Saturday, 30 November 2019
Friday, 15 November 2019
Vox Cantoris: BERGOLIO DECLARES FAITHFUL CATHOLICS TO BE "NAZIS"...
The last refuge of a leftist with no argument left. YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
Vox Cantoris: BERGOLIO DECLARES FAITHFUL CATHOLICS TO BE "NAZIS"...: I n a stunning statement, Jorge Bergoglio has labelled faithful Catholics who speak out against sodomitical behaviour and the political ...
Vox Cantoris: BERGOLIO DECLARES FAITHFUL CATHOLICS TO BE "NAZIS"...: I n a stunning statement, Jorge Bergoglio has labelled faithful Catholics who speak out against sodomitical behaviour and the political ...
The Catechism of the Summa - SECOND SECTION - A DETAILED SURVEY OF MAN'S RETURN TO GOD - IX. OF THE SECONDARY ACTS, OR THE EFFECTS OF CHARITY; OF JOY, PEACE, MERCY, KINDLINESS, ALMSDEEDS AND FRATERNAL CORRECTION (D)
Are there also any exterior acts which are the proper effect of the virtue of charity by reason of its principal act?
Yes; and one of the first is kindliness (XXXI. 1).
What then is kindliness?
Kindliness, as its very name implies, consists in doing good (ibid.).
Is this act always an act proper to the virtue of charity?
Yes, provided one understands it in the precise sense of doing good to others (ibid.).
Can it also be the act of other virtues distinct from charity that are, however, dependent upon charity?
Yes, it can also be the act of other virtues distinct from, yet dependent upon charity, when to the general reason of doing good is added some special and particular reason, as, for instance, when a thing is due, or necessary, or is a thing of which one has need (ibid.).
What virtue is implied in an act of well-doing when to this is added the particular reason of a thing as due?
In this case the virtue of justice is implied (XXXI. 1, ad 3).
And when in the same act of well-doing, there is found added to the general reason of well-doing the particular reason of something that is necessary or of which one has need, what virtue is implied?
The virtue of mercy (ibid.).
Next - The Catechism of the Summa - SECOND SECTION - A DETAILED SURVEY OF MAN'S RETURN TO GOD - IX. OF THE SECONDARY ACTS, OR THE EFFECTS OF CHARITY; OF JOY, PEACE, MERCY, KINDLINESS, ALMSDEEDS AND FRATERNAL CORRECTION (E)
Bishop Investigating Buffalo Diocese for Sex Abuse Himself Accused of Sex Abuse
Sending one of Pervert McCarrick's boys to investigate abuse cover up? Talk about setting the fox to guard the hen house!!!
From LifeSiteNews
By
From LifeSiteNews
By
BROOKLYN, New York, November 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― A celebrated attorney has informed the Catholic Church of sex abuse accusations against the bishop of Brooklyn.
Mitchell Garabedian, internationally famous after being portrayed in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, has revealed that one of his clients says he was sexually abused by Bishop Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, 75, when the bishop was a parish priest in Jersey City, N.J.
On November 11, Garabedian sent a letter to the Newark, N.J. archdiocese in which he stated that Mark Matzek, 56, had alleged that both DiMarzio and another priest, the late Fr. Albert Mark, abused him in the 1970s when he was an altar server at St. Nicholas Church and a pupil at St. Nicholas School. Matzek is asking for $20 million in compensation.
Bishop DiMarzio has denied the allegation.
In a letter he published on the Diocese of Brooklyn’s web page yesterday, DiMarzio repeated what he told AP reporter Michael Rezendes, a journalist who was also portrayed in Spotlight.
“I am just learning about this allegation,” DiMarzio wrote. “In my nearly 50-year ministry as a priest, I have never engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior and I categorically deny this allegation.
“I am confident I will be fully vindicated.”
The bishop said also that he will “vigorously defend” himself “against this false allegation” and that he is confident that he will be “fully exonerated.”
DiMarzio, who was a consultant on the John Jay Report, described his work to make his diocese safe for children:
Siobhan O’Connor, whistleblower and former secretary to Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo, told LifeSiteNews that although she was shocked by the allegation of abuse, she was aware that DiMarzio was already compromised as an investigator.
“I was aware of potential cover-ups under DiMarzio back in Brooklyn, which gave me great pause, but an allegation of abuse against him is a next level of concern,” she said today.
“I would argue that the apostolic visitation in Buffalo was compromised even without this allegation surfacing, but it certainly is now,” she continued.
“We'll have to wait for due process regarding that allegation, but its very existence is troubling.”
O’Connor said she had heard from a victim-survivor who “knew about DiMarzio back when he was Father DiMarzio and was not at all surprised to learn of the allegation against him.”
“Honestly, it's been a lot to process these past 24 hours,” she added.
Investigative reporter George Neumayr told LifeSiteNews that choosing DiMarzio was a mistake because of DiMarzio’s close association with the former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
McCarrick was appointed archbishop of Newark in1986, and DiMarzio served as his auxiliary bishop from 1993 until he was named bishop of Camden, N.J. in 1999. Since then, McCarrick has been outed as a serial sexual predator, expelled from the College of Cardinals, and returned to the lay state.
“It made no sense for Pope Francis to send [DiMarzio] to Buffalo to investigate Malone, given his Uncle Ted associations,” Neumayr said.
“As an auxiliary bishop under McCarrick in Newark, he was already a compromised figure. Notice also that he was co-consecrated by McCarrick and [the late] John Smith, a ... crony of McCarrick's from Trenton.”
Garabedian told the AP’s Rezendes that DiMarzio’s role in examining the Buffalo diocese abuse allegations has “tainted” the investigation.
“There needs to be a truly neutral investigator to determine whether Bishop Malone should resign,” he continued, adding that this should be a law enforcement agency.
Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute agrees. He told LifeSiteNews that the allegation of child sex abuse casts doubts on DiMarzio’s reliability in investigating the Buffalo diocese.
“In the intelligence community, investigators must first undergo a background check to make sure there is nothing in their past which could act against them in the form of blackmail,” Hichborn said.
“If DiMarzio indeed has skeletons in his closet, then a new investigation must be conducted by a properly vetted, independent investigator.”
A spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Newark acknowledged to the AP that the archdiocese had received the letter and informed police of the allegations against Bishop DiMarzio.
Mark Matzek’s claim is the latest allegation in the avalanche of accusations against priests and bishops that have come to light since Mark Rezendes and the rest of the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” team revealed early in 2002 that dozens of priests in the Boston archdiocese had been creditably accused of sexually abusing children. Since then, thousands of allegations against Catholic priests from across the United States have been made public.
Recently, the spotlight has fallen on the Buffalo diocese, where Bishop Richard Malone is under increasing pressure to resign in the face of allegations that he covered up abuse.
Mitchell Garabedian, internationally famous after being portrayed in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, has revealed that one of his clients says he was sexually abused by Bishop Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, 75, when the bishop was a parish priest in Jersey City, N.J.
On November 11, Garabedian sent a letter to the Newark, N.J. archdiocese in which he stated that Mark Matzek, 56, had alleged that both DiMarzio and another priest, the late Fr. Albert Mark, abused him in the 1970s when he was an altar server at St. Nicholas Church and a pupil at St. Nicholas School. Matzek is asking for $20 million in compensation.
Bishop DiMarzio has denied the allegation.
In a letter he published on the Diocese of Brooklyn’s web page yesterday, DiMarzio repeated what he told AP reporter Michael Rezendes, a journalist who was also portrayed in Spotlight.
“I am just learning about this allegation,” DiMarzio wrote. “In my nearly 50-year ministry as a priest, I have never engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior and I categorically deny this allegation.
“I am confident I will be fully vindicated.”
The bishop said also that he will “vigorously defend” himself “against this false allegation” and that he is confident that he will be “fully exonerated.”
DiMarzio, who was a consultant on the John Jay Report, described his work to make his diocese safe for children:
Sexual abuse is a despicable crime and since arriving at the diocese in 2003, I have worked and will continue to work tirelessly to purge sexual abuse from our diocese in Brooklyn and Queens. The Diocese of Brooklyn has created safe environments through sexual abuse awareness training for all children and adults who work with them. We conduct ongoing background checks on all who work with children. We have created a Victim Assistance Ministry that provides independent counseling and therapy to victim-survivors and provides numerous supports to help them with the healing process. Our Mass of Hope and Healing continues to be celebrated yearly so that as a diocese we can pray together and stand in solidarity with victim-survivors and all those impacted by sexual abuse in our Church as they seek to heal.DiMarzio was chosen by Pope Francis to carry out an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse and cover-up in the Buffalo, N.Y. diocese. He told the AP that he concluded his apostolic visitation last month.
Siobhan O’Connor, whistleblower and former secretary to Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo, told LifeSiteNews that although she was shocked by the allegation of abuse, she was aware that DiMarzio was already compromised as an investigator.
“I was aware of potential cover-ups under DiMarzio back in Brooklyn, which gave me great pause, but an allegation of abuse against him is a next level of concern,” she said today.
“I would argue that the apostolic visitation in Buffalo was compromised even without this allegation surfacing, but it certainly is now,” she continued.
“We'll have to wait for due process regarding that allegation, but its very existence is troubling.”
O’Connor said she had heard from a victim-survivor who “knew about DiMarzio back when he was Father DiMarzio and was not at all surprised to learn of the allegation against him.”
“Honestly, it's been a lot to process these past 24 hours,” she added.
Investigative reporter George Neumayr told LifeSiteNews that choosing DiMarzio was a mistake because of DiMarzio’s close association with the former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
McCarrick was appointed archbishop of Newark in1986, and DiMarzio served as his auxiliary bishop from 1993 until he was named bishop of Camden, N.J. in 1999. Since then, McCarrick has been outed as a serial sexual predator, expelled from the College of Cardinals, and returned to the lay state.
“It made no sense for Pope Francis to send [DiMarzio] to Buffalo to investigate Malone, given his Uncle Ted associations,” Neumayr said.
“As an auxiliary bishop under McCarrick in Newark, he was already a compromised figure. Notice also that he was co-consecrated by McCarrick and [the late] John Smith, a ... crony of McCarrick's from Trenton.”
Garabedian told the AP’s Rezendes that DiMarzio’s role in examining the Buffalo diocese abuse allegations has “tainted” the investigation.
“There needs to be a truly neutral investigator to determine whether Bishop Malone should resign,” he continued, adding that this should be a law enforcement agency.
Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute agrees. He told LifeSiteNews that the allegation of child sex abuse casts doubts on DiMarzio’s reliability in investigating the Buffalo diocese.
“In the intelligence community, investigators must first undergo a background check to make sure there is nothing in their past which could act against them in the form of blackmail,” Hichborn said.
“If DiMarzio indeed has skeletons in his closet, then a new investigation must be conducted by a properly vetted, independent investigator.”
A spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Newark acknowledged to the AP that the archdiocese had received the letter and informed police of the allegations against Bishop DiMarzio.
Mark Matzek’s claim is the latest allegation in the avalanche of accusations against priests and bishops that have come to light since Mark Rezendes and the rest of the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” team revealed early in 2002 that dozens of priests in the Boston archdiocese had been creditably accused of sexually abusing children. Since then, thousands of allegations against Catholic priests from across the United States have been made public.
Recently, the spotlight has fallen on the Buffalo diocese, where Bishop Richard Malone is under increasing pressure to resign in the face of allegations that he covered up abuse.
The Coulombe Talks - Part 1: God and Reality
A talk by the Chevalier, the first of four which I'll be sharing over the next days.
Cardinal Sarah: ‘Contraceptive Mentality’ Led to LGBT Takeover of Children’s Schools
His Eminence examines the origins of the 'gender theory' insanity.
From LifeSiteNews
By Martin M. Barillas and Pete Baklinski
MADRID, November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah strongly criticized LGBT ideology that he said is overrunning governments and education centers while tracing the ideology to the root of the widespread acceptance of contraception about seven decades ago.
“The destructuring of sexual identity, which is often called ‘gender theory,’ against which Pope Francis has harsh words and an attitude of absolute intolerance, can be understood as the anthropological consequence of a practical mutation,” said Cardinal Sarah, the Vatican’s Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline, at a Nov. 7 conference at Madrid’s San Pablo University in advance of the 21st Congress of Catholics and Public Life of Spain. His talk was titled “The importance of education in the Church’s mission today.”
Gender theory holds that male or female sexual organs do not determine an individual’s “sexual identity” but a person’s inner sense of being a man, a woman, or whatever it is that a person wants to identify as (dozens of 'gender options' have been invented to help people identify how they feel about themselves). The theory holds, for instance, that a person born with a male organ of reproduction can choose to identify as “female” and that it’s discriminatory not to support the individual’s choice, including the male’s choice to use female pronouns. The theory also holds that a person's "gender identity" is fluid and can change over time.
“The first link in the process involved women,” Cardinal Sarah continued: “In fact, the contraceptive mentality that has extended strongly after 1950 has made possible a profound disconnection between the woman and her body, a disconnection that has radically changed the way of understanding human sexuality, marriage, filiation and of course education.”
The Catholic Church reaffirmed its condemnation of contraception in the 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI prophetically warned that widespread acceptance of contraception would lead to the "general lowering of moral standards" among other things.
The Cardinal credited French writer Simone de Beauvoir’s phrase “You are not born a woman, you become a woman” as summarizing the essence of gender theory.
“Let's add that for de Beauvoir, the family, Marriage and motherhood are the source of female ‘oppression’ and dependence. The pill would have ‘freed’ women by giving them ‘control of their body’ and the possibility of ‘freely disposing’ of it. Under the feminist motto ‘my body belongs to me’ a deep alienation of the incarnated subject is actually hidden. In fact, behind this ‘freedom’ statement lies an instrumentalization of the body itself as a material available to the most indeterminate desires,” he said.
The Cardinal then showed the link between contraception and the distancing of a person from his or her male or female body.
“The contraceptive mentality has engendered a dualism between individual freedom seen as unlimited and almighty, on the one hand, and the body as an instrument of enjoyment, on the other. In that perspective, the sexed body can no longer be lived as a sign and instrument of the gift of self, whose purpose is the communion of the spouses. The intrinsic link between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the procreative dimension and the unitive dimension, is broken. This link becomes optional, and logically, sexuality ends up being considered only in its relational and pleasure-producing dimension. The destabilizing effects of such a mentality have not been long in coming,” he added.
The Cardinal noted that one of the major destabilizing effects of the contraceptive mentality was the “social legitimization of homosexuality.”
“In fact, if sexuality is no longer perceived in the light of the gift of life, how can homosexuality be considered a perversion, an objective and serious disorder?” he said.
Cardinal Sarah said logically accompanying these changes regarding sexuality was a “redefinition of sexual identity, considering it as purely constructed.”
“If the intrinsic link between the two meanings of the conjugal act is denied, the difference between the sexes loses the first foundation of their intelligibility.” From then on, he said, the “sexed body” can more and more be considered as a “material that individual consciousness can model to its liking.”
The Cardinal then explained the mechanism at work as “sexual minorities” publicly demand equality and freedom to live according to their perceived identities.
“In the name of the fight against the ‘discrimination’ of which the ‘sexual minorities’ would be victims, the agents of the anthropological subversion take the public authorities and the legislator hostage in their revindications. In the name of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’, they demand that all social discourse, especially in schools and the media, be ‘respectful’ with the sexual indeterminacy of individuals and the free choice of their identity,” he said.
“Then, each one can affirm that it is by self-designation and proclaim: ‘I make my own choice. I am proud of it and I affirm myself in that choice. I do not admit that another or society tell me what I am. I do not receive my being and my existence from anyone but myself. I decide for myself who I am. Society must assume my choice and adapt to my orientation changes.’”
For the LGBT movement, the Cardinal pointed out, the battle is no longer about “claiming tolerance” but about “imposing a new conception of the human being” and creating a “new” human being.
“Under the guise of freedom, this deconstruction at the service of a radical constructivism can be compared with the totalitarian attempts to produce a ‘new man,’” he said.
“Its innocent victims are mainly children, whose parents, permeable to libertarian slogans and bewitched by contemporary sirens, do not support [authentic] human growth and the formation of their [genuine] sexual affectivity. All this presupposes an erroneous conception of freedom, understood as the fact of not being prevented from following your immediate desires. How far we are from true freedom, which is the realization of the person when he uses his free will to seek the truth and choose his true good,” he continued.
“The anthropological revolution violently disrupts intellectual and moral education, because it creates mental and social dispositions that separate people from themselves,” he added.
The Cardinal said that Catholics should be aware of the gravity of the crisis, “given the atheist atmosphere or of indifference to religious or moral issues which permeate education and school structures.” What should be understood is that the goal of education is for students to “acquire the virtues that permit them to unfold and structure their humanity and personality in accord with the truth that is intrinsic to them.”
He called for the Church to become more active in defending the truth about man in sectors of civil society where that truth has been abandoned, especially in education.
“As has been the case several times in history, the Church has a duty to assume a substitute role to compensate for the collapse of entire sectors of civil society and public authorities,” he said.
“The Church assumes this function of substitution through all its children who are present in this magnificent educational task,” he added.
Likening schools to aquariums where fish are regularly fed fresh food, he said, “But the water in the aquarium is dirty and unhealthy.” Despite the good food, he said, the fish are slowly poisoned and eventually perish. In the learning environment, “even while there are well-disposed students and dedicated teachers, there are substances in the environment that are toxic to the students mental health,” said the Cardinal.
When he was asked how the water in the aquarium could be made clean, he said, “What poisons the environment are dangerous ideologies,” citing “marxism” and “transhumanism.”
He continued, “If we cannot explain who is man, who it is that God wants him to be, logically the aquarium is contaminated.” The water can be cleansed by rediscovering, he said, “the identity of human beings created in the image and likeness of God.”
“Identity is not something we give,” he said, “God gives it to us.” The West, he said, arrogantly “refuses to accept” that identity.” “The great issue are the economic and media leaders who contaminate the environment concerning the identity of the human person.” This is, he said, “the rejection of God.”
Asked what the Church should do in an environment where God is excluded, the Cardinal said, “The Church should be the first to combat toxic ideologies.”
The Church, he said, should focus on “the unprecedented anthropological and moral crisis of our time which demands that the Church should assume a greater responsibility and commitment to propose its doctrinal and moral teachings in a clear, precise and firm manner.”
From LifeSiteNews
By Martin M. Barillas and Pete Baklinski
MADRID, November 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah strongly criticized LGBT ideology that he said is overrunning governments and education centers while tracing the ideology to the root of the widespread acceptance of contraception about seven decades ago.
“The destructuring of sexual identity, which is often called ‘gender theory,’ against which Pope Francis has harsh words and an attitude of absolute intolerance, can be understood as the anthropological consequence of a practical mutation,” said Cardinal Sarah, the Vatican’s Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline, at a Nov. 7 conference at Madrid’s San Pablo University in advance of the 21st Congress of Catholics and Public Life of Spain. His talk was titled “The importance of education in the Church’s mission today.”
Gender theory holds that male or female sexual organs do not determine an individual’s “sexual identity” but a person’s inner sense of being a man, a woman, or whatever it is that a person wants to identify as (dozens of 'gender options' have been invented to help people identify how they feel about themselves). The theory holds, for instance, that a person born with a male organ of reproduction can choose to identify as “female” and that it’s discriminatory not to support the individual’s choice, including the male’s choice to use female pronouns. The theory also holds that a person's "gender identity" is fluid and can change over time.
“The first link in the process involved women,” Cardinal Sarah continued: “In fact, the contraceptive mentality that has extended strongly after 1950 has made possible a profound disconnection between the woman and her body, a disconnection that has radically changed the way of understanding human sexuality, marriage, filiation and of course education.”
The Catholic Church reaffirmed its condemnation of contraception in the 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI prophetically warned that widespread acceptance of contraception would lead to the "general lowering of moral standards" among other things.
The Cardinal credited French writer Simone de Beauvoir’s phrase “You are not born a woman, you become a woman” as summarizing the essence of gender theory.
“Let's add that for de Beauvoir, the family, Marriage and motherhood are the source of female ‘oppression’ and dependence. The pill would have ‘freed’ women by giving them ‘control of their body’ and the possibility of ‘freely disposing’ of it. Under the feminist motto ‘my body belongs to me’ a deep alienation of the incarnated subject is actually hidden. In fact, behind this ‘freedom’ statement lies an instrumentalization of the body itself as a material available to the most indeterminate desires,” he said.
The Cardinal then showed the link between contraception and the distancing of a person from his or her male or female body.
“The contraceptive mentality has engendered a dualism between individual freedom seen as unlimited and almighty, on the one hand, and the body as an instrument of enjoyment, on the other. In that perspective, the sexed body can no longer be lived as a sign and instrument of the gift of self, whose purpose is the communion of the spouses. The intrinsic link between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the procreative dimension and the unitive dimension, is broken. This link becomes optional, and logically, sexuality ends up being considered only in its relational and pleasure-producing dimension. The destabilizing effects of such a mentality have not been long in coming,” he added.
The Cardinal noted that one of the major destabilizing effects of the contraceptive mentality was the “social legitimization of homosexuality.”
“In fact, if sexuality is no longer perceived in the light of the gift of life, how can homosexuality be considered a perversion, an objective and serious disorder?” he said.
Cardinal Sarah said logically accompanying these changes regarding sexuality was a “redefinition of sexual identity, considering it as purely constructed.”
“If the intrinsic link between the two meanings of the conjugal act is denied, the difference between the sexes loses the first foundation of their intelligibility.” From then on, he said, the “sexed body” can more and more be considered as a “material that individual consciousness can model to its liking.”
The Cardinal then explained the mechanism at work as “sexual minorities” publicly demand equality and freedom to live according to their perceived identities.
“In the name of the fight against the ‘discrimination’ of which the ‘sexual minorities’ would be victims, the agents of the anthropological subversion take the public authorities and the legislator hostage in their revindications. In the name of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’, they demand that all social discourse, especially in schools and the media, be ‘respectful’ with the sexual indeterminacy of individuals and the free choice of their identity,” he said.
“Then, each one can affirm that it is by self-designation and proclaim: ‘I make my own choice. I am proud of it and I affirm myself in that choice. I do not admit that another or society tell me what I am. I do not receive my being and my existence from anyone but myself. I decide for myself who I am. Society must assume my choice and adapt to my orientation changes.’”
For the LGBT movement, the Cardinal pointed out, the battle is no longer about “claiming tolerance” but about “imposing a new conception of the human being” and creating a “new” human being.
“Under the guise of freedom, this deconstruction at the service of a radical constructivism can be compared with the totalitarian attempts to produce a ‘new man,’” he said.
“Its innocent victims are mainly children, whose parents, permeable to libertarian slogans and bewitched by contemporary sirens, do not support [authentic] human growth and the formation of their [genuine] sexual affectivity. All this presupposes an erroneous conception of freedom, understood as the fact of not being prevented from following your immediate desires. How far we are from true freedom, which is the realization of the person when he uses his free will to seek the truth and choose his true good,” he continued.
“The anthropological revolution violently disrupts intellectual and moral education, because it creates mental and social dispositions that separate people from themselves,” he added.
The Cardinal said that Catholics should be aware of the gravity of the crisis, “given the atheist atmosphere or of indifference to religious or moral issues which permeate education and school structures.” What should be understood is that the goal of education is for students to “acquire the virtues that permit them to unfold and structure their humanity and personality in accord with the truth that is intrinsic to them.”
He called for the Church to become more active in defending the truth about man in sectors of civil society where that truth has been abandoned, especially in education.
“As has been the case several times in history, the Church has a duty to assume a substitute role to compensate for the collapse of entire sectors of civil society and public authorities,” he said.
“The Church assumes this function of substitution through all its children who are present in this magnificent educational task,” he added.
‘Dirty and unhealthy’ environment destroys children
Following his presentation, Cardinal Sarah answered questions from participants who are concerned about secular influences upon their children.Likening schools to aquariums where fish are regularly fed fresh food, he said, “But the water in the aquarium is dirty and unhealthy.” Despite the good food, he said, the fish are slowly poisoned and eventually perish. In the learning environment, “even while there are well-disposed students and dedicated teachers, there are substances in the environment that are toxic to the students mental health,” said the Cardinal.
When he was asked how the water in the aquarium could be made clean, he said, “What poisons the environment are dangerous ideologies,” citing “marxism” and “transhumanism.”
He continued, “If we cannot explain who is man, who it is that God wants him to be, logically the aquarium is contaminated.” The water can be cleansed by rediscovering, he said, “the identity of human beings created in the image and likeness of God.”
“Identity is not something we give,” he said, “God gives it to us.” The West, he said, arrogantly “refuses to accept” that identity.” “The great issue are the economic and media leaders who contaminate the environment concerning the identity of the human person.” This is, he said, “the rejection of God.”
Asked what the Church should do in an environment where God is excluded, the Cardinal said, “The Church should be the first to combat toxic ideologies.”
The Church, he said, should focus on “the unprecedented anthropological and moral crisis of our time which demands that the Church should assume a greater responsibility and commitment to propose its doctrinal and moral teachings in a clear, precise and firm manner.”
Baltimore Catechism #1 -LESSON THIRD ON THE UNITY AND TRINITY OF GOD
LESSON THIRD ON THE UNITY AND TRINITY OF GOD
21. Q. Is there but one God?
A. Yes; there is but one God.
22. Q. Why can there be but one God?
A. There can be but one God, because God, being supreme and infinite,
cannot have an equal.
23. Q. How many Persons are there in God?
A. In God there are three Divine Persons, really distinct, and equal in
all things—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
24. Q. Is the Father God?
A. The Father is God and the first Person of the Blessed Trinity.
25. Q. Is the Son God?
A. The Son is God and the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
26. Q. Is the Holy Ghost God?
A. The Holy Ghost is God and the third Person of the Blessed Trinity.
27. Q. What is the Blessed Trinity?
A. The Blessed Trinity is one God in three Divine Persons.
29. Q. Are the three Divine Persons one and the same God?
A. The three Divine Persons are one and the same God, having one and the
same Divine nature.
Next - Baltimore Catechism #1 - LESSON FOURTH
ON THE ANGELS AND OUR FIRST PARENTS
Word of the Day: Calix
CALIX. A chalice, which is the term always used in the Church's official
documents for the cup used in the Eucharistic liturgy. (Etym. Latin calix,
cup, goblet, drinking vessel, chalice.)
Cardinal Sarah Marshals the Church Militant
God bless Cardinal Sarah for his steadfastness in the Faith!
From Crisis
By Joseph Pearce
One of the most encouraging developments in the Church in recent years has been the emergence of good, solid prelates from Africa. One thinks of Cardinal Arinze, whom many had thought might become the first African pope, and now there is the indomitable Robert Cardinal Sarah, whose forthright and courageous stance against much of the nonsense besetting the Church and the world has come as a breath of fresh and orthodox air amidst the choking fumes of modernity and modernism.
Cardinal Sarah’s latest book, The Day Is Now Far Spent, the fruit of conversations with the author Nicolas Diat, is something of a rallying cry in troublous times, covering a panoramic panoply of topics, from globalism to the liturgy and all points in between. Nor does he pull his punches or mince his words. Take, for instance, these words from the very first page of the book:
This is fighting talk, the words of a soldier of the Church Militant lamenting that “some men of God have become agents of the Evil One [who] have sought to defile the pure souls of the littlest ones”. Such predators have “humiliated the image of Christ that is present in every child”.
As a man of faith and tradition, the Cardinal is comfortable speaking
of the devil and of those who serve him, and this includes those in the
Church’s hierarchy who serve the very devil in whom, apparently, they
don’t believe. He is singularly unimpressed with such modernist
equivocation, the cankered fruit of infidelity, stating with aphoristic
bluntness that “relativism is the mask of Judas disguised as an
intellectual”. Nor would he want to be caught wearing such a mask when
meeting his Maker. “In a little while I will appear before the eternal
Judge… We bishops ought to tremble at the thought of our guilty
silences, our complicit silences, our over-indulgent silences in dealing
with the world.”
Having been forthright in his condemnation of the scandals within the Church, he is equally forthright in his understanding of what is needed to heal the divisions and avert the danger of schism: “The hermeneutic of reform in continuity that Benedict XVI taught so clearly is an indispensable condition of unity.” By contrast, it is the hermeneutic of rupture, advocated and advanced by those seeking a break with tradition and the deconstruction of doctrine, which presents the greatest danger to unity within the Church.
As a loyal child of the Church, he distinguishes between the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, and those members of the Church who rebel against the Body. “The devil drives us to division and schism. He wants to make us believe that the Church has betrayed us. But the Church does not betray. The Church, full of sinners, is herself without sin!” This is the ecclesiology of the true believer, of those who see the Church as Triumphant in heaven and as Militant on earth; it is the very antithesis of the ecclesiology of those who would reduce the Church to being a merely political institution, answerable “democratically” to that small minority of her members who happen to be walking around on earth at any particular time. It is the authentic ecclesiology of the communion of saints, which receives its authority from heaven, and not the false ecclesiology of the sort of “democratic” mob rule that has its source in the non serviam of rebellion which leads, in turn, to the sort of anarchy that Oscar Wilde rightly describes as “freedom’s own Judas”.
In eternity, which is all that ultimately matters, they represent not only a majority in the Church but a unanimous majority. If one sees the Church in her fullness as the Church Triumphant, consisting of all the saints and angels in heaven, we see that this is where the real power of the Church resides, under God himself, and that this power doesn’t demand its rights but lays itself down in loving service. Why would one give “votes” to those calling themselves Catholics and clamoring for their rights, who might be going to hell, over those who have served the Church so faithfully in this life that they are in the Presence of Christ for all eternity?
As for the ordinary Catholics in the pew, we should be less concerned with votes on the parish council and more concerned with the lighting of votive candles. We should not demand “rights” but should embrace the responsibility of seeking the Kingdom of God, asking for the assistance of the saints that, by the grace of God, we might become saints ourselves. And yet, as Cardinal Sarah laments, “we forget that heaven exists”. We are so caught up with the things of the world that we forget the first and final things. “We no longer see heaven,” he says, “and we no longer see God, either.”
Instead of losing ourselves in the things of this world, we need to lose ourselves in Christ so that we might find ourselves in him. This is why Cardinal Sarah urges priests to regain their Christocentric focus. What he says to them is as applicable to the rest of us. The priest, he says, “must not let himself be taken in by the world, as though the time dedicated to Christ in intimate, silent prayer were wasted time. The most wonderful fruits of our ministry are born in silent prayer in front of the tabernacle.” Nothing more need be said. “The rest is silence,” as Hamlet tells us, and, as Cardinal Sarah reminds us, the best is silence also.
From Crisis
By Joseph Pearce
One of the most encouraging developments in the Church in recent years has been the emergence of good, solid prelates from Africa. One thinks of Cardinal Arinze, whom many had thought might become the first African pope, and now there is the indomitable Robert Cardinal Sarah, whose forthright and courageous stance against much of the nonsense besetting the Church and the world has come as a breath of fresh and orthodox air amidst the choking fumes of modernity and modernism.
Cardinal Sarah’s latest book, The Day Is Now Far Spent, the fruit of conversations with the author Nicolas Diat, is something of a rallying cry in troublous times, covering a panoramic panoply of topics, from globalism to the liturgy and all points in between. Nor does he pull his punches or mince his words. Take, for instance, these words from the very first page of the book:
As Saint Paul VI used to say, we are
being invaded by the smoke of Satan. The Church, which ought to be a
place of light, has become a dwelling place of darkness. It ought to be a
secure, peaceful family home, but look: it has become a den of thieves!
How can we tolerate the fact that predators have entered among us, into
our ranks?
This is fighting talk, the words of a soldier of the Church Militant lamenting that “some men of God have become agents of the Evil One [who] have sought to defile the pure souls of the littlest ones”. Such predators have “humiliated the image of Christ that is present in every child”.
Having been forthright in his condemnation of the scandals within the Church, he is equally forthright in his understanding of what is needed to heal the divisions and avert the danger of schism: “The hermeneutic of reform in continuity that Benedict XVI taught so clearly is an indispensable condition of unity.” By contrast, it is the hermeneutic of rupture, advocated and advanced by those seeking a break with tradition and the deconstruction of doctrine, which presents the greatest danger to unity within the Church.
As a loyal child of the Church, he distinguishes between the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, and those members of the Church who rebel against the Body. “The devil drives us to division and schism. He wants to make us believe that the Church has betrayed us. But the Church does not betray. The Church, full of sinners, is herself without sin!” This is the ecclesiology of the true believer, of those who see the Church as Triumphant in heaven and as Militant on earth; it is the very antithesis of the ecclesiology of those who would reduce the Church to being a merely political institution, answerable “democratically” to that small minority of her members who happen to be walking around on earth at any particular time. It is the authentic ecclesiology of the communion of saints, which receives its authority from heaven, and not the false ecclesiology of the sort of “democratic” mob rule that has its source in the non serviam of rebellion which leads, in turn, to the sort of anarchy that Oscar Wilde rightly describes as “freedom’s own Judas”.
❧
Cardinal Sarah understands that the saints are always
in a minority in the world and in the Church Militant but that it is
they, and not the ordinary Catholic in the pew, who have saved and built
the Faith. The saints, he says, are “the stump that will always revive
so that the tree does not die”; it is they, the “little flock”, who
serve as “a model for the Church and the world”; and it is they who are
“the cornerstone of mankind”. Only a fool would follow the clamor for
“majority rule” as an alternative to the rule and example of the saints.
In any case, we should never lose sight of the fact that the saints are
only a minority in a temporal—and therefore a temporary—sense.In eternity, which is all that ultimately matters, they represent not only a majority in the Church but a unanimous majority. If one sees the Church in her fullness as the Church Triumphant, consisting of all the saints and angels in heaven, we see that this is where the real power of the Church resides, under God himself, and that this power doesn’t demand its rights but lays itself down in loving service. Why would one give “votes” to those calling themselves Catholics and clamoring for their rights, who might be going to hell, over those who have served the Church so faithfully in this life that they are in the Presence of Christ for all eternity?
As for the ordinary Catholics in the pew, we should be less concerned with votes on the parish council and more concerned with the lighting of votive candles. We should not demand “rights” but should embrace the responsibility of seeking the Kingdom of God, asking for the assistance of the saints that, by the grace of God, we might become saints ourselves. And yet, as Cardinal Sarah laments, “we forget that heaven exists”. We are so caught up with the things of the world that we forget the first and final things. “We no longer see heaven,” he says, “and we no longer see God, either.”
Instead of losing ourselves in the things of this world, we need to lose ourselves in Christ so that we might find ourselves in him. This is why Cardinal Sarah urges priests to regain their Christocentric focus. What he says to them is as applicable to the rest of us. The priest, he says, “must not let himself be taken in by the world, as though the time dedicated to Christ in intimate, silent prayer were wasted time. The most wonderful fruits of our ministry are born in silent prayer in front of the tabernacle.” Nothing more need be said. “The rest is silence,” as Hamlet tells us, and, as Cardinal Sarah reminds us, the best is silence also.
A Rather Bitter 'Satire' on the Distorter's Hysterical Rant
This one by a friend of mine's 18 year old daughter, in collaboration with her Dad.
By 'Sarah', Director of the Ecumenism n’ Feels Ministry
One culture within the Catholic Church needing major reform is that surrounding the practice of the Novus Ordo Mass.
In a previous era, the Latin Mass was merely a uniform and standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the United States. In the wake of un-needed reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the NO Mass has become a rallying point for culture destroying aging hippies within the church.
The ultra-liberalism, and borderline heresy, practiced by these NO hippies radical and narrow-minded, despite their claims of tolerance. They utilize the lack of structure in the NO Mass, along with charges of “racism”, “colonialism”, “misogyny”, or “being too rigid” to wield control over believers — particularly the faithful who actually believe and try to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Holy Mother Church.
Although it may be offered reverently, the NO Mass fosters disunity, and at times, sacrilege in the church. The liturgy — spoken in modern local dialect — ensures visitors of the Faith from other nations won't understand a flippin' thing. The priest faces the people for most of the ceremony, reminiscent of family reunions. Instead of occasional responses, allowing the priest to lead in worship and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the congregation plays a hyperactive part in worship, to include clapping, shaking hands, talking, and singing songs sounding like Gordon Lightfoot covers. The altar rail has been removed because, you know, expecting people to show reverence and not play around at the altar is like, rigid or judgmental, or something.
Instead of a unifying form of worship, the NO Mass has become an instrument of oppression and a gathering point for schismatic hippies.
Meanwhile, unlike the rigidity of TLM that’s existed for hundreds of years, tracing it origin back to the Apostles, the recently discovered NO "tradition" empowers womyn. Womyn are expected to wear mini-skirts and booty shorts instead of dressing modestly.
Similar rules exist for the men, who can often be seen in Birkenstocks and team jerseys, depending upon which sport is in season. It is asinine and not the type of attire one would wear to a job interview past 15 years old, and therefore the misinterpretation of the NO Mass actively endorses irreverence.
In most cases, it is useless to politely disagree with people in the NO Mass sect. Their attitude creates blindness — not only to true faith, but to their own behavior. They treat dissenters with animosity for being pro-life, believing in the Real Presence, voting for Orange Man (he’s, like, bad), or even singing part of Kumbaya off-key.
Anyone who may accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about — a favorite indictment of the NO Mass ideologues — would be wrong. My opinion is based on facts and personal experiences.
Plus, I grew up in a household who attended our local vibrant ecumenical faith community. I was confirmed and went to a Catholic high where I never heard the words “transubstantiation” or “Eucharist”, but that still makes me an expert in all things Catholic.
The NO Mass rears its patchouli smelling head in this unholy history at several points. The last NO Mass I went to made no mention of Christ, the Real Presence, or sin. Instead, it was offered by “Father Jim” dressed as a Rusty Nails the Clown and riding a Segway.
Needless to say, anything in the church looking remotely masculine, Catholic, or reverent was completely banished. The people had the immature humor and reverence of the 3-way love child of Jim Carey, Sarah Silverman, and Beavis. Between the rambling sermons about “Jesus said be nice”, the talking and laughter during the Consecration, lack of reverent attire (yes, I realize that not everyone can afford a suit and tie/nice dress, but seeing someone’s underwear and butt crack because of their shorty-shorts is a bit much), we did not feel any closer to God.
Rules, also, were a strange issue. As in a complete lack of them. I had read that the altar was supposed to be treated as a sacred area, yet anyone who wanted to go up there was allowed to do so. In addition, the tabernacle, supposed to contain the Blessed Sacrament, was moved from the altar to a corner, like a naughty child. Further, I could never understand why, if the Eucharist is the Real Presence, i.e. the most sacred thing this side of Heaven, requiring the priest to cleanse his hands prior to handling, it would be given to parishioners, I mean faith community members, in their hands. Especially thinking of all the dirty things one touches between leaving the house and Communion. Immediately we stopped going to Mass at that parish.
After almost leaving the church as a teenager, I chose to stay Christian-ish by practicing my faith as a free agent — belonging to no church, attending different churches sometimes for Sunday service. On one instance, a Catholic priest noticed I was showing up semi-regularly and approached me with a persuasive speech designed to convince me to return to the Novus Ordo faction — disguising discrimination as encouragement. "You should come to the NO Mass instead and wear whatever suits you. Womyn look the most beautiful in church when they dress however their inner Pachamama inspires them," he tried to persuade. "Birkenstock, booty shorts, mini skirts, whatever.”
Most disturbing about this conversation was his effort to make deliberately dressing like a street walker in God’s presence sound positive. Indignant, I asked him to explain why he thought I should wear those things.
"Because how else are you going to attract a male to be a potential husband. Or female, if you’re into that. It’s all good. Jesus said to be nice. And Pope Francis, the best pope EVER, said not to judge people," he replied ecstatically.
The priest's attitude towards showing leg and cleavage is typical of NO Mass cultists. They seem to believe that women look better in church when their attire leaves nothing to the imagination. They try to sell all kinds of attire to girls, trying to convince them that showing one’s ass is the pinnacle of womanhood and throwing off the oppressive yoke of the patriarchy. They flaunt their “goods” like a butcher would display steak and chorizos in a Buenos Aires carniceria. Then they get mad when men stare.
Given such practices, it should come as no surprise that a contingent of men and womyn active within the NO Mass environment have distorted worldviews on sexuality. Instead of realizing that men and womyn complement each other, these types believe men are inferior to womyn simply because they are male. Or that men can become womyn or vice versa.
Lemme give a couple examples, dear reader, that seem to cover what I’ve experienced at the NO. One occasion that remains burned into my memory was when I attended Mass at a nominally Catholic university. It was a busy Sunday and my schedule demanded I attend Mass at a particular time. I did not know it was a Catholic Mass even after I stumbled over the doorstep. The atmosphere was reminiscent of a carnival. I was surprised to recognize some people there. One of them was a professor who was known to be a rather loud and aggressive person. When I saw her husband, I was shocked — and suddenly realized the ugly extent of her hatred of all thing male. Her husband was a mere shade of a man. He carried her coat and purse, not in an act of love and devotion as one would expect, but out of what appeared to be fear. As she carried on with her harpy-like shrieking about patriarchy, womyn’s ordination, and gender identity, he stood silently behind her, never saying a word. If he dared to object, or simply ask, nay, beg, permission to go talk to someone he recognized, she instantly berated him, yelling at him for daring to oppress her with his micro aggressions of interruptions. He kept his head bowed and always walked behind his wife, and looked physically weak — almost ill.
The professor, by contrast, looked swaggering and hearty. She strutted around and chatted with others in church as he followed him like a pale, neutered shadow. Seeing this, I believed I had witnessed a very dark side to the professor's spirituality. Her religion was a mechanism of abusive control and militant feminism.
My second example concerns an older group of aging Catholics — many of whom seem to have retained some residue from experimenting ala Timothy Leary, and had apparently fallen victim to the uber-liberal Liberation Theology, modernism, and general irrational dislike of anything traditional which is promoted in and on college campuses. A female acquaintance of mine, about my age, decided to brave the NO Catholic/college dating scene — a recipe for disaster, in my personal opinion. Among the stories I heard from her were of nominally Catholic males shopping for one night stands, not potential wives, asking her and other girls, "Are you willing to put out if I get dinner?" before agreeing to date them. These men did not want to associate with women whom were seeking more than just physical intimacy. And, to be blunt, why should they, when most of their modern womyn peers will give them said gratification with no commitment? And if they should be willing to commit, what does he have to look forward to? Showing mutual love and respect toward each other? Or being nagged and belittled as in the case of the afore mentioned professor’s husband?
It is very unfortunate that younger generations of Catholics seeking to deepen their faith are getting sucked into this vortex of toxic, hippie-esque radicalism. I saw some young families at a NO Mass recently, although most were in their 70s and up. I arrived early, sat down, and began to pray my Rosary. Unsurprisingly I found myself surrounded by yoga pants and mini skirt wearing women who entertained themselves in between gossip fests by casting disapproving glances at my veil.
Unsurprisingly, while there I had another memorably bad experience. I asked to receive Communion on the tongue. Normally, even the most liberal of priests I'd encountered in my lifetime would give me the Eucharist on the tongue. Not this pastor. He literally made a scene at the altar and jerked the Eucharist away from me when I reached out to receive it — saying something about those “toxic traddy types who need to get with the program”. After Mass I decided to respectfully address my concerns to the priests.
His response to my query could be found in the dictionary next to “clericalism”. Which the greatest pontiff EVER says is bad. When I informed an assisting priest that the pastor had been very rude to me at the altar, why I only receive on the tongue (and preferably kneeling), and asked that my views be relayed, he replied, "He did nothing wrong, maaaaan. You’re just being too rigid. Now excuse me, it’s time for interfaith yoga while listening to “Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.””
His attitude was a trademark example of the culture within the Catholic Church that encourages abuse. His first reaction was to circle the wagons around any potential abuse, then lay the blame on the laity.
What I gained from this experience was a deeper recognition of how the NO Mass foments the clericalist culture within the Catholic Church that Pope Francis (the bestest pontiff, like, EVER) is actively working to force down everyone’s throat, whether they want to hear Gordon Lightfoot at Mass or not. Tradition be damned.
In his homily earlier last month, Pope Francis warned Catholics against hypocrisy. He described hypocrisy as "appearing one way, but acting in another," and said that a hypocritical attitude "always kills."
The intolerant atmosphere of the NO Mass is in lock step with Pope Francis's vision of how to fundamentally change the Catholic Church (Change you WILL believe in). "The church is not a fortress, but a tent capable of expanding and offering access to everyone, except those darn trads" said Pope Francis. "Now ‘scuse me while I bestow an honor upon a transgendered lesbian atheist abortion pimp, whose values are in complete opposition to what the CCC teaches.“
It would appear that a misguided sense of compassion defines modern NO Catholicism. The children of the 60s hippie movement that wrought destruction upon the Church’s cultural landscape forget that while Christ did indeed call sinners, he also instructed them to “Go, now, and sin no more.”
By 'Sarah', Director of the Ecumenism n’ Feels Ministry
One culture within the Catholic Church needing major reform is that surrounding the practice of the Novus Ordo Mass.
In a previous era, the Latin Mass was merely a uniform and standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the United States. In the wake of un-needed reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the NO Mass has become a rallying point for culture destroying aging hippies within the church.
The ultra-liberalism, and borderline heresy, practiced by these NO hippies radical and narrow-minded, despite their claims of tolerance. They utilize the lack of structure in the NO Mass, along with charges of “racism”, “colonialism”, “misogyny”, or “being too rigid” to wield control over believers — particularly the faithful who actually believe and try to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Holy Mother Church.
Although it may be offered reverently, the NO Mass fosters disunity, and at times, sacrilege in the church. The liturgy — spoken in modern local dialect — ensures visitors of the Faith from other nations won't understand a flippin' thing. The priest faces the people for most of the ceremony, reminiscent of family reunions. Instead of occasional responses, allowing the priest to lead in worship and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the congregation plays a hyperactive part in worship, to include clapping, shaking hands, talking, and singing songs sounding like Gordon Lightfoot covers. The altar rail has been removed because, you know, expecting people to show reverence and not play around at the altar is like, rigid or judgmental, or something.
Instead of a unifying form of worship, the NO Mass has become an instrument of oppression and a gathering point for schismatic hippies.
Meanwhile, unlike the rigidity of TLM that’s existed for hundreds of years, tracing it origin back to the Apostles, the recently discovered NO "tradition" empowers womyn. Womyn are expected to wear mini-skirts and booty shorts instead of dressing modestly.
Similar rules exist for the men, who can often be seen in Birkenstocks and team jerseys, depending upon which sport is in season. It is asinine and not the type of attire one would wear to a job interview past 15 years old, and therefore the misinterpretation of the NO Mass actively endorses irreverence.
In most cases, it is useless to politely disagree with people in the NO Mass sect. Their attitude creates blindness — not only to true faith, but to their own behavior. They treat dissenters with animosity for being pro-life, believing in the Real Presence, voting for Orange Man (he’s, like, bad), or even singing part of Kumbaya off-key.
Anyone who may accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about — a favorite indictment of the NO Mass ideologues — would be wrong. My opinion is based on facts and personal experiences.
Plus, I grew up in a household who attended our local vibrant ecumenical faith community. I was confirmed and went to a Catholic high where I never heard the words “transubstantiation” or “Eucharist”, but that still makes me an expert in all things Catholic.
The NO Mass rears its patchouli smelling head in this unholy history at several points. The last NO Mass I went to made no mention of Christ, the Real Presence, or sin. Instead, it was offered by “Father Jim” dressed as a Rusty Nails the Clown and riding a Segway.
Needless to say, anything in the church looking remotely masculine, Catholic, or reverent was completely banished. The people had the immature humor and reverence of the 3-way love child of Jim Carey, Sarah Silverman, and Beavis. Between the rambling sermons about “Jesus said be nice”, the talking and laughter during the Consecration, lack of reverent attire (yes, I realize that not everyone can afford a suit and tie/nice dress, but seeing someone’s underwear and butt crack because of their shorty-shorts is a bit much), we did not feel any closer to God.
Rules, also, were a strange issue. As in a complete lack of them. I had read that the altar was supposed to be treated as a sacred area, yet anyone who wanted to go up there was allowed to do so. In addition, the tabernacle, supposed to contain the Blessed Sacrament, was moved from the altar to a corner, like a naughty child. Further, I could never understand why, if the Eucharist is the Real Presence, i.e. the most sacred thing this side of Heaven, requiring the priest to cleanse his hands prior to handling, it would be given to parishioners, I mean faith community members, in their hands. Especially thinking of all the dirty things one touches between leaving the house and Communion. Immediately we stopped going to Mass at that parish.
After almost leaving the church as a teenager, I chose to stay Christian-ish by practicing my faith as a free agent — belonging to no church, attending different churches sometimes for Sunday service. On one instance, a Catholic priest noticed I was showing up semi-regularly and approached me with a persuasive speech designed to convince me to return to the Novus Ordo faction — disguising discrimination as encouragement. "You should come to the NO Mass instead and wear whatever suits you. Womyn look the most beautiful in church when they dress however their inner Pachamama inspires them," he tried to persuade. "Birkenstock, booty shorts, mini skirts, whatever.”
Most disturbing about this conversation was his effort to make deliberately dressing like a street walker in God’s presence sound positive. Indignant, I asked him to explain why he thought I should wear those things.
"Because how else are you going to attract a male to be a potential husband. Or female, if you’re into that. It’s all good. Jesus said to be nice. And Pope Francis, the best pope EVER, said not to judge people," he replied ecstatically.
The priest's attitude towards showing leg and cleavage is typical of NO Mass cultists. They seem to believe that women look better in church when their attire leaves nothing to the imagination. They try to sell all kinds of attire to girls, trying to convince them that showing one’s ass is the pinnacle of womanhood and throwing off the oppressive yoke of the patriarchy. They flaunt their “goods” like a butcher would display steak and chorizos in a Buenos Aires carniceria. Then they get mad when men stare.
Given such practices, it should come as no surprise that a contingent of men and womyn active within the NO Mass environment have distorted worldviews on sexuality. Instead of realizing that men and womyn complement each other, these types believe men are inferior to womyn simply because they are male. Or that men can become womyn or vice versa.
Lemme give a couple examples, dear reader, that seem to cover what I’ve experienced at the NO. One occasion that remains burned into my memory was when I attended Mass at a nominally Catholic university. It was a busy Sunday and my schedule demanded I attend Mass at a particular time. I did not know it was a Catholic Mass even after I stumbled over the doorstep. The atmosphere was reminiscent of a carnival. I was surprised to recognize some people there. One of them was a professor who was known to be a rather loud and aggressive person. When I saw her husband, I was shocked — and suddenly realized the ugly extent of her hatred of all thing male. Her husband was a mere shade of a man. He carried her coat and purse, not in an act of love and devotion as one would expect, but out of what appeared to be fear. As she carried on with her harpy-like shrieking about patriarchy, womyn’s ordination, and gender identity, he stood silently behind her, never saying a word. If he dared to object, or simply ask, nay, beg, permission to go talk to someone he recognized, she instantly berated him, yelling at him for daring to oppress her with his micro aggressions of interruptions. He kept his head bowed and always walked behind his wife, and looked physically weak — almost ill.
The professor, by contrast, looked swaggering and hearty. She strutted around and chatted with others in church as he followed him like a pale, neutered shadow. Seeing this, I believed I had witnessed a very dark side to the professor's spirituality. Her religion was a mechanism of abusive control and militant feminism.
My second example concerns an older group of aging Catholics — many of whom seem to have retained some residue from experimenting ala Timothy Leary, and had apparently fallen victim to the uber-liberal Liberation Theology, modernism, and general irrational dislike of anything traditional which is promoted in and on college campuses. A female acquaintance of mine, about my age, decided to brave the NO Catholic/college dating scene — a recipe for disaster, in my personal opinion. Among the stories I heard from her were of nominally Catholic males shopping for one night stands, not potential wives, asking her and other girls, "Are you willing to put out if I get dinner?" before agreeing to date them. These men did not want to associate with women whom were seeking more than just physical intimacy. And, to be blunt, why should they, when most of their modern womyn peers will give them said gratification with no commitment? And if they should be willing to commit, what does he have to look forward to? Showing mutual love and respect toward each other? Or being nagged and belittled as in the case of the afore mentioned professor’s husband?
It is very unfortunate that younger generations of Catholics seeking to deepen their faith are getting sucked into this vortex of toxic, hippie-esque radicalism. I saw some young families at a NO Mass recently, although most were in their 70s and up. I arrived early, sat down, and began to pray my Rosary. Unsurprisingly I found myself surrounded by yoga pants and mini skirt wearing women who entertained themselves in between gossip fests by casting disapproving glances at my veil.
Unsurprisingly, while there I had another memorably bad experience. I asked to receive Communion on the tongue. Normally, even the most liberal of priests I'd encountered in my lifetime would give me the Eucharist on the tongue. Not this pastor. He literally made a scene at the altar and jerked the Eucharist away from me when I reached out to receive it — saying something about those “toxic traddy types who need to get with the program”. After Mass I decided to respectfully address my concerns to the priests.
His response to my query could be found in the dictionary next to “clericalism”. Which the greatest pontiff EVER says is bad. When I informed an assisting priest that the pastor had been very rude to me at the altar, why I only receive on the tongue (and preferably kneeling), and asked that my views be relayed, he replied, "He did nothing wrong, maaaaan. You’re just being too rigid. Now excuse me, it’s time for interfaith yoga while listening to “Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.””
His attitude was a trademark example of the culture within the Catholic Church that encourages abuse. His first reaction was to circle the wagons around any potential abuse, then lay the blame on the laity.
What I gained from this experience was a deeper recognition of how the NO Mass foments the clericalist culture within the Catholic Church that Pope Francis (the bestest pontiff, like, EVER) is actively working to force down everyone’s throat, whether they want to hear Gordon Lightfoot at Mass or not. Tradition be damned.
In his homily earlier last month, Pope Francis warned Catholics against hypocrisy. He described hypocrisy as "appearing one way, but acting in another," and said that a hypocritical attitude "always kills."
The intolerant atmosphere of the NO Mass is in lock step with Pope Francis's vision of how to fundamentally change the Catholic Church (Change you WILL believe in). "The church is not a fortress, but a tent capable of expanding and offering access to everyone, except those darn trads" said Pope Francis. "Now ‘scuse me while I bestow an honor upon a transgendered lesbian atheist abortion pimp, whose values are in complete opposition to what the CCC teaches.“
It would appear that a misguided sense of compassion defines modern NO Catholicism. The children of the 60s hippie movement that wrought destruction upon the Church’s cultural landscape forget that while Christ did indeed call sinners, he also instructed them to “Go, now, and sin no more.”
The Strange Case of Emperor Rudolf II
The Mad Monarchist looks at HIM Rudolf II, the man whose mistakes are often blamed for the Thirty Years War.
From The Mad Monarchist (18 July 2017)
It was on this day in 1552 that Rudolf von Habsburg, the future Holy
Roman Emperor of the German Nation, was born in Vienna, Austria to
Emperor Maximilian II and his Empress Maria of Spain. He came to the
various Habsburg thrones from 1572 to 1576 as King of Hungary and
Croatia, King of Bohemia, King of Germany and finally as the
Emperor-Elect. Today, when Emperor Rudolf II is remembered, he tends to
be remembered as one of the oddballs of the Habsburg dynasty at best and
at worst he is blamed for the outbreak of the horrific Thirty Years War
which devastated central Europe for decades and left Germany in ruins
for many decades to come after. It was one of the most truly devastating
events in all of German history and probably nothing like it was seen
until the utter destruction of defeat in 1945. Emperor Rudolf II will
certainly not make my list of “favorite Habsburg monarchs” but the fact
that he is so ridiculed or outright despised by so many people on both
ends of the political spectrum means that I cannot help but at least
have some sympathy for him.
What is the problem with Emperor Rudolf II? Why is so much ridicule and blame heaped on him? There is certainly, if most accounts are believed, much in him worthy of criticism. However, I think the reason why so much is heaped on him is, at least to a large extent, because he managed to alienate both ends by trying to steer a middle course in his policies. One will also notice that, to justify opposition or a negative opinion of Emperor Rudolf II, critics will more readily address his personal life rather than his policies because, if one looks at his policies, I think it becomes much more difficult for the “left” and the “right” (so to speak) to criticize him without more than a bit of hypocrisy or revealing their overreach. People want to look for scapegoats, they want to find a “villain” for every story and for many on both sides of the political spectrum, Emperor Rudolf II was an obvious target. What can make the disinterested observer feel some pity for Rudolf II is that, in modern times, he will be attacked from the right for doing certain things, attacked by the left for doing other things yet never praised by the left or the right for doing the things that the other side attacks him for.
There are, of course, people on the left today who will criticize
Emperor Rudolf II simply for being an emperor, pointing to him as a
totally unfit person who came to power simply because of an accident of
birth who was inept, corrupt and tyrannical. Yet, few right-wing
monarchists will defend Emperor Rudolf II because of his policies or
personal life and much of this comes down to the religious divide in
western Christianity between Catholics and Protestants. Each have some
valid points to make yet, I would say that the fact that these divisions
existed in his own lifetime to such an extent, even within his own
family, that this rather disproves the notion that blame for the Thirty
Years War could be laid solely at his doorstep. Catholics dislike Rudolf
II because, honestly, he was not much of a Catholic, he certainly was
not devout or personally pious and if certain accusations about him are
to be believed, he was very far from that. He also made concessions to
the Protestants which angered the Catholics immensely. However, this did
not, in turn, win him much loyalty from the Protestants since, after
all, no matter how nominally, he was still a Catholic and the head of a
traditionally Catholic dynasty and leader of an officially Catholic
empire.
In this regard though, I think Rudolf II was a victim of bad timing and those who heap undue amounts of blame on him, I think, tend to forget the historical context of his life. For example, Emperor Charles V, Rudolf’s great-uncle, also made concessions to the Protestants and, as those familiar with the horrific ‘Sack of Rome’ know, even used Protestant soldiers to make war on the Pope. Yet, Emperor Charles V was known to be a very staunch Catholic personally and, as a champion of Christendom, Catholics tend to forgive him for these things. Yet, it highlights the precedent that he set. Charles V had fought the Protestants to be sure but he ultimately made concessions to them because he considered it more important to have peace and at least some degree of unity in Germany so that he could focus on fighting the French, the Italians and the Turks. His younger son and heir to the German half of his continental empire, Emperor Ferdinand I (Rudolf’s grandfather), also opted for a policy of religious neutrality between the Catholics and Protestants in order to maintain the peace in Germany. He pushed for reform in the Catholic Church, was generally tolerant of Protestants but allowed them no further power, hoping that the division would be solved by reconciliation.
Finally, Emperor Rudolf’s father, Emperor Maximilian II, went even
farther with trying to bring both sides together. He was more generous
toward the Protestants, so much so that some suspected him of having
Protestant sympathies, yet he still refused to give them access to the
‘top tier’ as it were of imperial power by allowing Protestant
prince-bishops. However, at the same time, he pushed for the Catholic
Church to change in ways that would make it more acceptable to the
Protestants, again, in the hope that the religious division could be
ended by finding a middle ground that would accommodate both the
Catholic and Protestant camps. Obviously, he was not successful but,
given the actions of his predecessors, it should hardly come as a
surprise that Emperor Rudolf II would not have the makings of a
religious zealot about him. Emperor Rudolf II was, in my view, simply
not very religious at all, which is not to say he was an atheist or
completely uncaring about the subject but that the theological divisions
between the Catholics and Protestants were on a level that simply did
not interest him and I can imagine him being baffled as to why the two
sides could not just stop arguing about such things and get on with
other business.
Emperor Rudolf II did make even further concessions to the Protestants but it was not because he agreed or sympathized with them but rather that he wanted to stop them from rebelling and if some greater degree of rights and privileges would do the job, he would give those to them. The reason why the outbreak of the Thirty Years War is so often laid at his feet is that it was these concessions which seemed to be threatened by his successor and which the Protestants rose up to demand be honored that led to the initial outbreak of hostilities. However, as well as what happened under the emperors before him, people also tend to forget what happened after him as his end ultimately came when his brother Matthias rebelled against him and ultimately deposed him, fearful that Rudolf was diminishing the imperial power. However, to gain the support of the Protestants in order to take power from his brother, Matthias too had to make further concessions to them and he too carried on the tradition of trying to find a middle path that would, if not reconcile, at least keep the peace between the Catholic and Protestant factions. Things only really boiled over when Emperor Matthias died and was succeeded by Emperor Ferdinand II who, for a change, was a very serious Catholic and who was most intent on seeing religious divisions ended in the empire by restoring Catholic supremacy.
As we know, that never quite worked out either and ultimately both sides
eventually had to learn to live with each other. Emperor Rudolf II did
do something which, I would think, traditional Catholics would applaud
him for, yet it is more often a source of criticism against him which
was to push for another crusade. He hoped that he could unite the
Christians of Germany and, perhaps, Christendom as a whole, by another
war against the Ottoman Turks. The Muslims, after all, saw no difference
between a Catholic infidel and a Protestant infidel so, perhaps, Rudolf
reasoned that this would bring the bickering Christians of Europe
together against a common enemy. Unfortunately for him, this did not
work and the war was a long, grueling affair which ultimately
accomplished almost nothing. Spain made some contribution as did most of
the Italian states to this frustrating conflict known as “the Long War”
but it proved to be a bloody stalemate with neither side gaining a
clear advantage. For Rudolf II, it was a drain of men, resources and
brought no greater Christian unity as, in order to prosecute the war, as
emperors almost invariably had to do, he was compelled to make
concessions to the various subsidiary princes to contribute men and
resources to the ultimately fruitless conflict.
So, his religious policies angered Catholics while still not earning any great loyalty from the Protestants and his foreign policy proved to be ineffective and costly. All of these concessions to various groups also encouraged opposition from within the Habsburg family ranks as they saw imperial power being diminished further and further yet, as mentioned above, the younger brother who ultimately dethroned him would find that he would have no choice but to do the same. Most, however, choose to focus on the personal life of Emperor Rudolf II and he was an unusual and rather colorful character to be sure. As monarchs do not tend to make a public issue of their sexual proclivities, I prefer to avoid the subject, to the frustration of some readers I have noticed. Rest assured, I am well aware that many regard King Frederick the Great of Prussia or King James I of Great Britain as homosexuals, I simply do not care. I think one could argue the point and I do not see how it could be proven with any degree of certainty one way or the other and, while I certainly think it matters in moral terms, as long as they keep it to themselves, it does not matter *to me*. Were they so inclined and were they to make a public issue of it, trying to push this as acceptable or praiseworthy behavior, then I would certainly have a problem with it.
As with a growing list of historical figures, Emperor Rudolf II has now
also been deemed by many to have been a homosexual. Personally, I do not
know what his sexual preferences were and would rather keep it that
way. There are some such royals about whom I have no doubts, some
prominent cases which most accept but which I tend to disbelieve but
with Rudolf II, I really have no idea one way or the other. There seems
to be just as much “evidence” to me that he was as there is that he was
not. He talked about marriage a lot but never went through with it,
there are rumors of some homosexual relationships yet there are even
more rumors of heterosexual relationships and illegitimate children that
he produced. My only conclusion is that he does seem to have been a
rather lustful man which is hardly uncommon. Rumors of affairs are
things I put very little weight in as gossip is often spread maliciously
but the, sometimes rather explicit, erotic artwork Rudolf collected is
the primary basis for my admittedly banal assessment of his private
life. Was he or wasn’t he? I don’t know but Emperor Rudolf II did seem
to be a bit of a pervert.
I only mention this at all because it is something that Rudolf II does tend to be criticized for and yet, I have noticed that this is usually a red herring. Particularly among those who think there should be no limit to sexual practices, partners or proclivities at all, there is a noticeable habit of always trying to paint those you dislike as some sort of sexual deviant. Everyone knows, for example, that Eva Braun was the mistress of Adolf Hitler and everyone knows that Clara Petacci was the mistress of Benito Mussolini. Does anyone know the name of Franklin Roosevelt’s mistress? Does anyone know of any affairs by Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin? I doubt this is an accident. Consider also, if you live in the west, how many times you have seen those photos of Vladimir Putin riding a horse without a shirt splashed across the media. This, I think, illustrates my point well enough. Everyone knows who Eva Braun was but I bet no one reading this could name FDR’s secretary he had the affair with without looking.
Aside from this issue though, Rudolf II was also accused of being so
devoted to intellectual and artistic pursuits that he neglected
government. This may actually be true, however, I have not failed to
notice that be it Emperor Rudolf, Britain’s King Edward VIII, President
Trump or President Obama, people seem to complain the most about rulers
who shirk their duty even though they think those exact rulers are
ruling badly. If they are not good at their job, one would think you
would be happy to see them abdicating, playing golf or, in the case of
Rudolf II, devoting himself to art, music and certain currently
discredited fields of science. Again, it is certainly true that Rudolf
II spent a great deal of time and money collecting works of art,
however, criticism for him over this may be more due to the fact that it
can no longer be appreciated. Unlike other monarchs whose art
collections became great national treasures, that of Emperor Rudolf was
lost, sold or destroyed in the years and reigns after his death so that
it cannot be appreciated but it is still easy to criticize him for
accumulating it.
Perhaps the thing about Rudolf II that seems the most odd today,
however, is his fascination with two particular subjects which have been
discredited and those are astrology and alchemy. Now, to be fair, the
Emperor was rather obsessive, particularly in regards to alchemy and I
think it is safe to say allowed the subject to occupy much more of his
time and attention than he should have. Rudolf was positively obsessed
with alchemy, even having a private alchemist laboratory of his own and
spent his life trying in vain to find the elusive “Philosopher’s Stone”.
He even hired two brothers named Edward and Alphonse to, ..no, wait,
never mind (inside joke). Today, of course, people regard astrology and
alchemy as so much superstitious nonsense, completely absurd and
unscientific. I would agree that the Emperor spent rather too much time
on the subject, however, I would push back on criticism of the Emperor
on this front almost more than any other. Today, we view astrology as
basically a swindle for the superstition but, at the time of Rudolf II,
astrology was considered scientific “fact”. Practically every European
government embraced it and every monarch, even the Pope in Rome, had an
official court astrologer.
Astrology is something I point to frequently today in comparison to the
evolutionists or the global warming/climate change phenomenon. We are
told that these things are scientific facts by the scientific community
and yet, once upon a time, the scientific community also said that
astrology was a scientific fact and that one could concoct an elixir
that would turn lead into gold (maybe they never got their Transmutation
Circle just right). My point being that, while I think it is fair to
criticize Rudolf II for going overboard on these subjects and allowing
them to monopolize his time, it is completely unfair to portray him as
some sort of occultist lunatic for doing so. Interest in astrology may
have led some to a better understanding of actual astronomy and we know
as a matter of historical fact that the study of alchemy was a step
along the process of developing scientific understanding and played a
part in the establishment of modern chemistry and medicine as we know
them today.
In the end, it is safe to say that Emperor Rudolf II was not a successful monarch. He never married or produced legitimate offspring, imperial power was diminished under his rule, his foreign policy won no great victory and he provided no lasting stability as evidenced by the fact that he was ultimately overthrown by his younger brother. His critics are many and there is much in him that can be validly criticized. However, I do think some of the criticism of him is unfair and much of it, even if fair, is certainly unfortunate and does not cast his critics in a very favorable light either. In regards to the most serious accusation against him, that he must bear responsibility for the Thirty Years War is, I think, a considerable overstatement and lays too much blame on him for a disaster which was caused by the cumulative policies and events spanning the reigns of a number of German emperors. He certainly was not one of the best, but he was also far from being the worst national leader the world has ever seen.
From The Mad Monarchist (18 July 2017)
What is the problem with Emperor Rudolf II? Why is so much ridicule and blame heaped on him? There is certainly, if most accounts are believed, much in him worthy of criticism. However, I think the reason why so much is heaped on him is, at least to a large extent, because he managed to alienate both ends by trying to steer a middle course in his policies. One will also notice that, to justify opposition or a negative opinion of Emperor Rudolf II, critics will more readily address his personal life rather than his policies because, if one looks at his policies, I think it becomes much more difficult for the “left” and the “right” (so to speak) to criticize him without more than a bit of hypocrisy or revealing their overreach. People want to look for scapegoats, they want to find a “villain” for every story and for many on both sides of the political spectrum, Emperor Rudolf II was an obvious target. What can make the disinterested observer feel some pity for Rudolf II is that, in modern times, he will be attacked from the right for doing certain things, attacked by the left for doing other things yet never praised by the left or the right for doing the things that the other side attacks him for.
In this regard though, I think Rudolf II was a victim of bad timing and those who heap undue amounts of blame on him, I think, tend to forget the historical context of his life. For example, Emperor Charles V, Rudolf’s great-uncle, also made concessions to the Protestants and, as those familiar with the horrific ‘Sack of Rome’ know, even used Protestant soldiers to make war on the Pope. Yet, Emperor Charles V was known to be a very staunch Catholic personally and, as a champion of Christendom, Catholics tend to forgive him for these things. Yet, it highlights the precedent that he set. Charles V had fought the Protestants to be sure but he ultimately made concessions to them because he considered it more important to have peace and at least some degree of unity in Germany so that he could focus on fighting the French, the Italians and the Turks. His younger son and heir to the German half of his continental empire, Emperor Ferdinand I (Rudolf’s grandfather), also opted for a policy of religious neutrality between the Catholics and Protestants in order to maintain the peace in Germany. He pushed for reform in the Catholic Church, was generally tolerant of Protestants but allowed them no further power, hoping that the division would be solved by reconciliation.
Emperor Rudolf II did make even further concessions to the Protestants but it was not because he agreed or sympathized with them but rather that he wanted to stop them from rebelling and if some greater degree of rights and privileges would do the job, he would give those to them. The reason why the outbreak of the Thirty Years War is so often laid at his feet is that it was these concessions which seemed to be threatened by his successor and which the Protestants rose up to demand be honored that led to the initial outbreak of hostilities. However, as well as what happened under the emperors before him, people also tend to forget what happened after him as his end ultimately came when his brother Matthias rebelled against him and ultimately deposed him, fearful that Rudolf was diminishing the imperial power. However, to gain the support of the Protestants in order to take power from his brother, Matthias too had to make further concessions to them and he too carried on the tradition of trying to find a middle path that would, if not reconcile, at least keep the peace between the Catholic and Protestant factions. Things only really boiled over when Emperor Matthias died and was succeeded by Emperor Ferdinand II who, for a change, was a very serious Catholic and who was most intent on seeing religious divisions ended in the empire by restoring Catholic supremacy.
So, his religious policies angered Catholics while still not earning any great loyalty from the Protestants and his foreign policy proved to be ineffective and costly. All of these concessions to various groups also encouraged opposition from within the Habsburg family ranks as they saw imperial power being diminished further and further yet, as mentioned above, the younger brother who ultimately dethroned him would find that he would have no choice but to do the same. Most, however, choose to focus on the personal life of Emperor Rudolf II and he was an unusual and rather colorful character to be sure. As monarchs do not tend to make a public issue of their sexual proclivities, I prefer to avoid the subject, to the frustration of some readers I have noticed. Rest assured, I am well aware that many regard King Frederick the Great of Prussia or King James I of Great Britain as homosexuals, I simply do not care. I think one could argue the point and I do not see how it could be proven with any degree of certainty one way or the other and, while I certainly think it matters in moral terms, as long as they keep it to themselves, it does not matter *to me*. Were they so inclined and were they to make a public issue of it, trying to push this as acceptable or praiseworthy behavior, then I would certainly have a problem with it.
I only mention this at all because it is something that Rudolf II does tend to be criticized for and yet, I have noticed that this is usually a red herring. Particularly among those who think there should be no limit to sexual practices, partners or proclivities at all, there is a noticeable habit of always trying to paint those you dislike as some sort of sexual deviant. Everyone knows, for example, that Eva Braun was the mistress of Adolf Hitler and everyone knows that Clara Petacci was the mistress of Benito Mussolini. Does anyone know the name of Franklin Roosevelt’s mistress? Does anyone know of any affairs by Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin? I doubt this is an accident. Consider also, if you live in the west, how many times you have seen those photos of Vladimir Putin riding a horse without a shirt splashed across the media. This, I think, illustrates my point well enough. Everyone knows who Eva Braun was but I bet no one reading this could name FDR’s secretary he had the affair with without looking.
In the end, it is safe to say that Emperor Rudolf II was not a successful monarch. He never married or produced legitimate offspring, imperial power was diminished under his rule, his foreign policy won no great victory and he provided no lasting stability as evidenced by the fact that he was ultimately overthrown by his younger brother. His critics are many and there is much in him that can be validly criticized. However, I do think some of the criticism of him is unfair and much of it, even if fair, is certainly unfortunate and does not cast his critics in a very favorable light either. In regards to the most serious accusation against him, that he must bear responsibility for the Thirty Years War is, I think, a considerable overstatement and lays too much blame on him for a disaster which was caused by the cumulative policies and events spanning the reigns of a number of German emperors. He certainly was not one of the best, but he was also far from being the worst national leader the world has ever seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)