An attempt to resume writing after an unexpectedly long hiatus

It has been a very long time since my last post - well over a month actually. In part this is because I have been quite busy professionally, but that is not all.

In fact, I have been keeping up my daily links so I have been reading a lot about what is happening in the world, especially that which relates to events in the Church of Christ. Unfortunately, much of what I have been reading has left me frustrated and sometimes a bit despondent. Oftentimes I have felt an urge to write something, only to realise that it risks becoming a rant about Bergoglioism and the latest shenanigans of our Holy Father. There seems to be no end in sight to papal scandals, or indeed the episcopal, priestly and consecrated religious scandals that these have inspired. Meanwhile, the desctruction of sanity continues unabated in the rest of the world, and while I don't think we can afford to give even a second's rest in reacting to the enemies of the Church within the clergy, we must realise that these strongly reflect the attitudes prevailing outside the Church and these attitudes must be tempered. Left untouched, we shall find that there is no room for us to worship and glorify God once the Catholic restoration gets fully underway.

The purpose of this blog was not to write about events in the Church, but I have felt forced to comment about events now and then. It is my intention to keep doing so, but in keeping with my original intentions, I intend to write much more about non-Church news and how these can be seen from a Catholic persepective, while also trying to make the key distinctions which are almost invariably missing from the major stories, as well as highlighting the assumptions which underlie much of what we read.

This is still very much a personal blog and the content is very much meant for myself. This explains is why the day's links page has remained active - I like to collect the articles I read. Lest there be any doubt that I am oblivious to the scandals that are blowing from Rome, I recommend 2 of the very best blogs covering internal Church issues, not infrequently reporting on latest deeds of Pope Francis, and unlike most, they do not back down from exposing scandal and heresy even when it comes from the very top. Indeed, all scandal is bad, but scandal is at its worst when it comes from the Vicar of Christ himself, and reading them will leave you in no doubt that there is plenty of that around:

For the most part, I am in total agreement with what both these bloggers write - both in tone and content, and I can't recommend them highly enough. With that out of the way, hopefully I can get back to what I had intended to do all along - which is to show that the beauty and truth of the Catholic Church, founded as she is on the one who is Truth Himself, is the answer to all that ails the world, and only in her wisdom can we find authentic liberty and joy.

Pope John Paul II becomes Saint John Paul II

Today Pope John Paul II was elevated to the rank of a saint. This canonisation has not been without controversy. Many have objected to canonising a man who did a few scandalous things, while those most in favour have pointed out that Pope John Paul II was in fact a holy man, who showed great courage and did a lot of work towards restoring the credibility and stability of the Catholic Church after inheriting the mess that Pope Paul VI had left behind.

The best articles I have found discussing the issue of canonisation's infallibility are the following:

One of the articles makes the point that the purpose of canonisations has changed, from affirming what was already practiced to essentially declaring new people as models for public veneration. That, the author notes, is a sad development. It is a point owrth remembering, and there, as in so many other spheres within the Catholic Church, a restoration to previous practice would very much be in order.

My view on canonisations is quite clear: We are bound to submit to the authority of the Church to declare that a person is in Heaven. We are not, however, bound to accept that everything the person did was good. In fact, we are not even required to believe that the person is a good role model. I would argue that we previously had to do this, but since canonisation has lost much of its past rigour and purpose, it is my understanding that we are within our rights to recognise some of the saints as ignorable.

Not being a theologian or a Church historian, my purpose is not to write a treatise on the rights and wrongs of this canonisation, but just to offer a few words of reflection, especially on our Pope John Paul II of fond memory.

As I am keen to tell virtually everyone with whom I engage on the topic of God and the Christian faith, I was not raised a Catholic. The process of becoming a faithful practising Catholic to the best of my ability and in accordance with the tenets of the Church owes much to the last few  years of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

I was indeed mesmerised by the courage and resolution he showed in his final moments, to the extent that I had to ask myself: How can he be so serene in the final days of his life? Might he perhaps know something that I don't? A few days after Pope John Paul II died, Cardian Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope, and he more than any other, is the one I have to thank. In his writings I found a clarity, assuredness and vigour that I had not experienced. It can be argued that Pope John Paul II's most admirable act was promoting Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In other words, I do not know much about Pope John Paul II, despite the fact that he was Pope for the majority of my life to date, and despite the fact that I always admired the man. I have  read that his Koran-kissing caused a lot of scandal, and we have the infamous Assissi meetings. During his pontificate he promoted modernists and other heterodox people, and did not do enough to promote orthodoxy as the only viable option. On the other hand, I have read that he steadied the ship after the confusion caused by Paul VI, that he helped bring down the evil communist empire, that he was courageous in fighting communism even before he became Pope, at great cost to his own personal safety, that he was always concerned with the unit of the family from his earliest days as a priest.

What I can gather from Pope John Paul II comes from his statements as Pope and his encyclicals. In reading his many encyclicals, I see a man who had a burning desire to bring people to God, one who was keen to promote Jesus Christ as not one teacher among many, but as the way to eternal life, one who wanted the Church to engage the world, but on the terms of Jesus Christ, truth itself. In his words, I see a man who is very clear on what the God requires of all individuals - not just Catholics. I see a man with a burning desire to teach, which is probably why he wrote so many encyclicals.

One thing I am sad to note about Pope John Paul II is that he did not show much courage in how he ran the Church. He did not stomp out dissent, although he at least kept it quiet. He did not affirm the importance of traditionalism, and it seems as though he thought one could have Catholicism without its various traditions - cultural or sacred - something which has shown itself to be very misguided. He did not seem particularly intent on promoting the Tridentine Mass, and it is unfortunate that his most notable excommunication is that of Archbishop Lefevbre, which could have been avoided if Pope John Paul II had been keen on passing on apostolic traditions through the timeless Mass and other practices.

I am still unsure as to whether his most memorable contribution to the Church will be his decision to allow altar girls (one which hopefully will be reversed when the Novus Ordo mass dies out), or his Theology of the Body, or the publication of the 1983 Code of Canon law, or the publication of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Some of these are more honourable than others, but such is the nature of his pontificiate that there were many...

The Bergoglioism Wars

It cannot have escaped any faithful Catholic's attention that these are stormy times in the life of the Church. Whereas previously Catholics scandalised and confused by prelates at a local level could look to Rome for guidance, this seems no longer to be the case, with Rome itself being the source of much of the confusion. There is confusion as to what are papal words (to which we have to give intellectual assent) and words from the person who happens to be the Pope.

Michael Voris on ChurchMilitant.tv argues that the Pope is different, as the reason why they will not make public any criticism of Pope Francis. Predictably, Mundabor disagrees, which is not so strange as he seems to have been the target of a communication which went from ChurchMilitant.tv explaining why they will not criticise the Pope. I respect ChurchMilitant.tv's stance, and I certainly sympathise with their pain - which is all too visible on Michael Voris' face in the piece. However, though I accept that their conclusion is valid, I am not sure I accept the arguments they put forth - the major argument being that criticising the Pope might lead to some people leaving the Church and others not entering, because like it or not, the Pope is the face of the Church.

That argument does not take account of the fact that the number of people being led astray by not criticising the Pope might be greater (as they may be led into error), and even greater still might be the number of people who are  horrified at joining the Church if it means bending over backwards to accept statements which are obviously false, and where reason goes out the window if the Pope decides to be unreasonable, even though this goes against what the Catholic Church actually teaches. In fact, I have seen several people stating this as their prime objection to joining the Catholic Church. Whatever the case, the very fact that ChurchMilitant.tv runs this kind of piece at all tells us just how precarious the situation is right now. I do agree with them entirely on one thing, however: The salvation of souls is of the utmost importance. As to which approach best advances that cause, I am not so sure.

What we can't claim however, is that ChurchMilitant.tv has been silent in the confusion that has accompanied Pope Francis. Whenever a bishop or a priest, or a cardinal has said something scandalous - in line with Pope Francis - they have not been slow to point out what the Church teaches. This is unlike much of the orthodox Catholic media which seems to have given up promoting Catholicism because doing so might seem to be an attack on what the pope has said.

I do, however, resent Michael Voris' use of "left and right" to charaterise criticism of Pope Francis. Criticism of the pope has come mainly from orthodox Catholics, and the Bergoglioism wars seems rather to be between traditionalist Catholics (those who love the Church and all it has held from her infancy) and conservative Catholics (those who accept Vatican II as the re-birth of the Church, like some of its traditions but are always keen to defend innovations if they come from Rome). The heretics and heterodox (those who Michael Voris calls "left") - who do not care much for promoting the teachings if the Catholic Church anyway -in contrast, seem to be very happy with the state of confusion in Rome, with the only criticism being that the Pope is allowing himself to be held back by the more conservative elements in the Vatican. They seem to think he is one of theirs, that he would ring in many more changes if only he did not fear some in Rome. I don't agree with that view (entirely), but it is safe to say that nobody can charaterise Pope Francis as a tradition-loving orthodox Catholic.

In my opinion there is room for both approaches, so long as both keep their mind on the primary objective for all Catholics: The salvation of souls.

As it so happens, I am more in line with ChurchMilitant.tv, and to the best of my ability, I aim to keep my blog from criticising Pope Francis directly. However, I'll not do contortions to defend everything he does. I made up my mind a long time ago to defend Pope Francis only if he is attacked for defending the Catholic Church with whose stewardship he has been entrusted. I take the words of Pope Francis as I take the words of any man - at face value - and I absolutely refuse to re-interpret someone's words to mean the opposite of what they meant when they were uttered. Such megalomaniacal self-delusion is to be shunned by all peope who profess the Catholic faith.

I cannot help, however, but recall Roberto de Mattei's warning to Radio Maria after they had cancelled his show, that we are deluded to think we shall not be involved in the whirlwind that is Bergoglioism, that "the time will come, however, when one has to take sides". Mario Palmaro certainly took sides, and the pain evident in his writings is there for all to see. No orthodox Catholic takes pleasure in criticising the Pope, but criticise we sometimes must do, lest we be complicit in his scandal.

Although I lean with ChurchMilitant.tv on this issue (regarding public criticism), I very much appreciate Mundabor's blog - which is pretty much my favourite - and his reasoning. He does not take pleasure in criticising the Pope, but sees his duty as that of a poor blogger trying to defend the faith of his ancestors and the apostles. He seems to be a man who will not let courtesy get in the way of the truth, and I generally seem to think that is the way to go. If...

The children never stood a chance

Last Friday - the 21st of January - I happened to stumble upon a piece on SVT, the national publicly-funded news station. There was a piece on how children are now living in joint-custody arrangements, whereby they spend half their time in one parent's home and the other half in the other parents. The piece featured 2 women who were living together in a 'commune' of sorts, with 2 bedrooms where one lived with her children when they were visiting. My understanding of the piece is that the women were not romantically involved. One of the women (presumably semi-famous) talked about how we need to accept new family situations, that it was not a destruction of the family but rather a creation of a new family model. In the piece was also a man who talked about how he and his new live-in woman have a similar arrangement, since they have children from another marriage.

After the piece there was a person who spoke - it was claimed she was a researcher and she had some statistics to share. It also turned out that she also lived in a similar situation, being a divorcee herself (or at the very least that she had children with a man with whom she used to live but does not live with any more).

As for the statistics themselves, there was nothing remarkable. She claimed that children who live with both biological parents tend to do better than children who live with only one biological parent all the time, and that children who live in joint-custody arrangements tend to do better than children who have access to only one parent, but not as well as children living with 2 parents. This is about as ringing an endorsement of the family as you will ever have on Swedish media. There was no discussion on marriage and whether children who are raised by parents united in marriage are better off than others. In Sweden, co-habitation and marriage are seen largely as the same thing - with marriage having the dubious distinction of being an arrangement with practically no benefits in law but many downsides.

If the piece had ended there I would not have bothered to comment on it. However, the researcher received a question though on why joint-custody rates vary so much between countries. Then she went on about how it all has to do with different views on women's equality with men, and views on whether women should be in the workplace. In other words, according to her, it all had to do with feminism, and women's 'progress' in the workplace and society at large.

I found that very odd since I would have assumed that as someone who researches on the well-being of children, her natural inclination would have been to say something akin to "different cultures have different views on how best to raise children", or "different countries have different views on the centrality of children in social policies". Make no mistake: What we are talking about primarily here is children - because it is they who have to be uprooted and displaced every now and then -, but according to her, even when we are discussion the well-being of children, they only come third in consideration after 'equality' in the households and 'equality' in the workplace.

Of course, for Sweden, the most important factor in joint-custody relationships is not men wanting to take care of their children, but rather the fact that in a joint-custody relationship the man does not have to pay alimony to the mother of his children - which is a rather big attraction given that most people don't want to offer material support to people they might have liked previously but now despise. This aspect did not feature in her analysis though, which is strange. Given the frequency with which unborn children are killed in Sweden, and given the fact that many people have children with multiple partners while clearly not intending to commit to them, it is fair to say that Swedes are generally not the most child-loving or child-centrered people, so a good researcher might be curious to explain why men in such a  society choose joint-custody solutions. Maybe she has, but it didn't show. I was left with the impression that her research was by and large driven by a desire to rationalise her own divorce and subsequent lifestyle choices.

In the final analysis though, it is plain to see that feminism and leftism are the lenses through which all political discourse takes place in Sweden. It would be difficult otherwise to explain how a piece which is clearly about children ends up being an analysis of women's 'progress' in society.

Elections bring out the true colours of a country

This is an election year in Sweden, which has a 4-year election cycle. I do not follow domestic politics so much, not because it does not affect me but for the most part because it seems rather pointless. What we have is in essence a multi-party one-party state in which discussion about fundamentals never takes place. Sure, the parties have minor differences as to how the aims can be achieved, and the so-called right favour marginally lower taxes than the left, but by any objective reading all the major parties in Sweden are leftist of one form or another - believing as they do in the all-mighty state.

Elections normally bring out the true colours of a country, because it brings to the fore what the politicians regard as the selling points to the normal person in the street. So it is even in Sweden, although given that Swedish people are generally very reticent about voicing any divergent opinion, it is difficult to say whether the issues which are valued by politicians are actually the issues which the normal Swedish person values. By and large the politicians have a very easy time in Sweden because regardless of how unpopular a bill might be, it is very rare for a public outcry. The fact that most of the time the parties seem to be on the same side - and not co-incidentally this happens to be the side supported by media - tends to make Sweden a very governable place for the politicians.

There is one major party which stands out in Sweden and that is "Sverigedemokraterna" - the "Swedish democrats", directly translated. This too is a statist party, but at least when they speak they speak like normal people, as though they live on this particular planet in this particular galaxy and not on some parallel galaxy where we can pretend that crime has no victims and that we can obliterate centuries of culture through multiculturalism and come out the other side better than we were before. (I am not hereby in any way shape or form taking a stance as to whether the Swedish culture is better than a certain undefined multi-culture, merely stating that multiculturalism is an experiment doomed to failure.) This party gets predictably bad press and is frequently described as far-right, but it is in fact a leftist party for nationalists. For some reason, in Sweden, far right is supposed to be bad, which is why the media attaches that label to anyone who dislikes forcing multiculturalism down everybody's throats by way of leftism.

There is also a party started last month called "Kristna Värdepartiet" - "the Christian values party", directly translated. This party seems quite different, and in its party program it states taht it wants to recude teh influence of the state. It also wants to make the killing of the unborn illegal. On top of that, it wants to allow home-schooling (which is illegal in practice). Of all the parties I have come across in Sweden, this is as non-leftist as it gets, and can even be described as 'conservative' - that most hated of words in this country. I shall try as much as I can to report on how this party is reported.

As I wrote in my introduction, I don't follow domestic Swedish politics too much. However, during election years I do like to follow the different election strategies and keep tabs on what kind of marketing the parties are doing for themselves. So last time, for instance, we had the greens telling us that they wanted to abolish the 'traditional family' (an intrinsic evil if ever there was one), whereas the Swedish democrats rode on a platform of trying to promote it - among other things by providing free counselling to couples who are in divorce proceedings. That to me was the most striking difference of the last election, and the ability of the Swedish democrats to speak as though they value them, whereas many of the other parties see people as variables in a social experiment. That being written, the Swedish democrats did not have a very coherent platform - running as they did on the idea that Islam is the greatest threat to Sweden (which it might well be although I disagree with that assessment) since Nazism. The reason this is incoherent is because Nazism was not a threat to Sweden in any way and Sweden was in many ways a collarator and admirer of  Nazism. However, we are taught to associate Nazism with evil (without necessarily being taught what was evil about it philosophically), and by associating Islam with Nazism they aimed at triggering a reflexive reaction from the voters. I am not sure it succeeded, but they did nonetheless make it to parliament for the first time and they are now the third biggest party (although in my opinion this has very little to do with that particular tactic).

This year I am to write about some of the more outrageous political ideas that will be floated about during the current election cycle. Unfortunately, I do admit that I might already be immunised against many of them, and that some of the ideas which seem outrageous to outsiders will simply go unnoticed. Nonetheless, I am pretty sure there will be plenty of examples to prove just how juvenile political discourse in Sweden happens to be.

Anybody who follows debates on life and family will know that Sweden is at the forefront of the efforts against both. Make no mistake however: Sweden is not ground zero in the culture of death. That particularly dubious honour (at least in Europe) would have to go to Belgium which seems to be in a one-horse race towards becoming the most decadent society yet known to man. Many of the ideas floated around casually are nowhere near the horizon in Sweden - and the idea of euthanasia is not one which politicians of any stripe have...

The dreadful day when our beloved Pope Benedict XVI resigned

I remember that dreadful day quite well. It was just about lunch time, just before noon, and I tuned into the Catholic Herald's website, looking for the latest news in the Catholic world - and there it was "Pope Benedict XVI resigns" or something like it. At first I thought it was a bad joke, but I was in no mood to simply shrug it off. So I visited Radio Vaticana's website, and found confirmation of the fact. My dearly beloved Pope Benedict XVI had resigned.

I was working with a colleague who was Catholic. He used to take a daily lunchtime stroll and I told him that I really needed some fresh air. Once outside, I told him that Pope Benedict XVI had resigned. He had to check his phone for confirmation, but by that time the news had spread - "this is historic!", was his reaction. He was under the impression that Pope Benedict must have been very sick for this to happen and he felt certain that the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to have a bad Pope, not when there is so much confusion, not when there is such a strong need for the Church and her wise leadership. I did not say so at the time, but I was more alarmed than he was. To me, it felt certain that this was the last chance of the modernists to install one of their own as Pope, but I was still in shock. Some part of me wanted to believe that the Pope was really sick and that he had to resign, but I found myself realising just what an evil thought that was: Could I not just wish Pope Benedict a peaceful retirement, and take him at face value when he said that he did not have the powers needed for his role?

On and on it went, and I lept from one Catholic news outlet to the next, seeking reactions, wondering what might come, wondering why this had happened. One thing I was sure about though: Pope Benedict always put the Church first, and if he resigned then he must have had good reason to do so. I also thought to myself "If there is anybody who has earned the right to a peaceful life, it surely is Pope Benedict."

The next few weeks saw a lot of speculation as to why Pope Benedict had resigned, most of which I ignored, some of which was very vicious. I had simply chosen to take Pope Benedict's words at face value: He felt he should resign for the good of the Church, and if he had so much faith in the Church to elect a good successor then maybe I owed it to him to do likewise. We had many articles and comments which insisted that we have nothing to worry about since the Holy Spirit picks the Pope. This is, of course, not what the Church teaches, nor will it ever teach that - not least because we have a decent list of less than admirable popes. To the faithful and unlearned - who are at least obedient enough to believe the Church is holy, but uniformed enough to know what the Church actually teaches - this was an admirable response. However, it is so dangerous that it even prompted one writer to title an article "Cut the Papa-Bull", which I felt was right on point. The heretics and lukewarm 'Catholics' were of course rejoicing because they were hoping for someone who would come and undo all the good that Pope Benedict had done.

Over the coming weeks I prayed for Pope Benedict more than I had ever done before. I wanted to pray to God and petition Him to get Pope Benedict to change his mind, but I resited the urge. Rather, I prayed that Pope Benedict would lead us wisely during what little time he had left as Pope, and that the cardinals would elect a wise person to succeed him, and that he would have the peace of mind he had so earnestly earned during the course of a life spent in service of the Church.

When I saw his last pictures as Pope - not live - I felt a deep sense of sorrow come over me. I also felt as though I had betrayed him. I had long wished that Pope Benedict would be Pope for a long time - at least 10-15 years and I had always been worried that he would be tough to replace. The fact that the Church has replaced Popes for close to 2,000 years calmed me a bit, yet I knew that the Church was sailing in some of the fiercest waves that she had ever encountered, and we had lost just about the most steady captain available on God's good Earth, and not due to a natural calamity either. I felt as though I had betrayed Pope Benedict because I had not prayed for him as much as I should have done previously, how sad it was that I was praying for him more towards the end of his pontificate than I had done over all the previous time. I felt as though I had let him down by not defending the Church more forcefully, by not proclaiming the LORD more joyously and fervently. I was determined to keep Pope Benedict in my prayers for the rest of his Earthly life, and I am happy that I have been able to do that.

A few months previously I had had a dream in which I was assigned to guard Pope Benedict only to see him assassinated right in front of my very eyes. That dream all of a sudden seemed very real, and glad as I was that the Pope was still alive, I felt I still felt a sense of deep sorrow that I would never again look forward to hearing from that humble God-loving man.

As I...

Picking sides in Ukraine

I'll admit that I have not been following what has been happening in Ukraine. For some reason though, the protests have made a lot of coverage on Swedish media outlets (T.V., which are the only ones which catch my attention). I generally avoid the news, since I firmly believe that it is better to be uninformed than misinformed, and I have come to the conclusion that the media is more interested in misinformation than truth. By and large the only times I watch the media are when I know of something that has happened and I am keen to see how it will be reported.

The protests in Ukraine have been a good example of what I normally press home (no pun intended) - that one really ought not to watch anything on T.V., or read about it in mainstream newspapers, that one is not interested in following up later through other outlets. I know for certain that there have been protests in France - through alternative outlets and thanks to a parishioner who is French. I know that many of these have been far larger than anything that we have seen in Ukraine. Over the last few weeks whenever I have heard of a protest in France, I have tried to watch the news and see if it will be covered. Not a single time have I seen them reporting on the protests in France, yet the Ukraine makes news daily. I am not implying that this event has not been covered, but simply that whenever I have tuned into news, there has been nothing about France and much about Ukraine, even when the protests in France have been much larger. Today, for instance, TV4 reported that the protests in Ukraine were large - around 70,000 (it didn't look like it on the images they showed, and I am in no mood to take them at face value). Evidently, over the past week we had protests which the French government estimated at 80,000 but which protesters seem to claim were far larger. Nonetheless, if we take the government figure, we still have something which is still larger than the figure we have on the Ukraine, yet I have heard not a word of what has happened in France.

Since I have not been following events in Ukraine much, I have been unwilling to pick sides. I am, however, generally sceptical about 'popular' protests, knowing as I do how crowds are often manipulated and how the media often spins a narrative totally different than the truth. I do know that some Catholic bishops in the Ukraine have more or less taken sides with the protesters, but I have long given up trusting blindly in bishops (although the bishops in Ukraine seem to be at least very orthodox in terms of faith and morals, from what little I have read of the situation in Ukraine, and I particularly like the current leader). That Cardinal Dolan of New York, who has so pussy-footed arround the gross moral violations of his own country's government would come out in support of the Ukrainian protesters I found very strange indeed. Here is a man who claims that he would not bar politicians from receiving Holy Communion, in direct contravention to what the Church teaches, mind  you.

Anyway, back to the point: The situation in Ukraine has not been described to me. What the Swedish media claim is that the protesters are protesting against moves by the Ukrainian government to move Eastwards towards Russia - evidently the government signed some agreements a few months ago with Russia. They seem to want it to move Westwards towards the EU. What I cannot fathom is why foreign agents should support protesters who are trying to scupper government policy in an area in which the government has full competence, legitimacy and authority to decide. If it really is as bad as they claim, why can they not wait until the next elections and depose the government? It is not as though the government is trying to defy natural law - redefining what a man and a woman is, when life begins, what a family is, invading on the rights of the family and so on, all areas in which the government has zero competence and where protest (even violent, I would argue) would be legitimate.

From what little I know, it seems as though the protests are being orchestrated by foreign agents, agents which wish to keep Ukraine as a pawn in their power game with Russia. This was indeed confirmed over the past week with the leaking of a tape recording between American diplomats, in which they seem to openly discuss how to raise the profile of the opposition and how to get the American foreign minister involved to rile up the troops (presumably U.S. diplomats, and not the protesters on the ground). This really only confiemed what I have been thinking all along - that the protests are by and large manipulated from abroad, or at the very least that the EU and the U.S. are instigators.

It seems to be a clear case of interfering with the domestic politics of a country which has chosen a different path than the one prescribed by the globalists of the U.S. and the EU, and only for that reason.

To be honest, the penny had dropped for me earlier than that. Only a few days before that both he U.S. and the EU publicly decided to support the opposition and if there is anything that history has taught us over that last 15 or so years, it is that whenever the U.S. or the EU take a side in another country, we can pretty much be guaranteed that the side they have chosen is the one of greater evil (especially with the current U.S. administration but really this pattern is administration-neutral). If both the EU and the U.S.  pick the same side then you have...

Something is rotten with the state (of the Church) in Germany

I stumbled upon a link from Supertradmum through the blog - Ethereldasplace - which I highly recommend. The post was titled " Aren't "pre-marital unions" fornication? Moving out of the Church....." and linked to a Catholic News Service piece called "Surveys: German, Swiss Catholics reject many church teachings on family", written by one Cindy Wooden. I later learned that the Catholc News Service is owned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I had determined to find out who owned the outlet because the piece made me suspicious and I wanted to find out if the author had an agenda. It turns out I was being unfair on Miss/Mrs. Cindy Wooden, because all of the questionable statements had actually been direct quotations from the German Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Summary of the responses from the German dioceses and archdioceses to the questions contained in the preparator". If I can fault her for anything, it is that she did not link to the document because this meant I was forced to spend considerable time trying to locate the English translation of the summary. Had it not been for the Web browser's translate function, I might never have found it since the English version of the German bishops' conference leaves a lot to be desired.

The report makes for grave reading, and that is the subject of much of my post. My complaint is with both the content and the style of the summary. Before that, in the interest of fairness, I would just like to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church some sections which I deem relevant.  For sake of completeness, and to avoid the accusation of seletivity, the qutations are rather long.

On the natural law:

1954 ...The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie...
1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life.... Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature...
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties...
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history...

On marriage:

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics...

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.108 By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life.
1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

2357 ... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the

...

More on pro-child-killing feminist idiocy

I had previously written about an article from Metro regarding how a few feminists stages a protest inside a Church during Mass. This incident has also been convered by a Swedish tabloid/daily called Aftonbladet.

In this piece - which contains more pictures - the journalist speaks with a priest, the protesters and a woman photographer who was in on the whole stunt. We are told that some women (could be the very same) were on trial for a similar action at the Russian embassy last August. The journalist also explains that the women were doing this as  their "contribution" towards supporting the "right to legal abortion" in Spain (the Spanish government has introduced legislation to revert to its old abortion laws after the socialists had expanded them).

To illustrate the thoughtless nature of their minds, one of the feminists says "Jag tycker inte de har rätt att bli så arga" with translates to "I don't think they have a right to be so angry" or more directly to the meaning "My opinion is that they do not have a right to be so angry". To her mind, she has a right to get angry about the fact that the governemnt in Spain wants to lower the number of children who are killed and dismembered, but Catholics do not have a right to get angry when their holy Mass is attacked. By analogy that would mean that she holds abortion to be holier to her (and fellow feminists) than the Mass is to Catholics. In charity, I am forced admit that perhaps she had simply confused the Catholic cathedral with the Spanish embassy.

It is safe to assume these feminists do not understand the concept of rights(which must always flow from more fundamental towards more peripheral, with the right to life being the most fundamental) and it is even safer to assume that they cannot distinguish between authentic (negative) rights (which we are owed by virtue of being human beings and can only ever be recognised, not granted) and state-granted privileges (rather lazily called 'rights', which can be granted and taken away at the state's pleasure) or else she would not utter something as brainless as "I don't think they have a right to be so angry".

It is worthwhile considering what their position would be when confronted with the reality of sex-selective killings of the unborn. Might it be safe to assume that since abortion seems more sacred to them than anything else, they would support this so-called right of elder females to kill  younger females? Judging by the near-silence on this issue by feminsists whenever it is brought to debate (as in the U.K. recently), it is fair to say that their attitude is that sacrificing younger females at the altar of care-free carnal pleasure is a sacrifice well-worth paying if it allows older females to sex-binge.

One positive from the article is that the journalist actually referred to one of the men who 'escorted' these women out of the church as a "ministrant", which is actually the proper term for alter servers in Swedish, short of actually using the equivalent of "alter server". I was rather impressed that he bothered with using the right terminology - he even linked to Wikipedia for those wishing to find out what the word means. This can be compared to the writter of the earlier article who referred to the congregants as "spectators".

 

 

 

Pro-child-killing feminist idiocy strikes a cathedral again!

So we had this feminist group Femen invading the Cathedral in Stockholm and staging a semi-nude protest just before Mass. Evidently, these women have just about enough brains to strip topless and show off their mammaries, although not always enough to spell out their protest properly. At least they managed to spell properly this time.

The slogan "Catholic Church out of my body" - I am at a loss to know what that means. Has the Catholic Church ever been inside a woman's body? I'm just curious.

We had a similar protest in Russia a while back and while a lot of people - including our mainly thoughtless celebrities - were making all sorts of stunts urging for the release of the protesters on that occasion, I was very keen to stress that violation of sacred space is one of the most egregious crimes we can have against a population. The Russian protesters received only about 2  years for their crime, and I argued it should have been much more because a hard precedent needs to be set. For the religious person, violation of sacred space is a more vicious crime than breaking and entering into one's own  home, and unless a government wants to send the message that it's a free-for-all on attacking each other's religious sites, tough punishments have to follow, and short of destroying a place of worship there can be no hardly be a greater violation than a protest of the kind that those women staged.

In fact, protests inside churches seem to be the fashion nowadays as similar sacrilege has been observed in Spain and France over recent years, and the authorities seem intent on encouraging it, or at the very least maintaining an undignified silence over it.

With that in mind, I was intrigued to see that the comment on the Metro piece was "Metro har sökt Katolska Kyrkan i Stockholm för en kommentar", which translates roughly to "Metro has sought the Catholic Church in Stockholm for comments". I was struck that it was not something on the lines of "Metro has sought the police department for comments" because I would have thought that this at the very least qualifies as an act of public disturbace - in which case the police should be sought out to find out what they are going to do about the crime - but the comment is quite telling because the media has come to accept the Catholic Church as fair game and its followers as people who more or less can never be seen as victims.

Another text worthy of comment is "Efter ett tag tvingades kvinnorna ut ur kyrkan av personal och åskådare" which translates roughly to "After a while the women were forced out of the church by personnel and spectators/onlookers". I do wonder whether the standards of journalism have sunk so low that we cannot even expect a journalist for a major outlet to know that when believers congregate, they do it to worship and not merely to spectate over an event, and that the proper term for Christians gathered in worship is worshipper, congregant, believer or something of the like; words which do not lack Swedish equivalents.

In fairness, with the banalisation of Christian worship over the last 60 or so years - although it has to be admitted that the Catholic liturgy in Sweden is generally of a high calibre -, it is not that surprising that somebody not raised a Christian (which I presume he wasn't) would equate Christian worship with just any old secular event. Nonetheless, I would still expect someone with any decent amout of professional integrity to make the proper distinction between a mere spectator event and a Catholic Mass, or at the very least be curious about why people were gathered in the first place - a 5-minute Internet search would certainly be enough to form that impression and having formed that impression, the congregants would surely not be labeled mere spectators.

The proper response to this kind of incident, would of course, have been to detain these women until the police came to take them away. Alas, this does not appear to have happened and they were simply escorted outside, no doubt so they can prepare for more rebel-rousing desecration, seeing as it is a consequence-free act. In any case, given the queerness of the Swedish legal system, detaining them would probably have seen the Catholic church hit with an abduction charge, so maybe the congregants were right to take the 'safe' option.

Obviously this was nothing other than a publicity stunt - the Catholic Church is quite small in Sweden, and its leadership not particularly vocal against anti-life and anti-family measures, and the text was even in English to ensure maximum exposure (pun intended) - and for that reason, it almost pains me to afford it any attention, but with thoughtless feminism on the march we can expect more and more of this kind of non-sense, and the sort of righteous outrage I have over this kind of of demonic demonstration implores me to at the very least catalogue it whenever it happens.

 

 

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS