The greatest site in all the land!

Tag: neo-Pelagianism

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


Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness

Myth, Magic, Islamic State, and Roman Catholicism’s Greatness:

Catholic Demythologization of Temporal Order for Its Sacralization and Sanctification

By  Joseph Andrew Settanni

On the Restoration of All Things in Christ – E Supremi, St. Pope Pius X

Why is so much of contemporary life burdened with an excess of seemingly pandemic mythical and magical nonsense, talismanic thinking, that must irrationally effuse through Western society and its culture? How did the typical norm of an awkward emotional and mental infantility, adult childishness, become, moreover, so intolerably regnant these days?

The passing modern age, now devolving itself into the low era of postmodernity, must live with the baleful consequences of how modernity had so greatly embraced, or rather re-embraced, both myth and magic, especially as it crescively rejected classical Natural Law teachings.

Modernity qua itself means the mindset, e.g., of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Jürgen Habermas.  The normative or classical mindset, in rather clear comparison, would refer, e. g., to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Joseph de Maistre, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, M. E. Bradford, and Frederick D. Wilhelmsen.

This, the noting of myth and magic, is a too often neglected matter that is both amazing and enlightening to reasonably recount and extrapolate, which, at first, seems so incredible and discordant with what is popularly thought or generally surmised.  Basic rationality too often, one supposes, appears to be one distinctive hallmark of the often celebrated modern or, better put, progressive mind.

But, in sociology, there are the interesting terms of latent and manifest, which can be usefully used here; the former is descriptive of what is not seen on the surface of society or social order, the latter is what seems to be too obvious or quite noticeable kept on the surface of reality.

These beliefs known as myth and magic, assumed to have been eradicated by sophistication, became instead integral features of a triumphant modernity haughtily proud of its secularism, positivism, materialism, pragmatism, and relativism.  All of which, dramatically and tragically, helped to lead to World War I, World War II, atomic weapons, many genocides, and other such rather dubious “delights” of modern man, besides the predictive dead end of hubristic nihilism.

Christianity and Truth

Many centuries ago, Catholicism qua Christianity had then demythologized the temporal order,1 meaning that the older eras of nature spirits, heathen gods and goddesses, the evil eye, superstitions, magic charms, enchanted forests, devil worship, and all such cognate rot had been tremendously displaced, if not entirely eliminated, by the spread of the Catholic Faith.

Catholicism had, in effect, liberated the older world from the darkness of the apparitions and superstitions that unfortunately had retarded social, cultural, and civilizational vitality, which made the Church, e. g., the inspirer and originator of what then became the liberal arts and sciences to be found at the great medieval universities.  The academic disciplines of the Trivium and Quadrivium had, thus, assisted in the civilizing and educating of Europeans for centuries.

It was a monumentally tremendous success of beneficent Christianization, the New Testament, that had advanced civilization and culture simultaneously, meaning wherever and whenever the Faith had, thus, sincerely and confidently triumphed within a host society and its culture.

Ironically, this also helped to pave the way toward a later secularization of human society and culture by freeing men from certain pre-Christian aspects of human life, meaning from the limitations created upon the spirit of man as to why he had much feared a world filled with miscellaneous demons and apparitions that, among other difficulties, denied the existence of free will.

The Catholic doctrine of free will 2, building creatively upon the useful insights of the learned Greek and Roman ancients, assisted mightily in genuinely liberating humanity from a world of weary darkness and often fatalistic uncertainty or mystical pagan irrationality; this noted positive advance was much added to by knowledge of the Old Testament, of course, without question.

Added to all this was the Church’s adamant defense of the classical Natural Law tradition and the important Catholic political principles of solidarity, meaning membership and brotherhood in a common Christendom, and subsidiarity, the basic decentralization of political power and authority by seeking to address grievances at the lowest levels first before, if and when needed, eventually going to the highest.

The Church, also, favors a loving understanding of and support for social justice unlike all the modernist, corrupted versions of the term that necessarily do make a total mockery of it.  What is wanted, in further reiteration and useful clarification, is the holy and comprehensive ideal of a totally Catholic koinos kosmos (a blessed public world or lovingly shared universe) opposed to the ever distinctly and antagonistic anti-Catholic idios kosmos (a secularized, relativist world or endless cold multiverses.)

The above cited accomplishments and achievements of the Church, filling the vacuum made by the Fall of the Roman Empire, were not done without often overcoming many great numbers of enormous difficulties, besides the potent hazards of so many nasty barbarian invasions that had created tremendous havoc and mayhem galore. Various types of atheists with their hubris, and especially dedicated secularists, do rarely acknowledge this significantly important fact.

Aided by the best thinking and considerations of the pagan philosophers, the Christian faith offered a commonsensical, reasonable, logical, understandable, and rational worldview and a presentable world, subject to an overarching metaphysical order, defended by truth and justice in the ever glorious name of Jesus Christ.  When confronting wild barbarian hordes freely intent upon massive destruction, pillage, rape, and wild slaughter, there was, at many times, not much more than the Cross of Christ that could oppose them.

Modernity would have none of this, in its truly reactionary attitude of sinking back into myth and magic, so indicative of its intellectual rebarbarization, efforts of the “new barbarians,” of the Western world; it ever imperiously demanded, instead, the prevalent mythical and magical glorification of reified Man as an earthly god of power.  But, Catholic teachings, in adamant opposition, would have none of this absurd and backward-looking nonsense, for true religion is the direct opposite of (dark) superstition, it is a liberating, redemptive, and positive force for the human spirit, meaning support for the children of God.

As so many authors, both Catholics and non-Catholics, have demonstrated repeatedly, this, among many other absolutely great achievements and accomplishments, had made the very existence of modern, empirical science possible.  One could cite among such numerous volumes as: Thomas Woods, Jr.’s How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a 2000-Year History by H.W. Crocker III.  Q. E. D.

Both primitive and pre-Christian men, it needs to be here historically recalled, were so beset by many unpredictable or seemingly unknown forces, believed to be earthly and/or astral in origins, that could so whimsically or otherwise determine one’s fate or destiny for good or ill.  They were, in fact, completely freely offered the only true liberation, the salvific liberation by, in, and through Jesus Christ.  A then competing Mithras religion had demanded the sacrifice of at least a single bull, which was, of course, rather cost prohibitive for impoverished slaves and poverty-stricken peasants, among others.  A way out of the black, pessimistic, fatalistic gloom was given gratis.

The Church, over time, had sagaciously banished these metaphysically oppressive forces of darkness and vile superstitions by invalidating and refuting the many myths and the numerous claims of magic supposedly possessed by such often presumably dire forces and phantasms. (This was, ironically, regretted by noted modernist thinkers such as Wagner and Nietzsche who thought that Christianity had always wrongly robbed peoples of their native vitality and raw inspiration.  Nietzsche, for instance, positively despised and denigrated Christian humility as slavish nonsense unworthy of vital modern men, especially for his domineering Übermensch.)

It was a superbly worthy achievement of a still much more worthier institution, namely, the One, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, and its often martyred missionaries, who, with enormous difficulty, had brought about a true and invigorating enlightenment, while attempting to more and more Christianize and, thus, civilize an aberrant and sinful humanity.

Modernity, with a fierceness only matched by that of savages, necessarily brought back myth and magic during the rise of the secular side of the Renaissance, the Protestant revolt, the European Enlightenment, and various terrible and violent eras of revolutionism, completely inclusive of all of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, of course.  The Nietzschean will to power can be seen, along with Machiavellian pragmatism.

Historically, this necessarily runs the full mystical gambit from, e. g., the Machiavellian myth of a cynical virtu, the fiction of a Lutheran or Calvinist God, Hobbes’ mythical Leviathan qua the State, Locke’s tabula rasa, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, Rousseau’s volonté generale, Kant’s mythic notion of “God” as an anthropomorphic projection, Bentham’s utilitarian calculus, and Hegel’s (magical) dialectic.  Each has its inherently mesmerizing qualities, as with all others, of course, mentioned in the very next paragraph.

One can relatedly reference such indicative matters as: Darwin’s totally tautological “survival of the fittest,” Marx’s predicted withering away of the State through proletarian magic, Nietzsche’s death of God, Freudianism, the Social Gospel, Jungianism, Nazi race theory, (progressive) eugenics, Weberian Rationalisierung (rationalization) and Entzauberung (disenchantment), the minimum wage 3, scientism, behaviorism, Randian (atheist) Objectivism, the radical Spirit of Vatican II,  anarcho-capitalism, Liberation Theology, multiculturalism, environmentalism, the postconciliar Church, climate change (hysteria), victimhood (aka the “religion” of unctuous self-pity), and, of course, deconstructionism.

And, there is, no doubt, much else that is similarly either magical or mythical and, sometimes (or just more often than usually realized), both at once. Definitely, none of this ever makes a dedicated modernist or postmodernist blush from shame or, perhaps, the legitimate twinge of any guilt.  Such a mindset, dedicated to relativism unbound, is then integrally antithetical to the innate maturity and a true sense of responsibility existing requisite ever to the highly reflective classical/normative mind.

Liberals and Leftists are rather too sanguine, with their ever multiplicitous fictions, which do wrongly degrade epistemology, through ideological verbiage, in fairly odd service to a reified ontology (read: Utopia).  Witness how, e. g., a once mere grammatical term, gender, has quite weirdly replaced “sex” as to a natural designation; it is a clear type of Orwellian Newspeak trying to make what used to be thought of as normality abnormal and vice versa.  And so, it cannot be otherwise with the anti-normative mindset as has been illustrated.

Admittedly, there is here expressed a quite hardened, though healthy, skepticism, a marked incredulity, of modernity and postmodernity as to their dubious intellectual fruits. In contrast, a Christocentric society and culture, the affirmation of holiness, is much to be preferred, and there are those who have defended such a notion in various terms.

A name now fading quite rapidly from human memory, Fr. Charles N. R. McCoy, had become very alerted to how tremendously much myth and magic had been reintroduced, into social, cultural, and political life, by modernity; this was by his being a pupil of Ernst Cassirer (1874 – 1945), author of The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (1932) and, also, the posthumously published: The Myth of the State (1946).

Oddly or not, Ernst Cassirer was a true devotee of the spirit of the Enlightenment, a liberal of his era, who, nonetheless, could recognize both myth and magic when he saw them manifestly existing and, moreover, easily thriving in the various political, philosophical, social, and cultural contexts of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  Such an understanding, of course, does not fit the usual and expected bright narrative given by the many ardent or very enthusiastic supporters of modernity, especially of its atheistic revolutionism or the hubristic collectivist spirit.

Fr. McCoy, wisely, had successfully built upon and extended the most philosophically intriguing and mentally illuminating notions of Cassirer, in a useful prolific manner, quite suitable for his rather high intelligence. One can read McCoy’s The Structure of Political Though and On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy: Essays of Charles N.R. McCoy edited by Charles Nicholas Reiten McCoy and Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.   But, where does Catholicism or the Church come into this particular discussion?

Prior to Vatican Council II in the early to mid-1960s, the Roman Catholic Church had once been vigorously engaged in solidly battling, as hard as it reasonably could, against the highly invasive myth and magic engendered by the rampant philosophical nominalism of modernity and its quite naturally attendant neopaganism that, in fact, logically results and exists.

Today, one sees how thoroughly the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, has both willingly and lovingly embraced the destructive Spirit of Vatican II and its ever lively promotion of the evil and supremely mythical and magical notions of postmodernity; the April 8, 2016 Amoris Laetitia document, completely approved by him, adopts fundamental moral relativism as the fallible guide for Catholics concerning family and sexual matters.  Such bold postmodern thought is the assuredly natural and brashly nihilistic child of an increasingly enervated, indolent, and anemic modernity conceived, as it were, in its rather decrepit old age.

What the Holy Pontiff has embraced, however, is clearly an anthropocentric death wish – with “acts of conscience” allowing for an extremely increased latitude for abortions and promoting significantly augmented artificial birth-control unto the fuller self-extermination of peoples — set so against the Church’s previous historical, religious, loving, and theological effort to fully demythologize the secular or terrene order of this world, in the holy effort to righteously and spiritually transform all things in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

This is, therefore, for the ever much needed sacralization and sanctification of human and natural reality for the greater glory of God. Instead, there is now the ongoing and demonic pursuit of the supposed greater glory of Man, his ontological reification, championed, of course, by the evil Spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which can be then empirically observed, more and more, by its truly horrendous and vilely devastating aftermath; this surely now includes Amoris Laetitia.  But, what can be reasonably known as to the interconnectedness and relatedness, the implications and ramifications, of these matters?

Postmodernity celebrates, as but a few examples, such myths as multiculturalism, PC thinking, diversity, and deconstructionism aligned ideologically with the magical notions of a Utopian world-community, a not-too-disguised form of brave millennialism, freed of all war, famine, pestilence, and all conflicts.  This is seen to be overtly exemplified and, moreover, praised to the nth degree in John Lennon’s nihilistic and so very representative, languid song: Imagine.

All the fundamental elements of such rabid mythical and magical thinking and regard can be found in that lyrical composition singing hosannas to a Utopian vision having no need for any ultimate and requisite metaphysical order (aka God).   Secularization is, thus, greatly praised to the skies.

Nor does any really known human imperfection, theologically referred to as sin, ever come into the truly idyllic picture painted with such unctuous, rapturous, and contemptible words faithful to secular humanism’s divined ecstasy and open contempt for the normative/classical mind.  This may be paralleled, as to insights, by C. S. Lewis’ thoughtful though short book entitled: The Abolition of Man, which more than just suggests the evil involved.

In short, the amazing myth of neo-Pelagianism, meaning, as to a definition, the postmodern or, perhaps, simply ideological secularization of the extremely hoary Pelagian Heresy that Original Sin has never actually existed; thus, an ever true and limitless human perfectionism placed on earth, again, an idyllic millennialism, is supposed to be so fully attainable, without question or pause, if only truly absolute and ever peaceful secularization could, through some unspecified nirvana, be finally reached. This goes against all right reason, plain commonsense, and classical Natural Law teachings, of course.

Petty earthly gods carelessly cavorting in a terrene paradise, a New Eden, of their own making, which is, thus, supposed to be taken intellectually seriously, of course, as a then surely set, thoughtful, valid proposition. In other words, speculative hogwash qua moral argumentation that tends to conceal a thinly disguised death wish easily supportive of euthanasia, among other things.

And, e. g., no matter how many people get massacred by ISIS or similar Moslem agencies, this clearly intramundane belief in myth and magic, often correctly perceived as immanentism, persists strongly and directly divergent to all of the massively compiled rational and empirical evidence, history, (obviously) dead bodies, and documentation observed being set to the contrary.

The past great devotion to modernist myth and magic, at the beginnings of modernity with Machiavelli and then Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Bentham, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Lenin, Heidegger, and many others, has logically lead to the arrogant and avaricious worshipping of postmodernist myth and magic as compelling forces to contend with now and in the future.

The celebrated names of Michel Foucault, E. P. Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, Jurgen Habermas, Gyorgy Lukacs, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Zizek, Ralph Milliband and Eric Hobsbawm are notably infamous in this regard.  Utopianism, consequently, is then made to existentially seem, thus, compatibly normal and so “natural” as an ever contemporaneous way of thinking.   One could informatively read Utopia, the Perennial Heresy by Thomas Molnar.

It is an insanely terrible feat that could only be brought about by the incredible power that myth and magic can and often do hold over the human mind when enslaved by sin, when afflicted by a significantly rampant and pervasive nominalism that so freely corrupts both cognition and human will simultaneously.

Most likely, Fr. McCoy would have been, by now, thoroughly appalled at the most serious and lamentable devolutions of the political, cultural, and social orders of the Western world, which is just an understatement actually.  Civilization itself, assuming such a thing can be defined as existing, is at the near point of becoming epistemologically and ontologically indiscernible as to a concrete reality worthy of rational and axiological consideration.

Cynical observers, of course, would critically denounce such possibly incautious words as being rather much too optimistic and, perhaps, made only broadly in jest.

Of course, for instance, neither anything like heuristic Platonic myth nor harmless fairyland magic is being conjured up in this article. G. K. Chesterton, in his The Everlasting Man, reminds people that, “It seems strangely forgotten nowadays that a myth is a work of imagination and therefore a work of art.”

However, the clearly bold neopaganization of the Western world has disarmed it when faced, additionally, by the outrageous ravages of a resurgent and aggressive Islam that is obviously so very willing to act both barbarously and contemptuously toward an overtly effete, incestuously degenerate, and increasingly decadent West.

Many commentators have noticed what is called the reprimitivization of humanity that has occurred as people came to so witlessly embrace the many magical and mythical elements of assumed intellectual sophistication, sanctified oddly by modernity’s many civilizational failures, into the postmodernity of an “appropriately” neopaganized world.  Thus, one gets the valuelessness of a nonjudgmental people with their relativist disvalued ethics and morals having no axiologically sustainable values to adamantly defend or even debate; it is an endlessly corruptive nonsense.

As the evil Culture of Death spreads, nonetheless, mindless people, meaning the degenerate cognoscenti and illuminati, still are shocked by ever rising levels of provoked crudity, brutality, barbarism, savagery, and outright nihilism that has become crescively acceptable, as being quite prevalent societal and cultural norms for a nihilistic postmodernity.4

One so easily sees this in how the formerly confident and self-deluded, mistaken, people of Brussels, Belgium had become seemingly paralytically perplexed beyond measure, due to the March 2016 Jihadi bombings; they had deliberately pampered and privileged, indulged and advantaged, them and, in turn, their avowed Moslem enemies yet turned upon them – what a shock!

They do vacuously wonder why, with their bizarre utopian attitudes, on how Western abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia should reflect ever negatively upon them and their beloved sybaritic lifestyles, exercised within an ethical and moral vacuum.  No sense of true shame or guilt exists for them, except to the rather queer degree that they may be ashamed or feel guilty that they have not, in fact, yet engaged thoroughly enough in their so wanted and blatant nihilism.

It is not perceived that, because of the results of Original Sin 5 of which they claim they have no real consciousness of, the modernist effort to unceremoniously kick the metaphysical order out of the front door makes them try to push in an unadulterated metaphysics, of some strange kind, surreptitiously and somewhat guiltily through the back door.  This is arrogance combined freely with an unadulterated idiocy supreme, which all, in turn, arrogantly spits upon the firmly opposed normative mentality, the perennial realm of right reason and commonsense.

The significantly incredible but true re-empowerment of both reified myth and magic, by the intellectual and other vile forces of a debased modernity, has substantially assisted in the firm consolidation and transformation of such myth and magic placed into the cause and progress of postmodernity. How so?

Millions of people are now emotionally, psychologically and cognitively enthralled powerfully so by mythical and magical notions of an ersatz “reality” that Christian people, both ancient and medieval, would have simply scoffed at with only well-deserved contempt and a profound ridicule.  Multiculturalism and deconstructionism, as examples, would be simply laughed at as truly dumb jokes, never seriously accepted with any of today’s absurdly pious or devout secular reverence whatsoever.

Because of the aforementioned enthrallment, one sees, on what appears to be a daily basis by now, the weirdly but still notably magical notions of a Utopian, world-community Zeitgeist through which its subject populations, created as if by enchanted notions, are to so obtain a (terrene) ersatz blessedness and (ad hoc) beatification, which is reserved, as such in truth, by Christians, logically, only for Heaven.  Of course, the supposed many gods of modernity and postmodernity demonically do indicate otherwise, meaning as the Weimarization continues.

Those enlightened Christians, however, not influenced by either myth or magic, and certainly all orthodox, traditionalist, Roman Catholics, do always realistically know, by being in constant touch with human and existential reality, that no truly genuine paradise can ever exist on earth. Useful heuristic reading would certainly include John Arthur Passmore’s The Perfectibility of Man.

The demonic utopianists (by whatever euphemism), however, in here citing that ever felicitous Voegelinian terminology, do greatly wish to immanentize the eschaton, to declare their New Eden on earth, regardless of the obviously plain truth (and, by the way, innumerable dead bodies) set ever to the contrary.  Such error refutes itself.  Q. E. D.

Moreover, the greatest superstition of them all, it has been well said, is to idiotically believe that one’s own era is entirely free of superstition, in this cited case, whether modernist or postmodernist in origin.  A neat little volume to consult would surely be Superstition by Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., which delightfully gets to the heart of the matter, by showing how adherence to Catholicism can readily vanquish all those useless and false beliefs that hinder true experiential human progress, advanced culture, and higher civilization.

Sadly, Pope Francis 6, the Vicar of Christ on earth, has willingly chosen to surely become, in effect, the retrogressive, celebratory high priest of the nominalist reprimitivization of Western society, culture, and civilization; this is as it so nihilistically wallows in the stagnant regressive morass created by the mythical and magical notions of a degraded and debased humanity. In short, secularization, contrary to its often claimed expectations, has not achieved its supposed nirvana on this planet.

Of course, this evil belief in Godlessness always anticipates its ever assumed success in some wished-for never-never land, once again, the blissful New Eden “guaranteed” by ever artful existentialism and applied phenomenology, along with situation ethics and value neutrality.

And now, a very quite morally and spiritually disarmed, pitifully Man-worshipping, anthropocentric, intramundane fixation, denying all absolutes except for secularist relativism qua an absolute principle, must, thus, nakedly face a terrifyingly absolutist, tyrannous, bloodthirsty, Moslem jihadist movement eagerly bent upon world domination at any cost.

One can guess which side is the more likely to win. Of course, there is, however, still a real choice, instead of the deliberately empty and so droll valuelessness of postmodernity, the post-Enlightenment realm, filled with ominous existential and phenomenological angst, hubris, and trepidation lest a (dreaded) value judgment be made.  It is on the same vain plateau as with positivism and its inherent fallacy of the immaculate perception.

The Western world can yet return to Roman Catholicism, to a then revived Christendom worth defending and loving, as the important moral and spiritual means to so much better combat an increasingly ferocious and thoroughly implacable enemy, having a religion that sanctions no real limits upon excessive brutality, cruelty, or, in fact, just sheer ruthlessness, concerning any of its opponents.  However, to put the urgent matter mildly, this would seem to require a gigantic miracle from as yet unknown quarters, perhaps, the Blessed Virgin Mary may assist.

Until then, nothing hopeful appears to be reasonably perceivable upon the normal horizon of most human speculation and consideration.  The so debased enthrallment of the postmodern mind, by its craven fascination with and ignominious subordination to vicariously imagined substitutes for reasoned thought and logical cognizance, bespeaks a contemptuous attitude full worthy of T. S. Eliot’s hollow men or, alternately, C. S. Lewis’ men without chests.

Modernity, Postmodernity, and What Next?

And, one of them, currently and conspicuously, does occupy the exalted and blessed Throne of St. Peter no less. That is why religion and theology are much more central to the survivability of human beings than is ever admitted to by the committed and deluded secularists who so often do applaud Pope Francis as being a kindred spirit.  He is among the last believers in a now dying modernity, which sought to ironically reinvigorate, not really eliminate, such things as alchemy, wizardry, and the search for the always elusive Philosopher’s Stone.

Modernity, though not simply meaning the modern age as such, was not that very far from the concerns of sorcery and conjuring, of talismanic cognition.   One could, thus, interestingly consult Eros and Magic in the Renaissance by Ioan P. Couliano; White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance by Paola Zambelli, and The Queen’s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Advisor to Queen Elizabeth I by Benjamin Woolley.  Renaissance Hermeticism was taken seriously, as can be seen in Frances Yates’ Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.

Myth and magic, therefore, were not far from the thin surface of those past centuries and influenced greatly the lives of many who thought of themselves as surely advanced thinkers, especially when they “freed” themselves from the Catholic Church, or Christianity in general. Such an elucidation, these days, is genuinely needed and requisite to the important task of breaking old stereotypes as to which side exists as the true defender of mankind and the dignity of man as created by God, not as a mere unit of a omnipotent State.

Misinformed writers, generally speaking, include among the principal features of the European Enlightenment great advances in the supposed freeing of human thought from superstition and traditional (aka Christian) religion and the assumed enlightened retreat of the hoary concept of the supernatural before the ever glorious advance of empirical and, thus, seemingly  liberating science.  Oh, really?  Historical evidence severely questions such biased tale evidencing much more progressivist propaganda than actual knowledge.  Was there such absolute rationality?

But, such historical interest in magic and mysticism had more than significantly continued into the Enlightenment, as is noted by: Solomon’s Secret Arts: the Occult in the Age of Enlightenment by Paul Kleber Monod; The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances A. Yates; Beyond the Witch Trials: Witchcraft and Magic in Enlightenment Europe by Owen Davies & Willem de Blécourt; and The Dark Side of the Enlightenment: Wizards, Alchemists, and Spiritual Seekers in the Age of Reason by John V. Fleming.  Irrationality, in short, was celebrated as being a higher or esoteric form of deified Reason; mysticism easily combined with the worship of deified Reason.

Both Renaissance and Enlightenment had, therefore, definitely added quite a bit of darkness to the human mind, regardless of the enormous and continuing propaganda fixed to the contrary, and believed in by so many dedicated, in this case meaning deluded, atheists and humanists, of course.  Rationalism resulted from the vain dedication to both the deification and reification of modern Reason superstitiously gaining god-like status, as is true of most of hubristic science today, which needs to be stated here explicitly, for proper exposition purposes.

How is it known, nevertheless, that myth and magic are dreary and fetid whenever compared to the grace and glory of God?  Myth, though not equated, e. g., with noble Platonic myth, is the superstition of still primitive men, meaning those who seek explanations of metaphysical order that can be reduced to fables and stories mainly suitable for the childhood of a people.  Reductionism, therefore, becomes the byword of thought for better seeking the simplification that perpetual children yearn for as a stunted way of understanding their circumscribed world.

Magic seeks to accomplish what the will and love of God can do without any effort whatsoever and with an instantaneous universality that makes any purported “magic” look so interminably feeble and simply pathetic, frail and pitiful; this is whenever placed in bright comparison with, literally, such unlimited greatness and profundity always and ever coexistent, by definition, with the Lord God Almighty.

And yet, modernity, and its legitimate and nominalist child known as postmodernity, prefers dark beliefs in magical and mythical concepts and constructs that keep up a mere pubescent and irrational pretense, while the ravaged reality of the souls of men do, thus, become rather aged with their multiplying vice and age-old sin.

Interestingly, it can be cited that Fascism and Nazism, even slightly more than Communism, thought of themselves as being true youth movements.  Thus, as a contemporary example, it is not at all surprising how many, many young people flock around and with Bernie Sanders as being the latest, though rapidly aging, Socialist Piped Piper promising, once again, Utopia.

For many centuries, moreover, both “enlightened” and Protestant nominalist attacks upon Catholicism and the Catholic Church were alleged to be necessary preconditions for favoring, advancing, and vindicating the need for upholding the youthful spirit of Progress as evidence of humanity’s supposed rise up from both superstition and ignorance, from the hoary or simply antediluvian belief in Christianity in general.

Such informative books as Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History by Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S.J., have splendidly covered the realities involved, athwart the ever extravagant claims of modernity that have been often made repeatedly and, in truth, idiotically as well.  The many astute refutations made, in this aforementioned work, offer a substantial and substantive antidote to the poisonous beliefs that haughtily claim that progress and science are to entirely replace the truths of faith and doctrines, meaning, actually, the rejection of the Roman Catholic Faith.

Nominalism, over time, ruined the ability of the human mind to quite properly and needfully distinguish between proper rationality and mere Rationalism; they are definitely not the same thing, but modernists had, increasingly, refused to rightly recognize such a tremendously salient fact of reality as to the critical imperative distinctions ever requisite to acquiring a genuine cognitive maturity and, as one hopes, allied perspicacity. Good reading, for encouraging this, includes Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism by Robert P. George.

One can, for instance, read such interesting and instructive works as Michael Oakeshott’s Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays to get a better understanding of the important issues involved; also, reading, e. g., Makers of the Modern Mind by Thomas P. Neill helps to better round out a needed education in these important matters.

It may need to be critically added, however, that all ideologies, easily inclusive of Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Feminism, etc., of a political nature do ever create or generate their own political mythology, regardless of any supine protests to the contrary.

But, lest it be thought that political mythology lacks documentation, a listing can be rendered, for proper thematic coverage, in the following citations: Political Myth in Aristophanes: Another Form of Comic Satire? by Nikoletta Kanavou, Henry Tudor’s Political Myth, Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction by Christopher Flood, Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts by the Nazi Alfred Rosenberg, and, of course, Cassirer’s The Myth of the State.

Also, one could relatedly consult: A Philosophy of Political Myth by Chiara Bottici; The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell by Robert Ellwood; Gladstone: The Making of a Political Myth by D. A. Hamer; Roland Boer’s Political Myth: On the Use and Abuse of Biblical Themes, and a suitable article: “Political Mythologies of the Twentieth Century in the Perspective of Hermann Heller, Ernst Cassirer, and Karl Löwith,” by Jeffrey Andrew Barash, as found in the Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem.

In addition, the still provocative writings of Georges Sorel 7, manifesting his hubris, ought not to be that neglected as to the proper study of modern political myth.  What should become indicatively apparent is how, century by century with the further absorption of nominalism in cognition, Rationalism exists as the corruptive parody of rationality, never a true or valid substitute for it.

By so many strong degrees, irrationality, irrationalism, illogicality, and clearly irrational thought in general do increasingly come, more and more, into the epistemological service of Godless Rationalism; this was during the existential course of the intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic progression of modernity, along with, of course, the Nietzschean will to power. It may yet fairly be asked, nevertheless, how so?

Modernity, with its ingrained pragmatism, positivism, materialism, secularism, and, ultimately, nihilism had pushed its aggressive ideology of Rationalism so far as to progressively encourage irrationalism and the distrust of mere human reason, which then reintroduced “higher” or more sophisticated superstitions into the world, such as, e. g., deconstructionism.

This was, again, the rather bastardized metaphysics that got somehow smuggled in through the somewhat ignominious back door, as the, thus, old or traditionalist metaphysics was then so rudely and crudely pushed out the front entrance.  Along with, e. g. the irrational, Lutheran-Protestant theological denial of free will, that larger overall process was felicitously called, by that so much celebrated modern god-term, Progress.   Interesting reading would revealingly include Robert A. Nisbet’s History of the Idea of Progress.

There had been, therefore, quite baleful and usually very malevolent consequences, suffered by real human beings, in this most unpleasant process celebrating modernity and its superstitions, myths, and its assorted and sundry efforts at modernist sorcery.  One can benefit by reading such surely illuminating volumes as Jacob Leib Talmon’s The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Political Messianism – The Romantic Phase, Romanticism and Revolt, and his The Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution – The Origins of Ideological Polarization in the 20th Century.

Only a dead mind or a quite dedicated nominalist, a modernist supreme, could read such books and not come to the obvious conclusion that something is so radically wrong with the clearly evil premises of modernity and its defense.  Furthermore, the many noted failures of modernity have not been ever truly corrected but, rather, have been definitely much more aggravated and excessively exacerbated by the main currents of most, not all, postmodernist thought.

Only an irrational misanthrope would cite World War I, World War II, nuclear weapons, and the 20th and 21st genocides as all simply unqualified successes of true progress and joyous enlightenment, of mankind’s categorical and praiseworthy advance.

The overt point being made here ought, therefore, to be absolutely crystal clear to any fairly cognizant and sensate mind, by citing a work by a past and renowned, enthusiastic champion of rationalism, materialism, secularism, pragmatism, and positivism: H. G. Wells, who wrote his pessimistic but highly self-indicative little volume sadly entitled, Mind at the End of Its Tether, with the “best” thoughts he could lamely come up with then, in 1945, at the age of 78.

Modernists do have much to answer for, but they never really do; they just, as is their want, casually step over the dead bodies and other assorted debris of carnage and calmly continue forward toward their next efforts at trying to irrationally construct the New Eden on earth, aka Utopia, almost always, once again, in the both mythical and magical name of some kind or other of idealized collectivism, of course.  James Burnham, in his Suicide of the West, foresaw and predicted accurately the destruction and devastation that is simply today accepted as being a normal part of reality.

Learning really nothing that substantive and, moreover, ideologically, (read: superstitiously), forgetting whatever is inconvenient to their unreasonable purpose, to their vain pursuit of a terrene paradise on this large orb occupying space in the exosphere. In contrast, the so wildly fictional Baron von Munchausen sounds like a hardened realist making rational calculations of success.  Chesterton, in the early 20th century, had presciently noticed how abnormality wished to replace normality as to the new moral, social, and cultural norms for progressive societies in the Western world.

In the myth-filled realm of modernity, one sees, as to an economic example, the quite fantastic irrationality of the applied thaumaturgy set behind all minimum wage laws truly adverse to all economic laws, history, empirical evidence, scholarship, and just plain reality itself qua basic commonsense, meaning in strong defiance of reason.

The, e. g., wild, blood-drenched 18th century French revolutionaries, willingly sending at least 500,000 victims to their needless slaughter, thought that they too were setting about creating a wondrous, brave new world of limitless liberty, fraternity, and, of course, equality.  A world to be drained of hopes for holiness and the sanctification of peoples in the insane rush toward the nihilism created by the aggressive and sinful demand for a completely secularized Progress at all costs.  What has been one of the logical and, thus, terrible consequences seen in today’s era?

A Clash of Two Rival Fundamentalisms: Secular-Humanist Ideology v. Islamic Ideology

Meanwhile, postmodern, PC, multiculturalist Europe, filled lavishly with such contemporary superstitions, is acting out its Death Wish by absurdly adopting a sociopolitical version of the “Battered Wife Syndrome” in dealing with the intolerant and contemptuous, so envious and spiteful, Muslim invaders.  A most peculiar love-hate relationship has been established; neither side can really resist each other in this death grasp, as if a drowning man cannot resist trying to strangle the person attempting to save him.

Enamored of their ideologically-based myth and magic to a perceived suicidal degree of strange proficiency to behold, progressive Europeans are quite busy actually subsidizing, sponsoring, their own extermination aided greatly by an irrationalism, by PC multiculturalism, knowing no limits.  Feminists, revealing the final decadence of their nihilistic ideology, refuse to denounce these Islamists who do brutalize and mutilate girls and women in the name of their Allah and the Koran.

Thus, they can’t easily see the forest because of the trees.  Their known decadence and degeneracy, moral disintegration and decline, furthermore, axiomatically prevents them from ever surely perceiving evident matters reasonably and objectively.  Their overtly PC pro-Islamic ideology, moreover, simply prevents them from seeing the actual nature of the Moslem enemies among them as a force intent on bringing enslavement and supremacy.  Realistically speaking, since terrorism is sanctioned by Islam, it could not be otherwise as to the intentions of such radicals.

Though it is anti-PC to speak this obvious truth, Sharia, being the fundamental antithesis of Western law, as was so wisely noted, by no less an authority than Justice Robert Jackson, in his Law in the Middle East, will certainly ensure that slavery can never be truly eradicated from the Islamic world until Islam is, in turn, itself fully eradicated.   Anyone who doubts this so logical assertion is, however, too naïve for words, for he is essentially ignorant of Islam as to its nature that integrally provokes aggression against any opposition.

An adopted irrational, talismanic mindset prevents them, the progressivists, from acknowledging the harsh reality that ought to be confronted; instead, the irrationality of their mythological and magical cognizance inherently blinds them to the overt truth of their fundamentally dangerous situation having, literally, many life-threatening dire consequences for the too often hubristic European peoples.

Post-Enlightenment, postmodern Europe has today left itself no other way out of this secular-humanist prison, turning now into an active death camp, which it has so very willingly created.  As for America, its own greatly debauched political, intellectual, and cultural elites wish the people of this country to get Europeanized increasingly, in the very same way, and so accommodate, through a much similar suicidal appeasement, our very own imported Moslem invaders.  It is a Death Wish, fueled by excessive affluence and its many known corruptive powers, and exercised on the part of the jaded and degraded elites in the entire Western world.8

Parenthetically, the too remarkable insanity of all this goes unnoticed by the bulk of the mass media, as it is, also, most integrally enthralled by contemporary magical and mythical notions, regarding various utopian ways of oddly perceiving the world and its doings.  Appropriate reading, concerning this deadly demonic debacle, would include Alice in Wonderland, besides Jean Raspail’s highly prophetic novel of a Europe heavily drowning in worshipped irrationality: The Camp of the Saints.

The certainly amazing form of circular reasoning observed in existence, meaning the greatest superstition of them all, reinforces daily each and every ideological decision to just supinely capitulate to the Islamic subjugation and conquest; this is done, with all the extant irrationality that can be sufficiently mustered, in the vain hope that Utopia will, sooner or later, arrive and all peoples will then join hands and, thus, mindlessly sing a rousing chorus of kumbaya forever and ever.

One sees manifestly here that the genuine final end of the line for sincere Rationalism must, therefore, only be an unmitigated nihilism, an overtly Nietzschean invitation to look into the boundless dark abyss indicative of (meaningless) death.

After each and every terrorist bombing, moreover, this bizarre belief, embalmed in witless adherence to the perverse kinds of myth and magic generated necessarily by ideological superstitions and mystical notions, becomes even more ingrained and powerful, which is, admittedly, frightening to behold. How may this be noticed amidst the blatant insanity too often observed in the contemporary world?

One needs to critically see that the nihilistic decay of modernity definitely helped to give rise to ISIS. The vast majority of the Islamic State’s followers have a schizophrenic and radical regard for the Western world; they are not, in fact, the purportedly impoverished peasants and small-town slum children who have joined this revolt to supposedly escape poverty, as often as is falsely alleged, both so nauseatingly and absurdly.

Though these ISIS adherents have benefited from the material and technological plenty of the West and its many affiliated, assorted realities in the world, they still so rejected this tendered cornucopia because of its obvious spiritual poverty and blindly turned, instead, toward a reified yet highly retrogressive version of Islam paralleling, in many wars, the 6th century.  It is, in its most peculiar way, a rather bizarre kind of vile parody of a weird version of the Society for Creative Anachronism, a steampunk variety no less, and this needs to be correctly recognized.

Important reading would surely include Dr. Peter Hammond’s Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.  Also, Robert Spencer’s many volumes, including: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, and his The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.

One should also read: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, a collection of 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer, covering the horrific history of non-Muslim populations during and after the bloody conquest of their lands by hate-filled Muslims.

They seek, thus, to so dramatically conjure into being a version of a lost (and now seemingly magical) world devoted to absolute and unquestioned Moslem supremacy and primacy, as is to be savagely done through ISIS and its bloody evil victory, while at the same time ironically utilizing, in full contradiction, the West’s technological and computer-driven culture to fight against the denounced Occident with its, of course, terribly filthy, (imperfect), and detestable infidels. They too do seek a Western-style perfectionism on earth, by whatever euphemism.

The latter consideration, actually, being quite a genuinely great tribute supremely indicating their overt Westernization, of course, which they, so blithely, seek not to acknowledge; this is because it would then fundamentally, in fact, refute and undermine their hypocritical denial of a (Western-style) angst and, thus, cognate existentialist frustrations. How may this be easily known?

They are, for the most part, highly educated, urbanized, middle-class plus, pampered young adults who have variously tasted of the delights of the West and yet their very radicalization, ironically, forces them to yet abhor the abundant lifestyles that they have obviously so greatly benefited from in their own lives; they are, therefore, living, breathing human contradictions of a mesmerizing modernist civilization, wallowing ever in its magical Godless notions, now rapidly heading toward its much deserved moral bankruptcy and, thus, so predictable dead end.

Their noted nihilism, Islamic radicalism, and surely evident, fanatical Death Cult attitudes show them the vile way through modernity into the postmodernity of a utopian order, by definition, which can never really exist, meaning their mythical ersatz caliphate, their own chosen never-never land in which to excitedly worship death. There is no room here for having a classical mindset in any way whatsoever, as with the progressivist Westerners worshipping the Open Society that they, in turn, hate as radicalized, envy-filled Moslems.

Modernist or postmodernist Europeans are, therefore, morally and intellectually disarmed because, though unrecognized by them as if by a mental block, they do share similar notions; and, familiarity breeds contempt, in that both sides profoundly disrespect the older classical mentality, the normative mindset, by feeling an extreme or militant aversion to it.

Thus, the too often proffered set idea that either modernists or postmodernists are really too sophisticated or advanced thinkers of the Brave New World is no more than a very bad joke; this is because their fetid brains are so consumed with way too many irrational elements of magical and mythical suppositions, liberal-mystical notions, and miscellaneous odd factoids; it is a militant, secular-progressivist superstition, held dogmatically, that any anti-modernist or anti-postmodernist thought could actually, really, ever be universally valid as being compelling objective truth.

Only a fellow fool, an ideological boob, takes any of those people seriously as being profound cognoscenti of quite a rare breed.  Their denial of there being a metaphysical order, by their superstitious preferences for myth and magic, to a commonsense reality creates a form of pragmatic circular reasoning; this is by which they are then forever regressively trapped in an equally pragmatic maze of their own positivist, materialist, and secularist making, with no seeming way out of it.

Secular-humanism, though it is often denied vehemently, possesses the quality of a modernist religion; the high priests have among them many scientists, technocrats, and academicians; there do exist, in fact, Humanist Manifesto creeds, listing their dogmas of belief 9, that have been published; creedal violations of which end up meriting intellectualist scorn and contempt from the cognoscenti, illuminati, and their fellow adherents.  Such failures of belief or, perhaps, the skeptical lack thereof are held as if equivalent to the omission or commission of sins.

Most of these people are, definitely, within the sad category of what the confirmed atheist Eric Hoffer had called the True Believers.  They are, at least, as fanatical as true religious zealots dogmatically thinking that they really do have perfect doctrines demanding “rational” assent, though they may claim otherwise and, further, insist upon their reasonableness.

Think tanks, colleges, and universities act as their places of worship; these academic and many associated institutions are where the mystical worship of anti-free speech “speech codes” prohibitions of certain non-progressive ideas are, thus, enforced much more strictly than were indexes of prohibited books.

College and university campuses are then genuine PC hotbeds of Marxism, neo-Marxism, and rigid speech and thought control that do frighteningly parallel George Orwell’s 1984 and his Animal Farm.  Equally, Environmentalism is, for instance, just another useful propaganda front for helping to spread Communism by whatever rewording of terms.  In the way that Leftists are openly intolerant and bigoted against anti-progressive ideas, ISIS members are as overtly intolerant and bigoted against anti-Muslim ideas; in short, it takes one to know one.

What has happened to Western civilization and culture?  The vast majority of Intellectuals, by whatever euphemism, and other such people, who willingly do construct fictive or synthetic worlds out of their own often fervid imaginations, had rebelled increasingly against the past’s traditional metaphysical order of reality, meaning, in essence, the belief in God.  Their usually hidden goal, century by century, was the progressive, fundamental(ist), intolerant, bigoted, and, for most, absolute secularization without question of the civilization and its culture.

Both followers of ISIS and their anti-normative opponents are, in their own ways, dedicated fundamentalists; the former chose religion as to their preferred ideology, the latter prefers progressivism or collectivism as to their ideology.  Unlike Liberalism, Conservatism, and, in fact, all the ideologies of modernity and postmodernity, the profound thinking of the nonideological traditionalist right, being that it is never enthralled by myth or magic, sees this reality so clearly enough.

Fanatical adherents of the Islamic State and their progressivist adversaries are, thus, all more like mirror images, ironically, than they would ever suspect or, certainly, comprehend. As two magnets of the same polarity naturally repel each other, the same goes for what is happening in Europe.  How may this philosophical assertion be, however, much better understood?

Hobbes, for instance, could barely hide his militant atheism; Locke and Kant, through much neatly refined verbiage, were manifestly more successful.10   Through the cognitive, emotional (aka irrational) and other such powerful forces of modernity, the once traditional metaphysical order, and its sanctifying predilections, was gradually and, sometimes, through revolutions, quickly, meaning radically, replaced by the political order of reality as being ultimate in nature.

Further and further abstractionization and cognate alienation of man had, thus, logically continued through the eras, regarding this fundamentalist belief set against the Lord God Almighty.

By the mid-19th century, Herman Melville, e. g., easily saw the conflict and depicted it as Moby Dick; both he and his friend Nathaniel Hawthorne, as known through their correspondence, knew that the story was an allegory, filled with religious symbolism, in which the Great White Whale stood for God; and, Captain Ahab sought by killing the beast to do an act of atheism by vilely attacking God Himself.  As ought to be appreciated, the rather quite startling substance of this novel, as to its so high metaphysical antagonism, makes, by definition, for great literature.

For as Ahab so revealingly says: “ ‘Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung!”  The ardent plea and hatred of militant atheism has, therefore, rarely been seen more clearly, as the history of the modern age’s modernity can attest in its baleful legacy to the Western world.  But, what had happened to Western civilization?

In Europe, the offered universality and theocentrism, e. g., of the Roman Catholic Church, its openly doctrinal Christocentrism, was later replaced by an increasingly sectarian Protestantism, nationalism, modern imperialism, advancing secularism, and other modernist ideologies extant throughout the entire continent.  One can, both readily and insightfully, get a true and fairly comprehensive sense of this reality by reading Millar’s Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History.  It is evident how Protestantism helped further an increasing secularization of intellect, society, and culture.

Modernity with its noted, ever invasive anthropocentrism (aka atheism), the quite secularly functional and pragmatic point of view, reigned supremely triumphant at last, as obviously was seen in World Wars I & II, nuclear weapons, many genocides, and much else.

And yet, postmodernism in cognition, the neologism here of “ideologicocentricism,” thought that this was not really enough change or radicalization needed; ideological order now seeks to replace all the previous forms of mere political order, simple statism, or tyranny.  The 20th century immanentist failures of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, meaning efforts to finally achieve the apotheosis of the State among men as was desired by Hegel, to help establish Utopia on earth, taught the “lesson” to the postmodernists that the political order must now be replaced by a truly ideological one.

Past failures, producing tens upon tens of millions of dead bodies, need not ever stop Progress, for the Great White Whale must still be killed at all costs.  Malcolm Muggeridge, for instance, had sagaciously perceived that 20th century civilization (or, what had passed for it), was fully different from all previous civilizations, because it so actually wished to assume that God does not exist.  How may this critical asseveration be more insightfully understood?

Admittedly, this above and accurate rendition of history is not to be found in any textbooks, which are, typically, written either by nominalist-inspired intellectuals or those who wish to do obeisance to the intellectualist, radical-bourgeois point of view.  Totalitarianism at the political level, seen in the cited mass movements of the 20th century, was still found to be not enough as to a both requisitely sufficient and proficient coercive power.  More intensification was needed to perfect totalitarianism beyond any mere authoritarian efforts at mind control and population control.

People, now, must be so forced through all emotional, social, cultural, aesthetic, semantic, legislative, judicial, executive, and any other means to absolutely conform to the crescively pervasive dictates of the ideological order, as currently being all inclusive and, in addition, made to seem just completely normal. It’s a scary kind of crude Pavlovian behaviorism gone mad, abnormality is, thence, worshipped as being so acceptably normative, so truly PC,  for the 21st century.

Thus, as an example, the ideological order will see to it that homosexuality and any other deviant behavior is not simply tolerated as in a mere political order; raw deviance is to be highly promoted, protected, and enforced, if necessary, against all those who may so oppose such “once” vile and aberrant behavior; sodomy of any kind or all kinds is to become ever officially institutionalized, established, as a set foundational and societal, cultural, and political mandate, a clear categorical imperative of progressive governmental policy and its related programs.  The once normal or normative life must, therefore, be all legally and otherwise denounced as being totally abnormal, against all now universalized “human rights.”

Its evil enforcement is, therefore, to become irredeemably absolute.  Sodomy practiced upon children and babies is to be made into a legally sanctified civil right, backed both substantially and substantively by the law and a PC society and culture, and dedicated to the liberal Open Society concept.  Bestiality is to be legalized as well, for nothing must impede the corrupting dictates of the Open Society and its worship.

Parents who may wish to save or prevent their children from being sodomized will soon have to be arrested and very severely fined; if found to be recalcitrant in this regard, imprisonment, logically, then awaits them.  The perfection of tyranny is now to be the highest goal pursued by the contemporary State due to its total ideologization, as is so quite routinely demanded by the Left.

The ever aggressive ideological order must, as noted, be supremely absolute to be effective and, moreover, made increasingly irresistible and not just on a yearly basis as to compulsions, which are to be multiplied and reinforced whenever and wherever required.  Is such a future conceivable given the both current and ongoing radicalization and defilement of contemporary reality?

To tens of millions of people, not being PC is the equivalent to committing a mortal sin, as to its quite incredible magnitude and significance; for Catholics, even a single unrepented mortal sin denies the soul both beatitude and Heaven for eternity.  The ever value-neutral Open Society, furthermore, demands obedience of its controlled subjects set well beyond what had been the mere severe dictates of a totalitarian political order or oppressive regime of power; the Good Society of normative values must be crushed; the Free Society of traditional-classical constitutional liberty must be fully suppressed.

There is to be, therefore, an inner reflexive consent desired by which every postmodern person then becomes an ideological robot attuned axiomatically to the needs of what is assumed to be an amoral order in postmodern society and its attendant decadent culture.  People, ideally, are to force themselves to be PC all of the time and urge others on as well, for Rousseau “knew” that, e. g., men must be forced to be free.

There is to be no way out offered, for the secular-humanist, perfectionist quest for Utopia, which is always denying the effects of Original Sin, must thence logically end in Hell; first on earth, then in the hereafter, which will, posthumously, shock many, many hundreds of millions of people.


However, the only genuine solution to the endlessly multiplying ethical and moral dilemmas, paradoxes, and enigmas of either modernity or postmodernity remains, as ever, the Roman Catholic faith, when received, believed, and practiced in the true fullness of its orthodoxy.  The truth shall make men free, not ideology.

Furthermore, Thomistic scholasticism, not just any variety of scholasticism, should be properly utilized to teach Roman Catholicism, religion and theology, to all inquiring minds seeking to be liberated from both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic.   It is an enlightening and liberating experience and a normal sustainable way of life freely offered and properly consistent with Natural Law and right reason, with theocentrism and moral order.

Nothing less will do, nothing more is needed.  Alternatively, it needs to be recognized that the continual and base confusing and confounding of proper and needed rationality with the surely absurd ideology of Rationalism offers only a dead end, with corpses resulting every time it is tried and so found wanting.  Additionally, neither myth nor magic, as has been discussed in this article, can adequately fill the human spirit and fully answer life’s ultimate questions, especially when faced with the finality of death.

For as the wise G. K. Chesterton correctly put the matter, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.  All of this, as could be guessed, is then certainly much more than getting well beyond mere myth or magic, besides so wisely rejecting postmodern, nominalist reprimitivization, rebarbarization, in its ugly entirety.

And, in brief, that so monumental difference says it all.  Once again, what is found to be so urgently needed is the both intelligent and spiritual removal of the dark magic, through the demythologization of a much damaged temporal order, for its then requisite sacralization and sanctification in, by, and through Jesus Christ.

Athanasius contra mundum!


1. This was not really a small achievement on the part of the Catholic Church. By removing layer upon layer of mythological beliefs, century by century, from formerly primitive or near-primitive peoples during a civilizing process, there came into being the rational (not rationalist) mind of a Christian.  A subject or citizen was able to better face the world objectively, in a way that could be rationally understood, without irrational or superstitious regard for any supernatural nature spirits, assorted demons, or many spectral phantasms that could paralyze a human mind and spirit.

2.  There is a distinct Roman Catholic doctrine pertaining to the notion of free will.  It is involved with religious and theological implications and ramifications that have created this assertion of distinctiveness. This means that it is not ever really the same as Protestant or other ideas pertaining to free will or the lack thereof, as was taught by Luther. How serious is any attempt, asinine as such, to refute free will?

The denial of free will is simultaneously the irresponsible and God-defiant denial of man’s own precious humanity, which did not occur to Luther because of his nominalist reductionism, and of man’s being created in the image of God, the, thus, created beingness of one who, also, possesses an immortal soul.  Catholicism, therefore, has righteous contempt for Luther’s quite arrogant blasphemy because it is nothing else but.

3.  Some readers may question the inclusion of the minimum wage.  Yet, it is a superstitious fallacy and a species of mythical and magical thinking nonetheless.  California Gov. Jerry Brown, in April 2016, publicly acknowledged that it, in fact, makes no economic sense, but he said he still supports it for moral reasons. The contention is that it is for helping poor and working class people but, in fact, does just the opposite.

Entry-level jobs are destroyed, potential employment gets replaced too often by dead-end welfare checks, small businesses can never start up in such a clearly dis-economic environment, businesses then feel forced to leave such states further eliminating employment opportunities, the cost of business increases as owners subject to such unfair laws must logically increase their prices, etc.  The baleful chain reaction is limitless, the real and lasting harm done is endless.  But, progressive politicians and their supporters learn nothing!

No rational economists, knowing the truly vast bulk of studies, books, documentation, facts, realities, etc. concerning its well-proven negative results, would now support having a minimum wage. Brown’s decision, therefore, makes about as much “rational” sense as performing an annual rain dance, in Sacramento, at government expense.  Integral moral schizophrenia is, therefore, the ever true hallmark of the progressive mind.  How may this be so easily known?

One small illustrative example: Paypal’s simultaneous expansion of services into Communist Cuba, in April of 2016, while it had protested vigorously against North Carolina’s religious freedom law in, of course, the supposed name of “human rights” with a boycott no less.  Q. E. D.

A “baptized” version of the minimum wage is, unfortunately, the equivalent “just wage doctrine” of the Catholic Church, possessing the same difference, as to all such predictive ill effects.

4.  How else can one explain the bizarre phenomena of progressivist Europeans actually paying Moslems to degrade, humiliate, and subdue them, while attempting to simultaneously deny that such savage, rude, and brutal behavior is abhorrent to plain commonsense, when any people have retained at least the rudiments of self-respect and rational cognizance?

This is common “life” in the bold age of poststructuralism, sensitivity training (aka thought police), the self-esteem (read: self-worship) movement, radical individualism, egalitarianism, the politics of meaning, race-class-gender analysis, New Age religions, racial or ethnic tribalism, resentment theory, and irrational denunciations of logocentrism, meaning the rabid anti-intellectualism of the Left!

5.  The highly important Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is pregnant with overwhelming and heuristic axiological, epistemological, and, especially, ontological implications and ramifications galore.  It explains, e. g., why collectivism, Utopianism, humanitarianism, altruism, perfectionism, etc. must always fail.  Every attempt, filled with mankind’s so unctuous vanity, to create a supposed New Eden on earth must lead without any exception, sooner or later, to the then necessary death camps.  Nihilism = death.

For instance, Rousseau’s integral fallacy of supposedly “forcing men to be free” produces only bloody horrors and terrors due to the ever imperfect (read: sinful) human condition.

6.  It helps to understand that he is not some “humble” priest raised to the papacy; this man of darkness is a committed religious revolutionary dedicated to destroying Catholic orthodoxy by instituting a pseudo-Catholic version of the 18th century Enlightenment.  He is a retrogressive thinker who surely wishes to incorporate both modernist and postmodernist myth and magic into Holy Mother Church, based upon his vile understanding of progressivism and Liberation Theology, who then deliberately blurs, darkens, and distorts the Light of Christ.

Pope Francis, therefore, needs to be honestly recognized as a man of true evil, for he is horribly assisting millions of souls to be condemned to Hell for all eternity.  Thus, there is a debate of whether or not he is actually a Catholic; perhaps, he may be either an agnostic or simply a crypto-atheist.

7.  See his Reflections on Violence as to violence being a very needed political weapon. He was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His idea of the power of myth in people’s lives stimulated related thinking among both Marxists and Fascists. It is, together with his enthusiastic defense of violence, the chief intriguing contribution for which he is most often recollected.

8.  It might have seemed too terribly superfluous to again note, within the main body of this article, the many true parallels with the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as to its causes that look like today’s routine headlines; after a while, the basic rendition of the reasons for decadence gets tedious because, in truth, it has all been said before by many writers.

The ancient poet Decimus Junius Juvenalis or Juvenal was a Roman poet of the Silver Age of Latin literature, the last and truly most powerful of all the Roman satirical poets, who had excoriated homosexuality and its both vilely destructive effects and affects on upon society, culture, and the debased level of civilization itself.

9.  The Humanist Manifesto I was, in fact, promulgated and written in 1933, the second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973; the third one came out in 2003.  Thus, humanism or the humanist-secularist religion demands respect as a serious proposition; it is definitely not meant as a joke, for it presents itself publicly as being creedal.  And, there may be a rather superstitious fixation on the number 3, though it’s probably not Trinitarian in nature, one could, so reasonably, guess.

10.  Leo Strauss, through his intense study and advocacy of what he called secret writing, was able to put together a convincing form of philosophical argumentation detecting how such writers as Kant were, in fact, crypto-atheists who merely pretended to be Christians or Christian enough to get their publications into print.  Strauss offered and extrapolated upon such an idea in his book Persecution and the Art of Writing.

Kant surely knew that, in an age of censorship where much societal conformity could, also, be even more strenuously demanding than just a mere political propriety, he had to carefully write, so as not to openly provoke criticism of him as being an avowed atheist.  It would have, otherwise, made his life difficult, at the least.

He realized full well that his bold attempt to more successfully and subtly propagate certain ideas tending really toward promoting strong disbelief would, however, be much better received, more easily condoned, and read by a wider public if he, at least, seemed, on the broad surface of appearances, to be a believer.  Of course, the odd notion of such “esoteric writing” goes fully against the grain of all Liberalism in thought with its explicitness, which is, also, true for how the simplistic Anglo-Saxon Liberal mind rejects all notions of conspiracy theories as being from the hothouse brains of kooks and crackpots only.

Among many others, the historically, famously, and notably documented Bolshevik and Nazi conspiracies notwithstanding, of course.  Also, e. g., David Horowitz and others, decades later, admitted that they were once active conspirators, in that none of the late 1960s and early 1970s antiwar riots were ever actually spontaneous affairs.  And, again, conspiracies, e. g., in ancient Rome with its civil wars, were simply part of the very air being breathed.

Question: Could “enlightened” people be, therefore, mainly wrong also about esoteric writing, as they so evidently are about many conspiracies?



Hadley Arkes, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose.

____. Beyond the Constitution.

____. The Philosopher in the City.

____. First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice.

____. The Return of George Sutherland: Restoring a Jurisprudence of Natural Rights.

____. Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

M. E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

____. Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.

____. The Reactionary Imperative: Essays Literary and Political.

Budziszewki, Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Virtues.

____. The Resurrection of Nature: Political Theory and Human Character.

____. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man.

____. True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.

____. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide.

____. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law.

Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (multivolume source).

Rauol E. Desvernine, Democratic Despotism.

Anthony Esolin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization.

Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy.

____. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution.

____. The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

____. The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.

____. The History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.

____. Three Quests of Philosophy.

____. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

____. Methodical Realism.

____. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology.

____. Main Currents in Modern Political Thought.

____. The Moral Foundation of Democracy.

Russell Hittinger, The First Grace: Rediscovering The Natural Law In A Post-Christian World

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

Willmoore Kendall, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition.

____. The Conservative Affirmation.

____. Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum.

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.

____. Liberty or Equality.

Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States.

____. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution

____. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.

____. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.

____. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

____. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.

____. The Tasks of Philosophy.

____. Ethics and Politics.

Fr. C. N. R. McCoy, On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy.

____. The Structure of Political Thought.

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

____. The Ideology of Max Weber.

Thomas Molnar, Return to Philosophy.

____. Archetypes of Thought.

____. The Pagan Temptation.

____. Politics and the State: the Catholic View.

____. God and The Knowledge of Reality.

Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism.

____. Makers of the Modern Mind.

____. Religion and Culture.

Gerhart Niemeyer, The Communist Ideology, Between Nothingness and Paradise.

____. Aftersight and Foresight.

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays.

____. On Human Conduct.

____. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism.

____. Hobbes on Civil Association.

____. What Is History?

____. The Vocabulary of a Modern European State.

Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language Abuse of Power.

____. For the Love of Wisdom.

____. In Defense of Philosophy.

____. The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Paul A. Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thought.

____. The Natural Law.

James V. Schall, S.J., Roman Catholic Political Philosophy.

____. Christianity and Politics.

____. The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy.

____. Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy.

____. At the Limits of Political Philosophy: From the “Brilliant Errors” to the Things of Uncommon Importance.

____. The Mind That Is Catholic: Philosophical and Political Essays.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History.

____. On Tyranny.

____. Persecution and the Art of Writing.

____. Liberalism, Ancient and Modern.

____. Thoughts on Machiavelli.

____. What Is Political Philosophy?

____. The City and Man.

____. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.

J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.

____. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century.

____. Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase.

Stephen Tonsor, Equality, Decadence, and Modernity.

Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolution.

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosophy.

____. Being and Knowing.

____. Man’s Knowledge of Reality.

Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

____. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.




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

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

Theorization of Roman Catholic Theology and Historical Inevitability

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious Theorization of Roman Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Inevitability or Determinism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athanasius contra mundum!