Nostra aetate (6) ... two recent popes

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
In 1980, addressing a Jewish gathering in Germany, B John Paul II said (I extract this from a long sentence): " ... dialogue; that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant (never revoked by God, cf Romans 11:29) and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time ..." In 2013, Pope Francis, in the course of his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, also referred to the Old Fr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

Nostra aetate (5): the recent Papal Magisterium

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
The sort of people who would violently reject the points I am making are the sort of people who would not be impressed by the the Council of Florence. So I am going to confine myself to the Magisterium from the time of Pius XII ... since it is increasingly coming to be realised that the continuum of processes which we associate with the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period was already in operationFr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

Nostra Aetate (4): Is the Two Covenant Theory a necessary revolution?

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
We have seen that the Two Covenant Theory, the idea that Jewry alone is guaranteed Salvation without any need to convert to Christ, is repugnant to Scripture, to the Fathers, even to the post-Conciliar liturgy of the Catholic Church. It is also subversive of the basic grammar of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. Throughout  two millennia, in Scripture, in Liturgy, in her Fr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

Nostra Aetate (3): the post-Conciliar liturgical Magisterium

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
Lex orandi lex credendi. I have been examining the Two Covenant Dogma: the fashionable error that God's First Covenant, with the Jews, is still fully and salvifically valid, so that the call to saving faith in Christ Jesus is not made to them. The 'New' Covenant, it is claimed, is now only for Gentiles. I want to draw attention at this point to the witness of the post-Conciliar Magisterium of theFr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

Nostra Aetate (2): S Paul and his sungeneis

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
S Paul loved his fellow Jews, his 'kinsmen' and believed "the gifts and call of God are irrevocable". He believed that at the End, those among them who had rejected Christ would be brought in to the chosen people. He believed that they were like olive branches which had been cut off so that the Gentiles, wild olive branches, could be grafted in. But, when the fulness of the Gentiles had entered Fr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

Nostra Aetate (1)

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment - Tue, 01/19/2038 - 04:14
Since the Council, an idea has been spreading that Judaism is not superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ; that Jews still have available to them the Covenant of the old Law, by which they can be saved. It is therefore unnecessary for them to turn to Christ; unnecessary for anybody to convert them to faith in Christ. Indeed, attempting to do so is an act of aggression not dissimilar to theFr John Hunwicke
Categories: All, Clergy, Traditional

O Sole Mio

Steyn Online - Tue, 10/15/2019 - 16:00
We're delighted to present another live-performance edition of our Song of the Week. Mark invites Paul Sorvino to reveal the connection between a great American actor and one of the most beloved songs on the planet:
Categories: All, Journalists, Non-Catholic

Love of a Suppressed Language: What Maori and Western Catholics Have in Common

Novus Motus Liturgicus - Mon, 07/29/2019 - 13:00
A reader in New Zealand, prompted by articles like this and this, sent me the following thoughtful email. It is certainly worth sharing with NLM readers.

* * *
Dear Dr. Kwasniewski,

I have often thought that my relationship (as a Catholic) to Latin is like that of a person of Maori descent to Te Reo — the Maori language. Many, if not most Maori people don’t speak it, but they love it, they know some things from memory, they sing in it and it is theirs and not foreign. The Maori language experienced a sharp decline in the mid-20th century but by 2015 the evidence of a notable revival was no longer disputable.

I am not Maori, but I couldn’t help being reminded of some of the stories in the book Growing Up Maori. The revival of the language was fought for here, and now has serious State backing. Maori went from being neglected and even despised to being declared an official language of New Zealand. I looked online for a better expression of the Maori identification with the language. I found, and was blown away by, the passionate experience of the writer Nadine Hura in “Arohatia Te Reo – Love the Language.”

This Maori analogy resonated with two of my sons and their families when I shared it with them. Then this piece turned up online at Crisis: “First Reactions of Teenage Boys to the Traditional Latin Mass.” It basically seconded all that I was saying.

For me, there is no way that Latin is foreign because it connects us to the sacred — to the universal and even to belonging with early Christians in the West and the traditions of 1,600 years (at least). Of course, I am part of a small minority which thinks like this, but one which has youth on its side. As with Te Reo, so with Latin as a liturgical language: by 2015 no one would be able to question the reappearance, in worship, of a language which was thought not only dead, but buried with a stake driven through its heart.

It occurred to me that you may find this powerful too. There is not only the love parallel, there is also the suppression parallel, including the decades of assimilation policy in New Zealand during which children were punished for speaking Maori to each other in class. How can we fail to remember the decades in which seminarians were dismissed for being interested in Latin, or priests were disciplined for using Latin in Mass? The decades in which love of the thousand-year-old Latin liturgy was equivalent to treachery and a sin against the Holy Ghost? The decades in which we acted as if an entire history and culture were a black mark of shame, instead of a glory to boast of and pass on?

Yours truly in Christ,

* * *
I have only a few thoughts to add to this moving letter.

Language is as deep in us as our thoughts; indeed, we cannot think without language, nor do we belong to a family, a culture, or a society, apart from language. When people have an ethnic heritage, even if it is somewhat remote, it still “speaks to them,” as the poignant idiom has it. Healthy Catholics react with similar feelings of loyalty and comfort to the sound of Latin. Those who are opposed to it are somewhat like races that have been taught to hate their origins in order to blend in and get along with the people in power. A sad business, really, and one that cannot but backfire.

As Jesus once said, “the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light” (Lk 16:8). Secular governments have reestablished the rights of indigenous peoples and their languages, but in the Catholic Church — supposedly run by those who have the best interests of the faithful at heart — we have yet to see any equivalent restoration of the right of the laity to their own tradition or any appropriate recognition and revitalization of her mother tongue.

Nor can anyone point to Vatican II and say that it desired the abolition of our heritage, culture, or identity, which we must therefore swallow out of obedience to the will of the episcopate. As I demonstrated in this article, availing myself of the eye-opening diaries of Henri de Lubac, large numbers of bishops at the Council pleaded with sound arguments and a spirit of urgency for the retention and bolstering of Latin.

In reality, I believe it is as simple as this: in addition to its stupendous linguistic qualities, Latin invariably and viscerally reminds us of the venerable antiquity, solidity, stability, and coherence of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, it is intrinsically, one might say sacramentally, opposed to the project of the Modernists. Yet theirs was the project that prevailed during and after the Council, and the People of God, in whose name the memoricide was committed, have borne the burden of disorientation and deracination.

Categories: All, Clergy, Liturgical, Traditional

Mainstream media should be asking Planned Parenthood these questions in wake of CEO firing

LifeSite News Blogs - 28 min 44 sec ago
It's time for the media to start calling Planned Parenthood out for what it is, an abortion provider for profit.
Categories: All, Family, Lay, Political, Pro-Life

Psychoanalyzing the sexual revolutionary

Edward Feser - 55 min 44 sec ago

When someone makes a claim or presents an argument and you pretend to refute it by calling attention to some purported personal shortcoming of his (such as a bad character or a suspect motive), then you’ve committed an ad hominem fallacy.  The reason this is a fallacy is that what is at issue in such a case is the truth of the claim or the cogency of the argument, and you’ve changed the subject by talking about something else, namely the person making the claim or argument.  But as I explained in a post from a few years ago, not every criticism of a person making a claim or argument is an ad hominemfallacy, because sometimes the topic just isthe person himself.  For instance, when a person is prone to committing ad hominemfallacies and persists in them despite gentle correction, it is perfectly legitimate to note that he is irrational and maybe even morally defective in certain ways – for example, that he is in thrall to the vice of wrath, or has a willful personality, or is guilty of a lack of charity toward his opponents. 
Or that he is in thrall to sins of lust.  I noted in a recent post the tendency of critics of traditional sexual morality to demonize its defenders and attack their motives rather than address their arguments.  The tendency has become more widespread and relentless as the sexual revolution has gone to ever greater extremes.  (Read Rod Dreher’s blog to keep up to date on the latest permutations.)  When I was a teenager, people with looser morals in the area of sex tended to characterize those with more conservative attitudes as prudes or killjoys.  The attitude was that of the frat boy who pities the nerd or bookworm who doesn’t know how to have a good time.  Nowadays the mentality is instead like that of a Bizarro-world Cotton Mather, or perhaps a mashup of Hugh Hefner and Mao Zedong.  Critics of the sexual revolution are treated as agents of the devil or enemies of the people – bigots, haters, oppressors who must be hounded and silenced.
What accounts for this weird transformation?  Of course, the sexual revolutionaries in question would claim that it reflects deepening moral understanding on their part.  But that presupposes that traditional sexual morality is mistaken, which it is not.  But this post is not about defending traditional sexual morality, because I have done that in many other places.  What I am asking is: What accounts for this weird transformation, given the truth of traditional sexual morality? 
There is a kind of Stockholm Syndrome among conservative religious believers of a certain mindset, which treats these developments as the regrettable but understandable excesses of well-meaning wounded souls who’ve been done wrong by overzealous and insensitive defenders of traditional morality.  In my opinion, this is delusional.  If it were true, you’d expect that the shrillness of the revolutionaries would decreaseas the rhetoric of tolerance, compassion, and respectful coexistence with those who reject traditional sexual morality has become more prevalent among conservatives and religious believers.  Instead, the shrillness has also increased, and dramatically.  The more ass-kissingthat religious conservatives do, the more what they get in return is ass-kicking
An analysis of the situation informed by the traditions of natural law ethics and Christian theology – by Plato and Aristotle, St. Paul and St. Augustine, St. Peter Damian and St. Thomas Aquinas, et al. – will reveal that there is something much more sinister going on.  I would argue that there are at least three psychological factors underlying the increasing extremism and nastiness of those with “progressive” views on matters of sex:
1. The daughters of lust: In Summa Theologiae II-II.153.5, Aquinas identifies eight “daughters of lust” or malign effects on the intellect and will that tend to follow upon sexual vice.  For our purposes, the most important are what he calls blindness of mind and hatred of God.  As Aquinas notes in another context, “lust…is about the greatest of pleasures; and these absorb the mind more than any others.”  Sexual pleasure is like the pleasure of alcohol use in being perfectly innocent in itself, but also very easy to abuse.  Hence, even in someone with otherwise normal sexual desires, a preoccupation with matters of sex has a tendency to cause him to act foolishly in various ways – to exaggerate the importance of sex, to pursue it in ways that are detrimental to his own well-being and that of people who depend on him, to construct rationalizations for such foolish pursuit, and so forth.
In someone with abnormal sexual desires, the effect is even worse.  For what determines the good use of a human faculty is the end or purpose toward which it is directed by nature.  Hence a healthy moral psychology requires a firm intuitive grasp of what is natural and what is contrary to nature’s purposes.  Repeatedly taking sexual pleasure in activity that is directly contrary to nature’s ends dulls the intellect’s perception of nature, to the point that the very idea that some things are contrary to the natural order loses its hold upon the mind.  The intellect thereby loses its grip on moral reality. 
Suppose that some people had a strange psychological deformation that led them to take intense pleasure in entertaining the thought that 2 + 2 = 5.  Repeated indulgence of the desire to contemplate this proposition would make such contemplation addictive, and the very idea that there is such a thing as an objective arithmetical truth to the effect that 2 + 2 = 4 would lose its hold on such a person.  He might judge that it is objectively true instead that 2 + 2 = 5, or he might reject altogether the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth where arithmetic is concerned.  Either way, his intellect will have been blinded.  That is analogous to the blindness of mind that can follow upon ingrained sexual vice.
Such a person is also likely to become hostile to those who try to convince him that 2 + 2 = 4 and that he is simply in the grip of a delusion to think otherwise.  He might take this as a personal attack on him, on what he is.  “I can’t help but believe that 2 + 2 = 5!  That’s just the way nature made me!  Why are you so hateful?”  Other people might pity him and start to think it cruel to teach arithmetic as it has always been understood, since it will seem to be an implicit marginalization of those who have the odd predilection in question.  They might go along with schemes to alter the mathematics curriculum so that it affirms the legitimacy of such alternative arithmetical beliefs, encourage people to affirm and even celebrate the predilection, and so forth.
The conception of God as having created the natural order according to eternal and immutable mathematical truths would also come to seem odious, as would any religion that incorporated this conception.  Indeed, the entire cultural tradition that had incorporated traditional mathematics would appear oppressive and something to be torn down.  All of this is analogous to the hatred of God, as author of the moral order, that Aquinas says follows upon ingrained sexual vice.  Religion comes to be either rejected altogether, or replaced by an idolatrous ersatz more hospitable to the vice.
It gets worse.  In Summa Theologiae II-II.53.6, Aquinas teaches that disordered sexual desire is the chief source of sins against the cardinal virtue of prudence, which governs practical reason in general.  Similarly, in Summa Theologiae II-II.46.3he says that foolishness as a general moral vice arises chiefly from sexual sin.  He isn’t saying that sexual sins are of themselves the worst sins – obviously there are worse sins, such as murder – but rather that they have a special tendency to dull general moral understanding, like the first domino that knocks down the others.  A person or society which has become highly corrupted in matters of sex is especially likely to become morally corrupt full stop. 
Hence, return once again to my arithmetic analogy.  In a person or society which started to think in terms of a revisionist arithmetic that made space for the legitimacy of holding that 2 + 2 = 5, the corruption of the intellect would not be confined to arithmetic alone.  General capacity for sound reasoning could not survive such a deformation of the intellect, because it would implicitly undermine the most basic logical principles (such as the law of non-contradiction).
Similarly, in a person or society dominated by sexual vice, it isn’t just moral understanding in matters of sex that would be undermined, but moral understanding in general.  For the general idea of human faculties having natural purposes is unlikely to survive when the natural purposes of our sexual faculties, specifically (which are about as obvious as natural purposes can be), are obscured.  And the capacity for a coolly dispassionate critical evaluation of our contingent desires in light of nature’s purposes cannot survive in minds that are in thrall to sexual passions, which are the most intense of passions.  But an awareness of natural purposes, and the capacity for dispassionate and critical evaluation of desire, are prerequisites to morality in general. 
The infection is bound to leap from the individual, to the culture at large, to the political sphere.  In the Republic, Plato suggests that egalitarian societies tend to become dominated by lust, and have a tendency to degenerate into tyrannies.  For souls dominated by lust are least able to restrain their appetites or to tolerate disapproval of them, which leads to general moral breakdown and an increase in the number of individuals with especially disordered and ruthless temperaments.  Tyranny results when such individuals take advantage of the social chaos and impose their wills on the rest.  In Plato’s view, nothing locks you into the allegorical Cave and its world of illusions, fanatically held on to, like sexual immorality. 
I have discussed the daughters of lust at greater length in several earlier posts (here, here, and here), and have discussed the way that sexual sins can destroy prudence at greater length in a lecture on cooperation with sins against prudence.  The point to emphasize for present purposes is that the analysis of the effects of disordered sexual desire offered by thinkers like Plato and Aquinas suggests that we should expect such desire to become ever more extreme in its manifestations, and that those in thrall to it will become ever more shrill and hateful toward those who resist them.  And that is exactly what we are seeing today.
2. It takes a morality to beat a morality: People are naturally reluctant to talk about even the most normal and healthy of their sexual desires and activities, given the deeply personal nature of sex.  The subject is simply embarrassing, even for the average person with liberal attitudes about it.  He wouldn’t dream of casually discussing his predilections with a stranger, or with his mother, or at a dinner party.  This goes double for sexual desires and activities that one takes in some way to be aberrant.  A special sense of shame attaches to them, both because of their perverse nature and because of the way the pull of sexual desire can subvert what is most distinctively human, namely our reason and will.  Sexual vice is experienced as dragging one down to the animal level, and when it involves what is contra naturam it is experienced as something even worse.
Or at any rate, it is experienced that way to the extent that at least a general and inchoate sense of the natural order of things endures in one’s consciousness.  Even a person who comes to embrace sexual desires traditionally regarded as disordered, and publicly to define his identity in terms of them, will often feel a residual sense of shame and guilt – and this despite the fact that attitudes about sex have liberalized, and the fact that many sympathize with him and are keen to reassure him of his virtue and status as a victim of prejudice.  An Augustine or Aquinas would attribute this to the voice of conscience.  Knowledge of the natural law, they would say, is never entirely destroyed even in the person most in thrall to vice.  It is only ever papered over with layer upon layer of rationalizations.  And sometimes the truth still shines through, albeit dimly.
The sexually “liberated” person refuses to accept that, and not only because he is in love with his vices.  He has dug himself into a hole.  If he initially felt shame about those vices, the shame will only be worse if he decides to embrace them, openly proclaims his attachment to them and even defines himself in terms of them – and then, after all that, later has a re-think and comes to acknowledge that they really were vicious and shameful after all.  The prospect is utterly humiliating, so that it is psychologically that much more difficult to turn back from the path of embracing sexual vice once one has taken it.
Now, nothing counteracts lingering feelings of shame and moral failure the way that feelings of pride and self-righteousness can.  The former can be masked if one can work oneself into the latter.  One can tell oneself: “It is those who call what I do shameful who should be ashamed.  They are the bad people – they are bigots, haters, oppressors.  And Iam doing something noble in rejecting their opinions and fighting against them!  Yes, that’s it!”  By a kind of psychological alchemy, vice is transformed into virtue and virtue into vice, and one’s self-esteem is thereby salvaged and even enhanced.
It may seem odd for the natural law theorist to recruit Nietzsche to this analysis, but he is, of course, the great diagnostician of egalitarian transvaluations of values.  Moralistic egalitarian rhetoric is, on Nietzsche’s analysis, a mask for resentment and envy – a way that those with a deep sense of failure and weakness can secure revenge against those who uphold the virtues they can’t measure up to.  Of course, the way Nietzsche develops this sort of analysis is problematic.  For example, he applies it to a critique of Christian morality, but his target is really a caricature of Christian morality.  But the basic idea that transvaluations of values can reflect envy, resentment, and the desire for revenge is plausible, and it is as plausibly applied to liberationist views in the sexual context as it is to the kinds of egalitarianism Nietzsche himself had in mind.
It is also worth noting that as the sexual revolution has progressed, it has led to claims ever more bizarre and manifestly preposterous – such as the claim that the biological distinction between male and female is bogus and an expression of mere bigotry.  How could anyone seriously believe such nonsense?  The motive for wanting to believe it is not mysterious, since one might have gotten oneself locked into sexual vices so extreme that their rationalization requires such an absurd thesis.  But how could one fool oneself into actually believing it?  Here too a kind of Bizarro-world moralism rides to the rescue.  If one can whip oneself up into a self-righteous frenzy that directs attention away from the absurdity of one’s belief and onto the purported bigotry of those who deny it, then the belief can (perhaps just barely) be sustained.  And the more manifestly absurd the belief, the more moralistically shrill will be the rhetorical defense of it, because rhetorical force has to make up for the lack of any rational basis. 
We might call this the law of compensatory moralism: The more manifestly shameful or absurd one’s sexual vices, the more shrilly moralistic one will tend to be in attacking those who object to them, so as to compensate psychologically for one’s own deep-down awareness of this shamefulness and absurdity.
3. Counter-Pharisaism: But why do so many people who do not share such vices go along with this compensatory moralism?  Why do even many people whose personal sexual behavior is relatively conservative nevertheless strongly object to any insistence that such conservatism ought to be normative? 
In part this is simply a consequence of the lazy relativism and sentimentalism that tend to prevail in egalitarian societies.  The very idea that any one way of life is better than another, and the prospect of someone’s feelings being hurt if one were to suggest otherwise, become intolerable.  (Again, see Plato’s analysis of democracy in the Republic.)  Hence even those who prefer to live more conservative lives often won’t let themselves commit the thought-crime of believing that it is morally betterto do so.    
But I would suggest that there is more to it than that.  Consider the following analogy.  The Pharisees are often described as having built a “fence” around the Mosaic Law, so as to make it as unlikely as possible that anyone will violate it.  The fence consisted of a set of secondary prohibitions, respect for which was meant to ensure that one wouldn’t even get close to offending against the primary ones.  For example, if you do not allow yourself even to pick grain on the Sabbath, then you will be sure to avoid anything that might more clearly constitute working on the Sabbath. 
Now, what I am suggesting is that tolerance of more recherché sexual vices allows those whose vices are more humdrum to build a “fence” of permissibility around them.  It’s a kind of Bizarro-world parody of Pharisaism.  If even really extreme things are not prohibited, then it is less likely that more mundane things will be prohibited.  For example, traditional sexual morality condemns fornication as well as transsexualism, but it regards the latter as more directly contrary to nature than the former.  Hence if even the latter comes to be seen as permissible, it will be that much easier to justify the former. 
So, Pharisaism expands the boundaries of what is impermissible so as to safeguard the prohibitions that the devout person really cares most about.  And the counter-Pharisaism of the “bourgeois bohemian” progressive expands the boundaries of what is permissible to safeguard the milder sexual vices that are what he really cares about. 
* * *
I am not saying that the three psychological tendencies I’ve identified – the daughters of lust, the law of compensatory moralism, and Bizarro-world Pharisaism – are at work in absolutely everyone with more liberal views about sexual morality, or that they are equally strong in everyone in whom they are at work.  But they are a big part of the story, and an increasingly big part as the sexual revolution metastasizes. 
Nor, of course, am I saying for a moment that identifying these psychological factors suffices to refute the claims or arguments of those with liberal views about sexual morality.  That would be an ad hominem fallacy.  Those claims and arguments need to be (and can be) answered on their own terms, entirely independently of the motivations of or psychological influences on those who make them.
Still, it is important to consider these psychological influences.  For one thing, bad ideas and arguments often have a hold over people even when the logical problems with them are laid bare.  It can be useful for someone in thrall to such errors to consider the non-rational influences that might be leading him to give them more credence or consideration than they deserve.
For another thing, those who would defend traditional sexual morality need to have a realistic understanding of the cultural situation.  As I have said, some conservative religious believers lack this.  For example, even contemporary Catholic churchmen, on the rare occasions when they talk about sexual morality at all, often do so only in the vaguest and most inoffensive way.  They will bend over backwards to attribute good motives to their opponents and to concede the alleged injustice and insensitivity of past upholders of Christian morality, even though such courtesies are never reciprocated by the liberal side.  And they will deemphasize the importance of sexual morality relative to, say, questions of social justice.
The great churchmen and saints of the past would regard all of this as breathtakingly delusional.  In reality, there cannot possibly be true social justice without sound sexual morals, because the family is the foundation of social order and the family cannot be healthy without sound sexual morals.  The sexual revolution is the cause of millions of children being left fatherless, with the intergenerational poverty and social disorder that that entails.  Nor is there any greater manifestation of the deep selfishness that makes social justice impossible than the callous willingness of millions to murder their own children in the womb.  Talk about social injustice that ignores the fundamental role of the sexual revolution in fostering such injustice is mere chatter – unserious, sentimental, and prone to make modern people comfortable in their sins rather than telling them what they really need to hear.  The warrior for true social justice must be an uncompromising reactionary in matters of sex.
And not the least of the reasons for this is the role that sexual immorality plays in undermining moral understanding in general, as Aquinas teaches us.  We are not dealing with a mere intellectual mistake made by well-meaning people but nothing less than a culture-wide psychosis.  As the twelve-steppers say, the first step is to admit the problem.
Categories: All, Lay, Philosophy

Texas gov. signs bill making it illegal to kill baby who survives abortion

LifeSite News - 1 hour 8 min ago
'In some states leaders support abortion until the last minute of pregnancy — even after a child is born. Not in Texas.'
Categories: All, Family, Lay, News, Pro-Life

Trans Dude Shutters Small Businesses for Refusing to Wax His Junk

Creative Minority Report - 1 hour 13 min ago
This guy is running around demanding that you wax his junk.
And when they refuse, he's freaking out, filing complaints, and driving them out of existence because tolerance. He's done this dozens of times and many times these very small companies (mostly immigrant owned) just fold once the discrimination complaint is filed. One woman was forced to close her home business because she said she was not qualified to wax man parts. You know, it is very different down there in case you missed biology class.

Some might argue he's a woman. Some would say he's a man. But I think we can all agree he's a jerk.
Categories: All, Lay, Traditional

What a difference a day made

Fr. Z's Blog - 1 hour 44 min ago

I’m on the road and I’m having problems with my laptop WiFi.

I can see networks, but I can’t connect to any networks, including my mobile hotspot and my mobile phone.

It was working well last night.  Today, not so much.

What a difference a day made.

Categories: All, Clergy, Liturgical, Traditional

“He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross”

non veni pacem - 2 hours 4 min ago

“I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand.” 2 Tim 4:1-6

What you are about to read is not calumny. Neither is it detraction, since everything in this post is already a matter of public record. I am morally bound to cover this (Canon 1752, Salus animarum supemus lex esto), because I have personally recommended and directed the readership of this blog to the writings and rantings of a certain “thought leader” of Trad Inc., and I have written several blog posts praising her work. Her name is Hilary White, and her erratic actions in the past 6-8 months have been cause for concern, including some nasty calumny as well as public declarations of both heresy and borderline apostasy.

I have posted warnings previously, but in the past I had always redacted her identity, while correcting the errors. Vis:

Let’s move on to the law of unintended consequences. This happens when someone holds a conviction to be true because the data set seems to confirm it, but doesn’t think through the logical implications. The madness we are swimming in can make smart people operate in strange ways. I paste here a couple examples.

This person thinks neither Benedict nor Bergoglio is pope (de facto sedevacantism). They think Bergoglio is an antipope because of his myriad heresies, but that he really was the pope at one point. Which means the See is currently vacant. But they don’t really want to say so, and they certainly don’t want to try to do anything about it. We have to “carry on” doing nothing, saying nothing. It doesn’t matter that millions of souls are at risk, either by losing their faith or by being ratified in their sins by this wretched regime. Better to lie low, you know.

This person is taking the position of the Old Catholic movement: They reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined at the First Vatican Council. Since it doesn’t make sense that a true pope can be so very fallible, this person wonders if it is solemnly declared settled doctrine that’s wrong. Don’t do this. Don’t let the raging heresy of Bergoglio lead you to question previous magisterial teaching. Don’t become a heretic because a heretic “pope” is leading you to question everything you previously believed.

Keep the faith.

Don’t panic.

God knows what He is doing, and He doesn’t keep the truth hidden. FULL POST HERE

That was back in November, after which she swore off twitter for a few minutes. Prior to that, she had also shut down her blog for little while, but everything is back up and running now.

Below is the culmination of a series of tweets earlier this week, wherein she relentlessly mocked the new Mass. Every Catholic needs to be on notice, as the stakes are sort of high, as every single one of us tries to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Liberal Catholicism: "There is no difference between orange juice and arsenic. Drink up."

Conservative Catholicism: "Orange juice is good for you. Just drink around the arsenic."

Catholicism: "Even a teeny bit of arsenic is deadly. Don't drink poisoned orange juice."

— Hilary White (@hilarityjane) July 15, 2019

This is an attempted justification for ditching the Third Commandment. What she is saying is that, if all that is available to you is the Novus Ordo, you shouldn’t go to Mass, because the Novus Ordo is poison. It’s deadly.

This is wrong. Don’t fall for it.

Trust me, I have first hand experience with the horrendous abuses of the Novus Ordo. I suffered through it for YEARS before I found Tradition, and still suffer through it in many other dioceses when traveling during the week, which is almost every week. In my own diocese, I am blessed to have several very reverent Novus Ordo parishes, with very few distractions. I often attend weekday Mass at these when I am home, on days when the Traditional Mass is offered at an inconvenient time.

Quick facts (not opinions) on the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI:

  1. This Mass was conceived in malice, however,
  2. THIS MASS IS VALID, which means,
  3. Christ comes down onto that altar, and oh by the way,
  4. The Third Commandment has not been abrogated

Miss B. has a beautiful, very inspiring essay on this topic HERE.

I learned a very valuable lesson once, and I learned it from an FSSP priest. I had made a mindless quibble to him about a certain Novus Ordo Mass that I was regularly attending a couple days a week, fully expecting him to express some sort of sympathy.  His four word response hit me like a ton of bricks: “It’s still the Mass.” Translation: “The Eucharist was validly confected, Jesus was there for you, and you are complaining?”

But but but it’s just AWFUL! It’s going to cause me to lose my faith! #feltbanners #guitars #bongos #sisterbutch #fatherjazzhands #hugofpeace #martyhaugen #SJWs #daisydukes

Sometimes being a grown-up means having to deal with unpleasantness. Look at it this way: Your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whom you should love above all things, wants you to be there, WITH HIM. God Himself, out of love for us, is subjecting Himself to the horrors, the abuses, the blasphemy, the gayness, the music from the pit of Hell. He loves you so much that he comes down from Heaven, naked on the Cross, and offers Himself, not for His sake, but for yours. Man up and figure out how to deal with it.

Then again, there was already something amiss even in Norcia, where the Ancient Mass was within walking distance:

Furthermore, if you think the Novus Ordo is poison, and you simply will not attend, yet after Norcia you move to a place where you know beforehand the Novus Ordo is your only option, what does that say about your intentions?

Jesus is really there, body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is there, humbly offering Himself to you yet again, if you will only accept His invitation. He is there, DESPITE what they have done to Holy Mass. He does not abandon us. He is there, He wants your company, He deeply desires His love to be reciprocated. You know it’s true.

Miss White, if you are reading this, my Mass and Rosary were offered for you today.

Just one more thing. If someone tries to tell you that you are in mortal sin or a heretic or schismatic by the very act of attending Mass, which means you should NOT attend, and they make a little joke about a topic that puts souls at risk, give that person a very wide berth. The fate of your eternal soul hangs in the balance, and Trad Inc. thinks it’s funny.

“For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Philippians 2:5-12

(Aside: The words in Greek are so clear and immutable, the correct translation is even preserved in all the Prot bibles, even though none of them believe in this. How do the sola scriptura people square this passage with Once Saved Always Saved? It makes you wonder how Luther forgot to rip it out, like he did with all the other stuff he didn’t like.)

φόβου (phobou)
Noun – Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 5401: (a) fear, terror, alarm, (b) the object or cause of fear, (c) reverence, respect. From a primary phebomai; alarm or fright.

τρόμου (tromou)
Noun – Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 5156: A trembling, quaking, fear. From tremo; a ‘trembling’, i.e. Quaking with fear.


Man up! Get to Mass! Close your eyes and pray in Latin!

Categories: All, Lay, Traditional

Survey reveals why Catholics leave Church, including because of watered down teaching

LifeSite News Blogs - 2 hours 57 min ago
One group of respondents said that it was watering down of the Faith which had driven them away.
Categories: All, Family, Lay, Political, Pro-Life

Who Precisely Are “the Vulnerable”? - 3 hours 19 min ago

Who Precisely Are “the Vulnerable”?

Paul Craig Roberts

Some readers, both male and female, wondered why I came to the defense of feminist Laura Tanner ( ).  Why not, I was asked, let a MeTwo babe experience the name-calling and stress  that feminists dish out to men and “women apologists for men”?

Justice is part of the answer.  Another part of the answer is that “Western civilization” is creating new victim groups so rapidly that older victim groups are becoming victims of the new.  The Tanner case is a case in which a feminist “victim” of male misogyny hasn’t the clout of a transgender advocate.  It is not clear whether Tanner’s persecutor, Kremina Youssef, is a transgender or just an advocate for transgender “victims.”

Regardless, it is Laura whose career is on the line for expressing an opinion, not the career of Kremina for expressing her opinion. 

The older terms “privileged minority” and “preferred minority”  are giving way to “vulnerable minority.”  The older terms had an honesty whereas the “vulnerable” designation resides in a lie. 

Those who are said to be “vulnerable” actually have all the power. Tanner, who expressed her opinion outside the university that it is not possible to be born into the wrong body and, therefore, a person in a male body is a male, has discovered that her free speech rights are null and void because Youssef is distressed.  It is Tanner, not Youssef, who is vulnerable. 

Youssef has the power to destroy Laura’s career, despite Laura’s protection under both the US Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.  The creation of “hate speech” has trumped the First Amendment.    

Anyone who qualifies as a victim and feels “distressed” by the expressed view of someone else can bring a Title IX civil rights action against the person who caused “distress” by expressing an opinion. In other words, the way America works today, if you can get yourself classified as a victim, you can shut up anyone to whose words you take exception.

When the “vulnerable” have this kind of power, just how Orwellian is it to call them “vulnerable”?”

Zionists created the trick or deception of elevating themselves above criticism by accusing critics of being “anti-semites” who intend harm to Jews. The success of this strategy has made it attractive to designated “victim groups.”  Consequently, the First Amendment only protects “victim groups.”  

Transgenderism institutionalizes lies. In England a medical doctor has been fired, because he refused to call a 6-foot tall bearded man who claimed to be a woman “madam.”  Let’s assume that there are some people who are convinced that somehow they were born into the wrong body.  How can these people be distinguished from someone who sees an advantage in claiming to be a different gender?  Consider a man who dreams of sports victories but can’t successfully compete against other men.  How do we know he really thinks he is a woman when he declares himself one and dominates women’s sport competitions?

If a man can self-declare to be a woman and a woman can self-declare to be a man, why can’t a white person self-declare to be black?  Indeed, several decades ago, two white brothers frustrated by racial quotas that kept them from being hired as firemen in Boston declared themselves to be black.  As this was before the time of self-declaration, they claimed their grandmother was black.  They managed to be hired, but, if memory serves, were later dismissed.  Today the brothers could be the first case of transrace.  They could claim, successfully judging by the success of transgender claims, to have been born into the wrong race.

Where does this end?  When will transspecies claimants show up?  Suppose a person is into beastiality and prefers sex with animals to sex with humans but is frustrated by laws against the practice.  What is to stop the person from claiming to have been born into the wrong species?

If a person can be born into the wrong gender, a person can be born wrong in any other way.

In the long campaign to normalize homosexuality, which lasted more than three decades, opponents understood that once social and religious norms against sexual deviancy were breached, other forms of sexual deviancy would also be normalized.  Today we are witnessing the normalization of pedophilia on the identical grounds on which homosexuality was normalized.  For example, a young woman, Mirjam Heine, recently explained to a TEDx audience at a German university that pedophilia is simply another sexual orientation and, therefore, our perception of pedophilia has to change. She said: “According to current research pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation just like, for example, heterosexuality.  No one chooses to be a pedophile, no one can cease being one.”   Just as they alleged about homosexuality, clinical psychologists are claiming that pedophilia is a deep-rooted, unchangeable predisposition from birth. 

Pedophilia is in the process of being removed from the category of sexual disorders as was homosexuality.  Once this is achieved, bestiality will be next to be normalized.  As legal scholars once understood, law unfolds to the limits of its logic.

The normalization of pedophilia will be aided by the fact that pedophilia is a legal construct.  Law determines the age of sexual consent.  In the US in 1880 the age of consent varied betgween 10 and 12 years of age in most states.  Over time the age of consent was raised and today ranges from 16 to 18 years of age.  In the state of Georgia, for example, the age of consent in the 1950s was 14.  Today it is 18. What is pedophilia today was not pedophilia in the mid-20th century, and what was pedophilia then was not in the late 19th century.  Obviously, a case can be made that pedophilia is a social and legal construct and, thereby, arbitrary.

The harsh punishments of pedophiles will also contribute to its normalization.  Recently a very attractive 28-year old female school teacher, Brittany Zamora, was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for having sex with a 13-year old boy.  It is highly doubtful that the 13-year old considered himself abused by Brittany or anything other than blessed by her sexual attention.  Yet, what was legal in 1880, and close to legal in the mid-20th century carries  devastating punishment today. 

Normalization will be aided also by such questions as: In what sense can the 13-year old be said to have been harmed by his experience with Brittany?  Are 13-year old migrant invaders in Europe harmed when they gang-rape 10-year old European girls?  Today sex between 13-year olds is not uncommon and, unlike sex with a mature woman, carries the risk of child pregnancy.  If the 13-year old boy is harmed by his experience with Brittany, it will more likely be from the reaction of his outraged parents.  The fuss they make over it could psychologically damage the boy sexually.  

People forget that homosexual acts were once considered as serious a crime as pedophilia today. When the United States was established following the American Revolution, sodomy was considered such a serious crime that it was a capital offense.  Even cross-dressing (transvestite) was a felony punishable by imprisonment or forms of corporal punishment. Until the second half of 2003 same-sex activity was still illegal in 12 US states, Puerto Rico, and the US military. Homosexual marriage has only been legal for four years (Supreme Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015).

What has happened throughout the Western world is that social norms have fallen to the normalization of sexual deviancy.  It is unrealistic to think that the normalization of deviancy stopped with homosexuality.

Western civilization is undergoing collapse. It is pointless to rationalize our collapse as progress into a more tolerant and progressive society or to see it, as academic terrorist Kremina Youssef sees it, as a fight against “colonialism, racism, and gendered domination” and a liberation of “people made invisible by and marginalized by the gender binary.”

The post Who Precisely Are “the Vulnerable”? appeared first on

Categories: All, Non-Catholic, Political

Scripture & Tradition: Sixth Sunday After Pentecost

OnePeterFive - 3 hours 31 min ago

Epistle: Romans 6:3-11
Gospel: Mark 8:1-9

O God of hosts, to Whom all that is best belong, graft in our hearts the love of Thy name, and grant us an increase of true religion: that Thou mayest foster what is good, and with tender zeal guard what Thou hast fostered.
– From the Collect for the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

The collect for Sunday’s Mass asks that God might grant “an increase of true religion.” What is “true religion”? The Catholic Faith, of course. As the Church has perennially taught, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation. It is only in the Catholic Church that we can find the fullness of truth and the way to heaven. In keeping with the focus on “true religion,” Sunday’s readings point to the means by which one is a member of the Church—the Sacraments, particularly the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.

The Epistle reading for Sunday is St. Paul’s famous discourse on Baptism, found in his Letter to the Romans. The Apostle is tackling the difficult issue of the role of the Law in salvation history: what was the purpose of the Law, since it is obvious it could not keep people from sinning? In fact, the introduction of the Law appears to make sin abound even more in the world (cf. Rom. 5:20). 

St. Paul notes, however, that sin only afflicts the living—those who are dead do not sin. As Theodoret of Cyr sarcastically notes, “Whoever saw a dead man sleeping in some harlot’s bed, or bloodying this hands with murder, or doing anything else which is sinful?” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans). St. Paul then reminds the Roman Christians that through their Baptism, they are dead—dead to sin through the grace of God. This is not a symbolic death, but a true death that wipes away the stain of Original Sin. As the Council of Trent taught, “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema” (Session V). This death means we are no longer slaves to sin, but instead have been raised in Christ and are free. 

Yet, sadly, although Baptism leaves an indelible mark in our souls, we can return to our former lives of slavery to sin that we had before our Baptisms. We need spiritual sustenance to stay faithful to our Baptismal vows and remain in Christ. Our Lord knows this, and this is why he gives us himself as sustenance in the Blessed Sacrament. Sunday’s Gospel points to his wonderful gift by telling of Christ’s miraculous feeding of the four thousand. St. Mark tells us that even though they only had seven loaves of bread and a few fish, everyone in the crowd ate “and were filled” (Mark 8:8). This is what the Eucharist does for us, when we receive it worthily: it fills us with the Sacramental grace necessary to remain dead to sin and alive in Christ. 

How do we achieve an “increase in true religion”? Of course we must pray and evangelize. But most of all we must first put our own houses in order, and there is no better way to do that than to live a Sacramental life, living out our Baptisms and constantly being nourished by Holy Communion. 

The post Scripture & Tradition: Sixth Sunday After Pentecost appeared first on OnePeterFive.

Categories: All, News, Organisations

Historical Photo of St Dominic’s Cell in Rome

Novus Motus Liturgicus - 3 hours 31 min ago
In the year 1220, Pope Honorius III invited St Dominic to take up residence at the ancient Roman basilica of St Sabina on the Aventine hill; the church was officially transferred to the Order of Preachers two years later, and has been run by them ever since. Within the convent next to the church is the cell of St Dominic, long since converted into a chapel; Fr Lawrence Lew recently discovered this postcard, which shows what it looked like in 1934.

The inscription on the marble banderole reads as follows: “Give heed, visitor; in this place the most holy men Dominic, Francis and Angelus the Carmelite pass the night in watching and divine conversations.” (The historical accuracy of this is debatable.)

Here is a recent photograph of the chapel by Father Lew himself; the roofbeams seen above the altar are original to St Dominic’s time.

Categories: All, Clergy, Liturgical, Traditional

Trans ‘man’ gives birth, fights to be called ‘father’ on UK birth certificate

LifeSite News - 3 hours 39 min ago
The biological woman was told that she can only be recognized as 'mother' on the birth certificate.
Categories: All, Family, Lay, News, Pro-Life

EXCLUSIVE: Speakers at Vatican-run youth meeting call for women’s ordination, LGBT inclusion

LifeSite News - 3 hours 45 min ago
One speaker said that it will become normal to see women as deaconnesses and administering the sacraments.
Categories: All, Family, Lay, News, Pro-Life


Subscribe to Distinctions Matter aggregator - All