

The untruthful, deceitful, assertion is made that what was pushed forward so awkwardly is authentically done by the promptings of the Holy Ghost and, moreover, so fully conforms to all the right, proper, and appropriate requirements of the infallible sacred Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.   As this pointed disquisition written for the reader sustains and maintains, nothing could ever be further from the truth, including the more important holy matter of Divine Truth, which is to be defended vigorously.

Of course, being clever propagandists, the advocates of Amoris Laetitia mixed up truths and falsities in that Jesuitical document, so it is often very hard to ever accurately know where a lie begins or ends, when set in the middle of often religious-sounding or just somewhat too sanctimonious language.  It becomes, to uninformed minds, a seeming analogous concoction of “Mom and apple pie” dynamics that do become hard to make objections against or, at least, not so often effectively.

They deliberately seek to extremely confuse and confound matters with suggestive wording that turns the unwary or theologically uneducated mind toward many both unfortunate and improper thoughts of (false) charity, (untrue) compassion, and a needless misinterpretation of (incorrect) love for fellow Christians.  Yes, delving here into the vernacular, it’s quite an elaborate con job, done by professional hucksters, knowing full well the tricks of the trade.  The equivalents of much Aesopian language and Orwellian-style semantics abound with such demonic trickery.

But, as was discussed earlier in this article, the very best that might be said, one assumes, is that Amoris Laetitia (AL) is merely a sad composition to be seen in the lesser light of the merely ordinary magisterium, though its lying supporters, including Pope Francis, will tergiversate oppositely to the truth; this means, incidentally, that simultaneously they do quite knowingly violate the Divine Truth, for which God will, certainly, so hold them totally responsible.

This vilely inordinate and wrong pushing of AL, under an unpleasant disguise, is morally unworthy of those consecrated prelates of the Catholic Church who may, in fact, support it, as if they meanly wish to exemplify the most usually unctuous status of used car salesmen, not honored Fathers of the Faith.

The true actual but surely masked thrust of this heinous document is strongly against family life and children, which are supposed to be the normal products of familial reality; this is, certainly, because the intention of AL, though hypocritically denied, is to substantially and substantively help to destroy any semblance of genuine family life and, thus, the having and raising of children.  As William F. Buckley, Jr. was oddly fond of quoting Leon Trotsky: Who says A must say B.

It is, in clever camouflage, a viciously anti-family tract having very little to do with compassion, mercy, sympathy, clemency, or Christian love, when properly analyzed to get righty past the seductive and so deliberately misaligned verbiage.  It is, no doubt, an Aesopian production viciously formative of much mischief and calculated deception because God’s mercy is synonymous with His justice and love.  (And, the References appended to this present article do, thus, cover the extensive details of the tremendous deception being deliberately perpetrated in the name of religion.)

Opposition to AL is, therefore, founded firmly in Catholic truth, not heretical lies, as are, more and more, coming constantly from the Vatican these days.  While many parts or aspects of AL, of course, are not objectionable; certain questionable sections and assertions most certainly are, therefore, so absolutely subject to needed dispute and requisite refutation in proper and righteous support of Divine Truth.

The cheap canard is asserted that only certain limited pastoral practices are to be somewhat modified without changing the doctrinal or dogmatic standards to be always kept.  This is a part of the verbalist semantic manipulation and, upon reflection, liturgical sleight of hand going on by deceitful prelates and their epigones.

They do studiously wish to ignore the logical demands of recognizing the theological meaning of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi as being formative and imperative for Catholic community and culture as the only One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.  It is, therefore, theologically impossible for pastoral practice not to eventually reflect back upon and set de facto if not de jure changes of one against the other, which is overtly illustrative of the wanted confusion and chaos brought on by desiring heresy.

And so, this observation of truth is ever regardless of any and all necessarily fallacious and mendacious, specious and illogical, arguments set to the contrary.   For Catholicism, especially for orthodoxy opposed to heresy, doctrine equals practice and practice equals doctrine because the dogmas of the faith are theologically controlling, not mere religious practice.  The proverbial tail is not meant to wag the dog, though the supporters of AL do freely and facetiously contend otherwise, meaning in their enormously evil arguments for, thus, boldly upholding heresy.

The very sly and utterly disingenuous champions of this so wayward document know full well that what pastoral practices were once said to be for only (rare) exceptions to the rule will eventually become, as they actively do wish, new rules themselves.   Although they tergiversate on the issues, they want what is said, for now, to be exceptional to become the norm.

Contrary to what is too often supposed, this is how relativism and situation ethics become absolutes, in the way that each heresy seeks to become its very own orthodoxy.   And, because of the ongoing and massive corruption in the Church, it seems necessary for every mature adult to try to become, if thought possible, a theologian for properly discerning such important matters as the higher versus the lower level of magisterium.

This is instead of doing, on average, what most Catholics do by simply conflating or confusing the lower into the higher, as all being just one type of magisterium.   One might ask, why is all sorts of primary theological knowledge good to have?

There are surely real-world consequences, usually for ill, due to such unfortunate aforementioned acts of ignorance and unknowing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it opens the mental door to wrongly go about embracing heresies, perhaps, even by default, if not ever through any active intent.

What is Really Going On?

What is the ugly reality behind the mere benevolent mask? The radicals, the theological deviants, in the Church are seeking to create or develop bridgeheads by which they can reach out to the secularists and humanists, for supposedly heading toward a wanted higher synthesis of enlightened cognizant reality, which is existentially and phenomenologically thought possible of anthropocentric formulation.

Once, again, for those who are informed and do have a fairly sophisticated breadth and keen depth of knowledge, this is the obviously nominalist Hegelian dialectic, as was seen with the Second Vatican Council.   The radicals are seeking a supposedly viable means and condition of attaining cognitive and existential reciprocity and complementarity leading from (mere) modernity to postmodernity, to create a reified reality for a triumphant humanity, which is thoroughly consonant with the nominalist heresy of current neo-Pelagianism.

The thesis is a perpetually evolving and reformed Protestant-style Church to, thus, basically replace the existing existential ecclesial situation; the antithesis presented is the progressivist, radical-bourgeois world order, sometimes called the New World Order, and, the then planned, attempted, and hoped-for synthesis is a combined or, rather, skillfully conglomerated composition that will so be, ultimately, both derivatively post-Enlightenment and postmodern, meaning in its then various plastic salvific insights and necessarily evolving directions of cognition.

Thesis, synthesis, and antithesis creates dialectical insight and a superior intellect (as it is thought by the cognoscenti) that commands the power to assist in the transformation of humanity itself, to perfect the ugly imperfection, due to God’s assumed failure or, perhaps, misplaced “benign neglect” as the Creator.

This is all meant to be esoteric knowledge; however, it goes well beyond plain Gnosticism as was, e. g., thought of by Eric Voegelin2 and finally ends by fully and sadly supporting the ongoing heresy of neo-Pelagianism, the making of ideology into an ersatz religion to enable the perfectibility of Man, meaning without God.  For knowledgeable observers, what is really happening is rather too obvious; it is the presented case of properly seeing the correct considerations of the assumed pretext, correct context, and elusive subtext of the entire war or protracted conflict.

The manifest pretext is found in the workings and language of AL, the context is the latent utopianism being favored, and the subtle subtext is the subversive effort, by the Holy Father and his inner circle, to revolutionize the Church, for making it compatible with the progressivist, radical-bourgeois world order.  All this such a mind as was possessed by James Burnham would, surely, have recognized correctly the radicalism, the revolutionism, involved, as are the ideological implications and ramifications discussed in this too brief article.  Have no naïve illusion, as with the above cited pretext, context and subtext, that what is involved is definitely a real power play, not a polite parlor game.

A revolutionary situation is being called into existence by the Bishop of Rome who is lining up his cadres and assembling and appointing his comrades; meanwhile, almost none of the opposition knows what is really happening, as a surely public proponent of Marxist Liberation Theology presides in the Vatican.   For as (the former Marxist-Trotskyite) Burnham would have noted, they are woefully ignorant of dialectic, naïve about practical propaganda, and functionally unware of the devious workings of the subversives who, feverishly, do work toward the elimination of any effective opposition.

Those who are dissenters from what AL is trying to promote are basically scattered and fragmented, largely dispersed and split into some factions; the often energized cadres of the Pope are typically united, mostly concentrated for action, and organized for battle. Logically, when one side is so fully conversant with power struggle but the other not, guess which one will win the protracted conflict?

Such Catholics opposing the Pope are like mere simple and trusting sheep confronting many wily foxes. The object of the revolutionists’ desires is, decidedly, mundane (power on earth), but yet stimulates their ever wildest dreams for an anti-Christocentric notion of terrene reality, which seems still so salvific to them.  The vast majority of the really top players are not to be ignorantly seen as mere old-fashioned, normal Vatican intriguers; these dedicated and ideologically-hardened radicals are truly fighting and fighting to win at all costs.  This needs to be kept in mind for better understanding what will be said.

The main adversaries, usually so weak and fairly timid, are pleading for some compromises, requesting redefinitions to soothe some harsher critics of Papal policies, and seeking some means of balancing the overt abnormality, sought by AL, with the normalcy expected by orthodox Catholic doctrines, dogmas, and teachings. It is, at least on the rather plain surface of affairs, an uneven or lopsided kind of unfair confrontation.

The Pope and his loyal minions steadily have their “eyes on the prize,” while the vast majority of the critics do not seem to properly realize the deeper issues involved.   They uselessly attack the manifest issues raised that help to better conceal the latent matters undiscussed or undisputed that are then allowed to fester and grow more infectious, seemingly, month by month, year by year.  As a result, few keenly notice that the immoral quest for immanentism goes fundamentally unresolved, as doxological or, perhaps, soteriological issues are to be debated endlessly, meaning as the real damage gets done.

Most commentators and critics mainly concentrate almost exclusively at seeing the individual trees, meaning issues raised, in AL but are, basically, oblivious to perceiving the overall forest.   Many brilliant and learned exegeses have been composed exposing the notable faults and flaws as to, thus, covering minutely the various details involved in expounding the errors uncovered, however, the covert meaning of this document escapes almost always much needed attention.

The detractors are well meaning but still fundamentally unfocused and usually unorganized.   With his cadres of wolves in sheep’s clothing, the Pope, therefore, holds the high ground and he so well knows it; his sinful hope is to plant evil seeds that will, over time, yield bad fruit.

Guess which side, in the short term, will then definitely win?   Bets would seem to favor the enthusiastic revolutionaries, not the mostly unsure, distracted, uncertain, or wavering opponents usually desiring, more or less, a rather gentle respite for recuperating; they appear mainly unwilling, more or less, to take up the Cross.  But, the advocates for AL do not hesitate to agitate for acceptance and action done on its behalf as an imperative matter; capitulation or any kind of substantial backing down need never enter their aggressive minds set upon further and further victories at the expense of the old guard.

It is a pubescently bold step forward for a New World Order (NWO), as ever, verging toward the chaotic New Eden on earth that, as truly mature minds do recognize, is the ever dazzling chimera of Utopia, of course, by whatever euphemism. As the great Malcolm Muggeridge would have noted, this is the real argument beyond what appears to be the merely ostensible matter or matters being discussed publicly.

The ever proud and egotistic champions of Utopia, believing that both history and the earthly god called Progress on their side, are waging a deliberate war in opposition to those adversaries (the adults) who always realistically deny that such a NWO can be actually achieved in this world. Whatever else it may be, radicalism, whether about Nazism, Communism or Fascism, is essentially a youth movement against intellectual maturity and the accumulated wisdom of generations.

The final end game of the radicals, the assumed adept or enlightened cognoscenti, is the attainment of realizable immanentist power, as aided by pragmatism, positivism and subjectivism, to finally build the secularized society and culture of deified Man.

Thus, be not enthralled by those, who with Pope Francis, go whoring after (a false) righteousness lest, catching the contagion, to be then consumed in the process of seeking to attain that which is objectively sinful. Pursuit of any New Eden is the hubristic failing of sinful men who are scandalized by an imperfect God, meaning in their warped minds.

Those Catholics and others, however, who are not truly familiar with Hegelian dialect and the rarified discourse that it engenders are unable to actually grasp what the real contention is all about, meaning in terms of what is demonically intended.

They simplistically think that the real debate solely concerns such basic matters as family, sexual issues, homosexuality, divorce, children, etc. All that, in terms of AL,  is just the mere religious façade; the Hegelian dialectic is the (unspoken) core or key reality, the quest for immanentism incarnated within only earthly means toward that end, which the often pleasant semantics and rhetoric are so craftily, slyly, designed to conceal, not reveal; nor are the ideological, radical-bourgeois urgings and promptings easily discernible.

Of course, the fallacious claim made by the radicals, because they do wish to ignore Divine Reason, classical Natural Law, and the Justice of God, is that they only wish to accomplish good and not evil in their eyes. It is ever, nonetheless, the nominalist pleadings of subjectivism and relativism glorified.

Most existent disapproval of the radical program is still ever an exercise of powerlessness, of course, since they deal with the surface effects, not the deep causes, of the religious radicalism.   And, the same was, e. g., quite historically also true for Lutheranism, Calvinism, Puritanism, and Jansenism.  In both the age of modernity with its attendant Protestant Revolution and, now, increasing postmodernity, all manner of intellectual, moral, and religious errors seek, thus, to reign triumphantly.  This should be obvious.

It is recognized, freely and admittedly, that the most insignificant author of this article has chosen, for now, what is the losing side; this is because the corrupt hierarchy is being filled with the many agents of Pope Francis, who willingly adhere to the great intended revolution, so urgently wanted by the Holy Pontiff, against the important need for Catholic truth, meaning his evil struggle against orthodoxy, thus, transversely to truth itself.

In this quite morally perilous struggle, one ought to then critically recognize, therefore, that that these forces must so inevitably be demonically ranged athwart all needed concern for Divine Truth. Unfortunately, for those who are theologically ignorant of Catholic teachings, AL has just enough sentimental and qualified orthodoxy to make it fairly palatable to many prelates, clerics, and others who, of course, really ought to know better.

Catholic catechesis, for at least the past 50 years now, has been so highly deficient, it is no real wonder at all that theological ignorance is so generally pervasive as to be fairly pandemic by now.4

An uninstructed laity and prelacy, predominantly settled in observed unawareness, readily seems to mainly accept and acquiesce in the prevarication and equivocation done in the attractive names of charity, compassion, and love. And, so, who can vigorously and constantly fight counter to and presumably revile “Mom and apple pie” emotionalism in the observed face of hierarchical collaboration and appeasement?

Any opposition to all this requires an adamant determination to fiercely defend orthodoxy, in the spirit of St. Athanasius3, by being prepared, in one’s own parish if need be, to stand alone, confronting the majority, who are clearly wrong.

To appropriately cite the words of Woodrow Wilson, as to the grave point being made here: “I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose!” While the defense of orthodoxy is rarely rewarded on earth, the greater knowledge is that the true reward is not in this passing world that disappears with one’s own passing.

Loyal Catholics should, determinedly, stay always faithful to the true Faith and its traditional teachings, supported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, because they do correctly conform to the actually infallible sacred Magisterium, not the ever absurdly pietistic quasi-truths and seemingly pious-sounding phraseology of AL.   Orthodoxy, nevertheless, will be ultimately rewarded.

St. Athanasius himself, have no doubt, would surely approve of such righteous thinking, as would be morally recommended by the Patriarchs, Fathers, Doctors, and Scholastics.  To be most orthodox is to be most Catholic as well, though this would be denied, of course, by the current and heretical Bishop of Rome and his many evil cohorts.  For useful clarification here, however, one must be, in reiteration, certain in knowing that the infallible sacred Magisterium is definitively disparate from, firmly opposed to, the obnoxiously unorthodox presumptiveness and posturing unquestionably to be found in AL.

For those blinded by appeals to semantics or rhetoric, this is fraught with the corruption and dilution, the sleaze and attenuation, of requisite Catholic dogmas and doctrines being pressed harmfully forward, more pleadings to be done for the supposed fulfillment of the “Spirit of the Second Vatican Council” can be observed, and this revolution will be then presented as a true Catholic Enlightenment, a “wrongly” delayed acceptance of the 18th century Enlightenment.

It seeks, of course, to be a paean for the essence of what Pope St. Pius X had condemned so completely and vigorously in his very needed attack on Modernism entitled: Pascendi Domini gregis. Within such a context, opposition to AL will, consequently, separate the Lord’s adoring and faithful sheep from the too often confused and witless goats versus the radicals.   As always, one ought to know that the traditional, Catholic guiding principles of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi shine forth as being directive toward authentic Catholic life, culture, and conduct differentiating all the genuine, practicing faithful from the mere heathens, the unbelievers, and pretenders.

Being simple and forthright in one’s devoted faith is not, therefore, to be wrongly ever confused with being a just a religious simpleton. Orthodoxy and devotion to its holy cause requires a strong religious character able, if needed, to endure even the pains of possible martyrdom for the greater Glory of God.  Religion and martyrdom, furthermore, will be, more and more, intimately connected in America and the Western world, as the enemies of the Church grow stronger and multiply, as they have, in fact, been successfully doing.  Satanism and its logical concomitant witchcraft, the Wicca cult, have truly been gaining strength and spreading in the 21st century.

However, it is not just these enemies and the active Moslem world and its horrendous aggressions that are to be noted; secularists and humanists, atheists and freethinkers, really do hate all of Catholicism and any/all of its committed followers. Metaphysical warfare, its real instigation by the forces of Hell, usually precedes physical conflict in this world, though many people, leaning upon their vain devotion to materialism, naturalism, or nihilism, do not ever believe in this supernatural reality as to the true and greater confrontation involved.  But, Catholics are required to believe in all that is “seen and not seen” in this fallen creation, on this sad planet.

The Machiavellian path of AL is, moreover, rather too obvious for those who know and care to see. The Progressive and Leftist elements that have increasingly infiltrated the Church, for pressing hard their evil modernism and postmodernism, vilely seek to find easy ways toward an accommodation with the world, through this horrid appeasement and spineless collaboration.  They will not, however, come to really fool the many committed enemies of Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

The followers of Islam, from their hate-filled perspective, detect only weakness; the same is, invariably, true for those who ever sinfully demand absolute surrender, through the total secularization of all of culture and civilization, and without any actual exceptions whatsoever. But, Divine punishment will, nonetheless, come, especially in the infinitely more important life of the world to come, for Amoris Laetitia is, ultimately, an attack upon all human axiology, epistemology, and, finally, ontology itself.

Of course, it is usually unrecognized as such, by typical readers of this troublesome and profoundly flawed document, having a vain pretense purporting toward claiming theological truth and spiritual veracity. But, the Church’s advanced intelligentsia, gathered around Pope Francis, see AL as a good opportunity, though a slight one from their point of view, to help advance the dialectic and better pave the way to the NWO, or whatever euphemism various participants in the revolution may wish to apply.

And yet, this titanic conflict within the Church is more than just an academic versus populist dispute. How so?   Satan and his minions are also actively engaged.  There are, in fact, supernatural forces at work more than is ever commonly suspected.


Nonetheless, metaphysical reality is no less real merely because it is unseen. There is the true need for much continued spiritual warfare; and such spiritual fighting must now be done against the Pope and the majority of the hierarchy who do, in fact, side with the vile sentiments expressed in AL.

The defense of family, children, love, charity, and compassion both logically and reasonably demands that the higher Magisterium be powerfully upheld by always rightly rejecting this Orwellian-titled, Trojan horse: The Joy of Love.  It is a, thus, misbegotten and morally joyless celebration of much true evil, a malevolent kind of sweet poison, set firmly against proper and traditional Catholic dogmas, doctrines, and teachings, the sensus fidei and orthodoxus sensus fidelium.

The Doctors of the Church, besides the Patriarchs and Fathers, would be absolutely appalled at how the Pope is acting and what he is doing to actively subvert Catholicism.

While he and his contemptuous supporters do possess the majority of the buildings and, of course, the Vatican apparatus (as was true of the ancient Arians), the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Communion of Saints, the Heavenly Hosts, and the Lord God Almighty all grandly stand in unyielding and purposeful opposition.   And, in this sense, the war is manifestly lopsided in actual favor of those who rightly side with orthodoxy, with the ardent and sincere righteousness of Catholic truth.

Meanwhile, there is yet the truthful consideration of what Fr. George W. Rutler notes, in an aptly titled book that forcefully summarizes the chief problem and stumbling block of present times, quite sadly entitled: A Crisis of Saints.   In contradistinction, nonetheless, this is why what is needed vitally is for a “Great Lion of the Church” to arise and lead the orthodox forces on to a glorious and valiant victory, rather, than to give in to any unwanted despair or so worthless despondency.

God is ever on the side of justice and right by having, of course, no respect whatsoever for the various blasphemies and sacrileges to be found in the assorted theological vileness and religious turpitude freely contained Amoris Laetitia.  This fiendish effort at the attempted bastardization of Catholicism must be unequivocally censured and needfully exposed to the light of truth, of Catholic truth.

Therefore, the absolute condemnation, total denunciation, of it, with its vile laudation of heresies, ought to be only unqualifiedly resounding and firmly unremitting until it then gets completely revoked and repudiated in its ugly entirety.  Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

Athanasius contra mundum!


Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 Edition)

Catechism of the Council of Trent

Avery Cardinal Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith


1.  Good news and bad news exists. It is so truly a shame that the following needs to be said, but Catholic catechesis has, unfortunately, fallen to such a low state these days.  While the Holy Ghost, according to all orthodox Catholic teachings, absolutely guarantees that the Pope, in making any truly ex cathedra statements cannot ever fall into any real heresy whatsoever; a pope can still be a heretic.  Distinctions and qualifications are, therefore, admittedly needed for better providing here clarification.  A pope, of course, can still sin and must go to confession for, if he has any, his holding of heretical, blasphemous, or sacrilegious thoughts to be, thus, repented very sincerely and by doing his assigned contrition.  Popes are not guaranteed against sinfulness nor are they rendered sinless for life by the Holy Spirit.

The Vicar of Christ is not at all axiomatically exempt from committing either venial or mortal sins, for all people are fallen creatures living in a fallen world, due to Original Sin.  It is, much more significantly, a definitely greater shame, however, that the noted Magisterium of the Church must here be strongly defended against the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, which ought to be so absolutely anomalous, without any question, to the nth degree.  What is the evident problem revealed?  This then extremely peculiar and shocking condition, consequently, would not, should not, and ought not to ever logically exist – unless, of course, the Pope is a heretic.

Defenders of Pope Francis do “reason,” however, backwardly, in a very suitable Jesuitical manner, by ridiculously so postulating that since the Holy Ghost prevents heresy, then all heretical popes are also prohibited. This is, nonetheless, the classic fallacy on display of post hoc, ergo propter hoc ratiocination by, preposterously, saying no heretical statements can be made, thus, no heretical popes can exist. This could only be true if, in fact, a pope were to be miraculously freed of ever committing the mortal sin of entertaining, agreeing with, what are heretical thoughts.

The Pope is called the Holy Father because of the highly sacred office held, not because he must then be regarded, without question, as being magically transformed into a then holy man, as witness, e. g., Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) being not exactly exemplary of holiness. The Papal title given and human quality attendant to are not, therefore, so simply transferable, though most Catholics do simplistically believe otherwise, of course.  This so strongly affirms here easily, furthermore, the notably poor level of the aforementioned catechesis that both surely and sadly exists.

Too many Catholics childishly believe that once a priest, bishop, or cardinal is raised to the Papacy he is then inoculated against serious sinning; they wrongly confuse and confound the sacred office with the (less-than-perfect) man occupying it. But, popes do come and go, Catholicism and its truth remains.

2.   The 20th century philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901 – 1985) was an author of many works, including, of course, Science, Politics and Gnosticism and his very ambitious, multivolume Order and History. He had started out by finding Gnosticism nearly everywhere imaginable, but its pervasive application got so very broad as to become, in effect, meaningless as critical analysis; he himself eventually, in later years, did recognize the basic problem heuristically created and, thus, substantially modified the meaning as to become fairly or almost meaningless.  The hand was simply overplayed; it then needed to be rationally delimited.

While it is clearly undoubted that many or, at times, most elements of what constituted modernity were Gnostic, as Voegelin correctly found, or, at the least, neo-Gnostic-influenced parts of beliefs, however, the main or central Zeitgeist or inspiration for and of modernity had been Pelagianism, the total denial of Original Sin and all that this implies.  With the advent, however, of ideological thought as being ersatz religion, starting in about the late 18th century, it then became neo-Pelagianism; this is as to its much substantially heightened cognition easily seen trending into politics, religion, culture, and elsewhere.

By the 20th century, for instance, the many committed ideologists of Communism, Nazism, and Fascism were all convinced that they could really bring about, through a reified or second reality, the New Eden, Utopia, which is now seen, of course, in many immanentist aspirations for creating the New World Order.  One, therefore, sees here how neo-Pelagianism is vitally integral to the intramundane belief in the various versions or kinds of Utopia, meaning by whatever euphemism for such nominalist belief.

3.   It may be highly curious and significantly odd to note that Dr. Ludwig Ott’s classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in its index, has no term of “Magisterium” present. And, such a rather major, and so presumably authoritative work, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) only mentions that term in connection with a matter pertaining to the subject of prayer.

Although the Sacred Magisterium, with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are, in fact, the three main pillars of the Faith, one would not get that impression from either the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma or, more shockingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church!  One can only imagine the other rather glaring and major deficiencies of yet future theological texts.  God help the Church!

See also:

4.   For several centuries after his death, because St. Athanasius had such a truly tremendous impact on the upholding of orthodoxy in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, Athanasianism then became a synonym for Catholicism. At times, he seemed to be the only man in the entire Christian world holding out for all the truth of the dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism in their purity, in their devotion to God, athwart the Arians and their persecutions.

During his majestically heroic life quite filled with (unwanted) adventure, and through many torments, beatings, three exiles, being hunted down and greatly hated by the predominantly Arian ecclesiastical hierarchy, and much more, he, then, most definitely was – Athanasius against the world. More than ever, today, there is the genuinely urgent need to fervently pray to this great saint for help against all heretics, especially those residing in the Vatican.

References: [Just a “few” given below as to examples.]

Amoris Laetitia: A Deceptive Joy

“Amoris Laetitia” and the Coming Schism: Retrospect & Prospect

Does Amoris Laetitia Retreat from Absolute Moral Norms?

Separating Opinion from Doctrine in Amoris Laetitia

Cardinal Brandmüller Again Warns About Amoris Laetitia

Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter Publishes a Critique of Amoris Laetitia

Another Catholic Scholar Raises Objections to Amoris Laetitia