30 September 2020

The Return of Baal and the Jezebel Spirit in America

Father H notes the uncanny parallels between the conflict of St Elias with the Baal worshippers in the Old Testament and the situation today.

From Roman Catholic Man 

By Fr Richard Heilman

It is uncanny how much this moment in history resembles the conflict between Elijah and Jezebel; between the power of God and the satanic lie of Baal. Are we under the demonic influence of Jezebel?

Jezebel first appears in 1 Kings 16, when she marries Ahab, king of Israel. Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, the king and high priest of the Baal worshipping Sidonians. Baal worship was closely associated with obsessive sensuality and often involved sex acts. Jezebel, as a daughter of this perverse kingdom, was raised in an atmosphere where sex was a path to power and influence (sounding familiar yet?).

Ahab, King of Israel, was completely subdued and dominated by Jezebel (a type of modern man?). Jezebel then introduced the worship of Ashtoreth to Israel. This god/goddess was a power-hungry goddess of love and sensuality. Priestess-prostitutes filled her shrines and serviced her worshippers. The lure of these legal, readily available erotic encounters was more than the men of Israel would resist. By Jezebel’s influence, most Israelites, the northern kingdom, left the worship of God for Baal and Ashtaroth. The prophet Elijah laments that only 7000 men in the entire nation were not swayed by her control (How many men have left God – exchanged the power of supernatural grace for sensual pleasure – by simply clicking on to easy access porn sites? How many men have either abandoned their family or refuse to get married at all?).

The Jezebel spirit is born of rebellion (1960s? Now?). The Spirit of Jezebel is basically a controlling spirit working through the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (The counter forces to these are poverty, chastity and obedience).

Other ways a Jezebel spirit can gain power of a nation …

  • Puts power and politics ahead of people
  • Baal worshippers would propagate child sacrifice (today’s abortion)
  • Operates through fear and intimidation (Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals)
  • Intolerant of Word of God (Banish God from public sphere, loss of religious freedom)
  • Allows seduction to prevail
  • Twists truth; Lies
  • Usurps the law
  • Propagates sorcery; Black magic (New Age, Witchcraft, Satanism, Reiki, crystals, horoscopes, ouija boards, luck charms, etc.)

Is any of this sounding familiar? It should. This almost perfectly describes the Modus Operandi of most of the liberal secular ruling class in power today.

Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing. (1 Kings 18:21)

700 Christian Pastors Tell UK Govt ‘Categorically’ Not to ‘Suspend Christian Worship Again’

There are only three Catholic signatories and ONE Bishop. Not surprisingly, it's His Lordship of Portsmouth! Pray for the Bishops of Britain!

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘The public worship of the Christian church is particularly essential for our nation’s wellbeing,’ they state in a letter addressed to U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson along with the nation's first ministers.

UNITED KINGDOM, September 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A group of 700 Christian ministers from across the United Kingdom have written an open letter demanding that their governments do not ask them to “suspend Christian worship again.”

The letter is addressed to the U.K. prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the first ministers of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

“The public worship of the Christian church is particularly essential for our nation’s wellbeing. As we live in the shadow of a virus we are unable to control, people urgently need the opportunity to hear and experience the good news and hope of Jesus Christ, who holds our lives in his hands,” reads the letter, dated September 24 and signed by hundreds of U.K. pastors.

“We therefore wish to state categorically that we must not be asked to suspend Christian worship again. For us to do so would cause serious damage to our congregations, our service of the nation, and our duty as Christian ministers.”

The letter lists as authors the Rev. A. Paul Levy, Minister, Ealing International Presbyterian Church, London; Rev. David M Gobbett, Lead Minister, Highfields Church Cardiff, Wales; Rev. Dr. William J.U. Philip, Minister, The Tron Church, Glasgow, Scotland; Rev. David Johnston, Minister Emeritus – Presbyterian Church in Ireland; and the Rev. Dr. Matthew P.W. Roberts, Minister, Trinity Church York, England.

The U.K. recently banned social gatherings of more than six people after an apparent rise in positive coronavirus cases but stopped short of a full second lockdown, the first of which resulted in U.K. churches being closed for months.

Johnson and his administration, however, introduced fines of up to £10,000 for anyone who breaks a mandatory self-isolation order. The fines took effect on September 28.

The pastors’ letter is open for the public to sign. Besides demanding that churches not be closed again, the letter calls upon U.K. politicians to realize the “dehumanising effect” lockdowns have had on people’s lives.

“We are troubled by policies which prioritise bare existence at the expense of those things that give quality, meaning and purpose to life. Increasingly severe restrictions are having a powerful dehumanising effect on people’s lives, resulting in a growing wave of loneliness, anxiety and damaged mental health,” reads the letter.

“But we question whether the UK Government and the devolved administrations have it in their power either to eliminate this virus or to suppress it for an indefinite period while we await a vaccine. And we cannot support attempts to achieve these which, in our view, cause more damage to people, families and society — physically and spiritually — than the virus itself.”

The letter closes with the pastors calling upon the P.M. to “find ways of protecting those who truly are vulnerable to Covid-19” but “without unnecessary and authoritarian restrictions.”

The pastors’ letter is similar to one written by U.K. professors Sunetra Gupta, Carl Heneghan, and Karol Sikora that called for an end to lockdowns.

Johnson’s new COVID-19 restrictions were blasted by Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Brexit Party, who said the U.K. government is acting like an “elective dictatorship.”

Ask Father: Giving Money to Peter’s Pence

Fr Zed's take on contributing to Peter's Pence this weekend. He says, 'Speaking personally, I cannot see myself contributing anything to Peter’s Pence, ...'

From Fr Z's Blog

From a reader…


Father, I keep hearing about Peters Pence.  The Vatican is misusing the collection.  Can a Catholic give to Peters Pence in good conscience?

Modern Peter’s Pence started in the time of the Papal States.  People were asked to contribute for support not just for their parishes or dioceses but for Rome, “the Vatican”.  Eventually the collection was to be used for philanthropy.

Remembering always that money is fungible, nevertheless there have been problems lately with how Peter’s Pence has been applied.

Recently, we heard of the dressing-down of Card. Becciu (is he a Cardinal or isn’t he?) for using Peter’s Pence to buy luxury real estate in London and to fund a movie about openly homosexual Elton John.  It is hard to understand either of those moves as “philanthropic” or as related to the operation of the Roman Curia… the wholesome operation, that is.

It could be argued that because the Vatican City State has very little income, therefore Peter’s Pence has to be invested so as to create funds the Church can work with.  Okay.  But flats in Sloane and Elton John?   And how was the money handled?

No, this is very bad indeed.

Consider also the nightmare stories about money that Card. Wuerl and Mr. McCarrick were involved with through the Papal Foundation.

Speaking personally, I cannot see myself contributing anything to Peter’s Pence, no matter how plaintive the plea.   I now need some evidence that the right people are handling the money and that it is going to things that can be explained with a straight face.


 [1] Having shown that God is not the being of all things, we can likewise show that He is not the form of any thing.

[2] As we have shown, the divine being cannot belong to any quiddity that is not being itself. Now, only God is the divine being itself. It is impossible, therefore, for God to be the form of some other being.

[3] Furthermore, the form of a body is not the being itself, but a principle of being. But God is being itself. He is, therefore, not the form of a body.

[4] Again, the union of form and matter results in a composite, which is a whole with respect to the matter and the form. But the parts are in potency in relation to the whole. In God, however, there is no potentiality. Therefore, God cannot be a form united to some thing.

[5] Moreover, that which has being through itself is nobler than that which has being in another. But every form of a body has being in another. Since, then, God, as the first cause of being, is the noblest being, He cannot be the form of any being.

[6] The same conclusion can also be reached in the following way from the eternity of motion. If God is the form of some movable body, since He is the first mover, the composite will be self-moving. But something self-moving can be moved and not-moved. Both possibilities are found in it. But such a being does not of itself have an indefectibility of motion. Above the self-moving being, therefore, we must posit another first mover, which gives to the self-moving being the endlessness of its motion. Thus, God, Who is the first mover, is not the form of a self-moving body.

[7] This argumentation is suitable for those who posit the eternity of motion. Those who do not posit it can reach the same conclusion from the regularity of the motion of the heavens. For just as a self-mover can be at rest and in motion, so it can be moved more swiftly and less so. The necessity in the uniformity of the motion of the heavens, therefore, depends on some higher and absolutely immobile principle, which is not a part of a self-moving body as the form of that body.

[8] The authority of Scripture is in agreement with this truth. For it is said in a Psalm (8:2): “Your magnificence is elevated above the heavens”; and in Job (11:8, 9): “He is higher than heaven, and what will you do?... His measure is longer than the earth and deeper than the sea.”

[9] Thus, then, is removed the error of the Gentiles, who said that God is the soul of the heavens, or even the soul of the whole world. Thereby they defended the error of idolatry, by saying that the whole world was God not by reason of the body but by reason of the soul; just as man is said to be wise not by reason of the body but by reason of the soul. On the basis of this error the Gentiles thought it to follow that, not unfittingly, divine worship should be shown to the world and its parts. The Commentator also says that this point was the place where the Zabii stumbled and fell from wisdom—because, namely, they posited that God is the form of the heavens [ In XII Metaphysicorum ].


Ten Commandments of Secular Progressivism

If you're planning on voting, Fr Heilman has a few things you need to think about before you step into the voting booth. Remember, as Fr Altman said, 'You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period'.

From Roman Catholic Man

By Fr Richard Heilman

When considering your vote, consider the Ten Commandments of those seeking to overthrow our country in this election.


  1. Thou shalt not believe in God. Every person is their own god. There are no absolute truths. As Pontius Pilate said, “What is truth?” Therefore, everyone’s individual feelings are all that matter. As the Satanic bible professes, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
  2. Thou shalt not resist secular progressivism, or thou shalt be persecuted. Therefore, thou shalt give complete submission, granting absolute trust, to all levers of influence owned and operated by secular progressives, including the MSM, Hollywood, television, universities and public schools.
  3. Thou shalt not attend religious services, or thou shalt be deemed a threat to secular progressivism.
  4. Thou shalt dispense with the outdated notion of the nuclear family. Anything can be considered a marriage and a family.
  5. Thou shalt have the right to kill children in the wombs of their mothers.
  6. Thou shalt hold that fornication, prostitution and pornography are healthy and normal.
  7. Thou shalt be free to lie, cheat and steal, if it be for the purpose of gaining power and control.
  8. Thou art free to destroy the good name of another, if they threaten secular progressivism and/or it be for the purpose of gaining power and control.
  9. Thou shalt not hold that marriage is a lifelong commitment or that marriage holds one to a singular partner only.
  10. Thou shalt allow government to have complete control of thy property.

How Counterfeit Churches Devalue Christianity-Part I

From the Catechism of St Pius X: 12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

From Catholic Stand

By Nate Guyear

Since the Protestant rebellion over 500 years ago, thousands of Christian denominations and sub-denominations have been established. The rebellion resulted in contradictions, divisions, and confusion that have haunted Christianity ever since. Conversely, we know from history, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition that Jesus Christ founded only one church and gave this single church his preeminent authority. The original church is the one Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago; all others are counterfeit. This article will prove that Jesus founded one church, that it is the Catholic Church, and that all other churches devalue Christianity with their counterfeit nature.

Counterfeit Currency Analogy

When I was a Special Agent with the Secret Service, I and other agents received countless hours of instruction on every denomination of paper currency in circulation. We learned how these notes were made, their security features, size, density, and even the types of ink that were used. Only after gaining a thorough understanding of authentic notes, were we trained on identifying counterfeit currency. The reason for this was quite simple. We needed to know the original in order to identify the myriad counterfeit bills that were being manufactured and circulated. Counterfeit bills are not identical, and they all have something that makes them different from the original.

Additionally, counterfeit currency devalues true currency by diluting our monetary system with an inferior product. For example, let us imagine that the federal government caps the number of $50 denominations at 1000. At some point, 1000 counterfeit $50 bills make their way into circulation, resulting in 100 percent more $50 bills in circulation. A 100 percent increase in bills results in a 50 percent decrease in value because the federal government has backed only 1000 bills. If this activity were to go unchecked, prices for goods would rise to reflect the illegal injection of these bills. Therefore, commerce depends on reliable currency.

Similarly, when learning about Christ and his teachings, we need to know which church is the original and which are counterfeit, because salvation depends on reliable truths passed down from the beginning, preserved, and developed without error. Without this knowledge, we would receive versions of Christianity peppered with lies, watered-down, and devalued. We would consequently worship a type of Jesus Christ who is remade in man’s own image, which would result in a counterfeit Jesus. These counterfeit versions of Jesus would teach what man wants him to teach rather than what he really teaches, and counterfeit churches would falsely claim to preach and teach with Christ’s authority. Therefore, we need to know which Church Christ founded and infused with his preeminent authority.

Scripture on the True Church

In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus says,

And I tell you, you are Peter (meaning rock), and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” Notice that Jesus says he will build his “church” not “churches.

He also says that whatever Peter binds or loosens on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. This authority, though subordinate due to Peter alone having the keys to the kingdom, was also transmitted to the other apostles (see Mt 18:18). Jesus, being God the Son, would have known that the Church he founded would bind and lose many things until the Second Coming. Therefore, God eternally preapproved everything this Church binds and loosens. Consequently, the truth must undergird this power; otherwise, binding and loosing would be built on lies. To say that the Church Jesus founded teaches lies is to say that God had no idea what this Church would teach, or that God predestined a Church ordered toward teaching lies. One position makes God ignorant, the other makes Him a liar.

Matthew 28:18-20 states,

And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

First, “Go, therefore,” means Jesus is giving his apostles his authority. In other words, “Go in my authority.”  Within this authority, they were to teach all nations and baptize “to the close of the age.” The close of the age is not yet here. Therefore, Jesus has not withdrawn his authority from the Church he founded. Second, he instructs his Apostles to make disciples of all nations and to teach others everything he has “commanded” them. You cannot teach someone and direct them to obey unless you have authority. Third, Christ gave his Apostles authority to teach “all nations.” Since the Apostles would not be able to go to, much less teach all nations during their lifetimes, Christ’s authority extends to those selected to succeed them. If they did not select men to succeed them (cf. Acts 1:26), no one would have the authority to teach.

Think about a man walking into a high school classroom and teaching without first being hired and without permission from the school. What would happen? He would be removed because he never received authority to teach. This would happen in any institution. Christ gave authority to the Apostles to teach and to ordain successors to teach after them. When the Protestant forefathers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and King Henry VIII) broke away from the Catholic Church, they lost the authority to teach and remained without authority to appoint successors. Lack of God-given authority is one reason for the perpetual contradictions and divisions in Protestantism.

The Church Jesus founded, however, does not teach contradiction but exists in unity of truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, Matthew 28:18-20 shows church authority, unity, and succession. Acts 15:4-29 provides an excellent example of early church authority and unity. Hebrews 13:17 commands us to obey our spiritual leaders, which is precisely the opposite of what the Protestant forefathers did when they rebelled against Christ’s Church. Many other verses demonstrate the Church’s unity and authority, but we still need to show that the Church described in the aforementioned verses is the Catholic Church.

Acts chapters 9, 19, 22, and 24 mention “the Way,” which was the name of the early Christian community. Clearly, Saints Peter, John, Paul, and the other Apostles were leaders of the Way. With this in mind, read the below paragraphs and notice the connection between the Apostles and their successors. This connection is called apostolic succession, and the Church in which this connection continues to exist is the Catholic Church, aka the Roman Church, a title used in some of the below quotes.

In his Letter to the Roman Church, St. Paul says to the Roman Christians,

To all God’s beloved in Rome who are called to be saints….” “I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Ch. 1).

Scripture nowhere states that the faith of the Roman Church stopped being proclaimed throughout the world. In fact, when one looks at all the churches, one will notice there is no other church that comes close to the size and geographic presence of the Catholic Church (1.3 billion members, 197 countries). The Roman Church’s faith is truly “proclaimed in all the world.” In addition to Scripture, the Early Church Fathers had much to say about this Church (Below quotes from The Fathers Know Best by Apologist Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers Press, San Diego, 2010).

The Early Church Fathers

St. Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop), ordained by St. Peter and taught by St. John, said,

“Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” “…the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will of him that wills all things according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, that presides in the place of the Romans…” (A.D. 110).

The Roman Church was and continues to be Catholic.

St. Polycarp (A.D. 69-155) was a disciple of St. John and bishop of Smyrna. A letter titled the Martyrdom of Polycarp states,

Having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquiring the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 189, bishop and disciple of St. Polycarp, argued, “…we confute all those who,…assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating those Traditions derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.”  “For it is a matter of necessity that every church agrees with this church (the one in Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, in so far as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” By refusing to agree with the Roman Church’s teachings, other churches separate themselves from authentic Christianity.

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth under Pope Soter (A.D. 170), wrote,

From the beginning, it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways…, you Romans (meaning the church in Rome) keep up the hereditary custom of the Romans, which your blessed Bishop Soter has not only maintained, but added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.

Tertullian of Carthage (A.D 155-240), early Christian author, wrote in A.D. 200,

Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago, in the reign of Antonius for the most part, and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius….

These men were members of the Catholic Church but later spread heresies. The reason they were heretics was because they were Catholics who intentionally taught contrary to the teachings of the Church Christ founded.

Lastly, St. Hegesippus wrote,

And when I had come to Rome, I remained there until Anicetus (eleventh bishop of Rome), whose deacon was Eleutherius. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherius” (A.D. 180).

The early bishop/historian St. Irenaeus also verified the list of Rome’s early bishops. Note: J.N.D. Kelly’s, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes,” traces the names and biographical information of all popes from St. Peter to today.

Other Early Church Fathers and historical figures who wrote about Roman Church’s preeminent authority include St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251), Firmilian of Caesarea (A.D. 255), Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 312), Pope St. Julius I (A.D. 341), Council of Sardica (A.D. 342), St. Optatus of Milevis (A.D. 367), St. Jerome (A.D. 376), Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), St. Augustine (A.D. 411) and many others.

When the Dogma Lives Loudly

His Excellency looks at the deep anti-Christian and especially anti-Catholic bigotry that has come to be a companion ideology to socialism in the Democratic Party.

From First Things

By Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled federal circuit court nominee—and now Supreme Court nominee—Amy Coney Barrett three years ago, she fretted that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”

Given the senator’s obvious prejudices, she should indeed be concerned. Ms. Barrett’s life story suggests that she actually believes and seeks to live what her Catholic faith teaches. Worse, she has a superb intellect, a deep grasp of the law, and an excellent record as a jurist. In other words, she’s a nightmare for a certain kind of political tribe.

Let’s put aside for a moment Sen. Feinstein’s Know Nothing-style vulgarity. After all, she’s hardly alone in her bigotry. Disdain for vigorous religious convictions, especially the Catholic kind, is a virus that’s going around. It seems to infect a number of Democratic senators, including Sen. Kamala Harris, Feinstein’s California colleague and vice presidential nominee, who saw looming peril in that dangerous national conspiracy otherwise known as the Knights of Columbus.  

 Sen. Feinstein’s words help us see clearly how some in our political class now view Catholics who are more than merely “nominal” in their faith. It’s true that anyone baptized as a Catholic is, in fact, a Catholic. In the eyes of the Democratic party, that’s not a problem. If you’re photographed piously with your rosary beads at prayer—even better. The cultural loyalty of many Catholic voters to a once heavily Catholic, working-class party dies hard, no matter how different that party is today. As an elected official, you may even get an award from a major Catholic institution. But if you’re the kind of Catholic who seeks to discipline his or her life around Catholic beliefs regarding marriage and family, religious freedom, sex, and abortion—well, that’s a different matter, as Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski discovered when his own party dumped him in a primary earlier this year. In Bill Maher’s immortal words, a woman like Amy Coney Barrett, whatever her professional credentials, is just “a [expletive] nut.”  

In a sane age, these kinds of attacks, more appropriate to a restroom wall than discourse in a nation of laws, would be seen as loathsome. But we don’t live in a sane moment, as Sens. Feinstein and Harris, and Mr. Maher, have helpfully demonstrated.

Catholics in this country spent more than a century fighting their way into the American mainstream. The cost has been high. To the degree that self-described Catholic political leaders are indistinguishable in their views and actions from their colleagues with no faith at all, the cost has been far too high. Millions of Catholics have served and died defending this nation, its freedoms, and its institutions. In the last century, all of the military chaplains awarded the Medal of Honor were Catholic priests. A politics of democratic pluralism requires that differences of belief must be respected. Catholics cannot, and don’t, expect those with different convictions to agree with their religious beliefs. But Catholics do rightly demand civility and respect for the teachings of their Church, especially from a Senate supposedly informed by a spirit of service to the whole nation.  

Today’s hostility toward those who support Catholic teaching should concern every practicing Catholic—and anyone who values the First Amendment. If attacks on belief are an acceptable standard by which to impugn judicial nominees today, then tomorrow they’ll be used on the rest of us who uphold the teachings of our faith. What’s been playing out in Senate confirmation hearings and public debates over judicial nominees is a harbinger of future attacks on the Church herself and on any Catholic who holds with her enduring moral witness. Over the past decade, we’ve already seen the Catholic Church— and many of her ministries and institutions—targeted specifically for matters of belief.

Those who value our First Amendment right to religious freedom should realize that tests about belief are attacks on religious liberty. And positioning dissenting Catholics as “mainstream Americans” and believing Catholics as “extremists”—now a common and thoroughly dishonest culture war technique—is a particular affront to the free exercise of religion. It puts the rights of far more Americans at risk than will ever be nominated for the court.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop emeritus of Philadelphia. His latest book, Things Worth Dying For: Thoughts on a Life Worth Living, will be published by Holt in March 2021.

The Catholic Report HHTV News | Terrible Tudors | Horrible Histories

Actually, a rather accurate account of the Protestant Revolt in England and its aftermath, but presented in a very funny format.

From Horrible Histories

/Satire/ CNN Reports Amy Coney Barrett Attended Bizarre Ceremony Where She Ate Flesh, Drank Blood Of Jewish Guy /satire/

Whilst this is satire, it is exactly what we accused of in ancient pagan Rome. This time they'll use other excuses to persecute us.

From The Babylon Bee

SOUTH BEND, IN—In a disturbing new report, CNN has revealed the bizarre practices of the strange cult Amy Coney Berrett belongs to. Known to some as "Christendom," it features many ancient rituals that were recorded by undercover CNN journalists at a strange stone building on Sunday where the ceremonies were held.

"I've never seen anything like this," said CNN's investigative reporter from the scene. "This is really, really sick stuff. It's never been more clear to me that Amy Coney Barrett is an existential threat to our civil liberties, in addition to being a major weirdo."

According to sources, the building where these rituals take place is littered with statues of dead people. In addition to the statues, the central feature of the inner sanctum is a giant torture device with the likeness of a victim being nailed to it.

"Please be advised," said the CNN anchor reporting the news. "What you're about to see is disturbing."

Secret cameras showed Amy Coney Barrett kneeling before a priest-type figure as he recited some kind of incantation in a dead tongue. The priest then held up a round wafer and a goblet of red liquid which he announced to be the true body and blood of a Jewish rabbi who died 2000 years ago.

"I can't believe I'm about to say this, but she ate and drank the stuff," said the reporter with trembling lips. "This is horrifying. Amy Coney Barrett must be stopped!"

They then brought a newborn baby to a basin of water and attempted to drown it. Fortunately, the baby survived. After the ceremony, they crossed themselves in what appears to be a vague reference to the Crusades and a white-supremacist dog-whistle.

"This woman is clearly looney-tunes. No chance she'll be confirmed," concluded CNN.

Exploring the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem

Real Crusades History #311. And don't forget the Real Crusades History website!

Footage from my recent trip to Jerusalem. I got a chance to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, a major site for the history of the Crusades.

Card. Zen Comes to Rome to Meet the Pope, Who Has No Time for Him.

If he met with Cardinal Zen his ChiCom BFFs might be offended. He doesn't want that to happen. Why, they might decide to persecute the Church!

From Stilum Curiæ

By Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, yesterday I met with Cardinal Joseph Zen, who came to Rome on purpose from Hong Kong – for a visit limited to only 120 hours, just four days – in order to see the reigning Pontiff and speak to him about the Church in Hong Kong.

The cardinal, who is 88, left Rome this morning without having an audience with the reigning Pontiff. If the human quality of a person is seen in small details, I don’t know how someone should be judged – who is a boss – who cannot find half an hour in four days to meet with an elderly priest, who despite various health problems decided because of his love for the Church to undertake a journey from the other side of the world. I understand that there may be people who are judged to be embarrassing, annoying, and so forth. But I seem to vaguely recall that among the works of mercy there is the one that calls us to put up with annoying people. Or even with those who are only subjectively considered to be so. But apparently during these days the reigning Pontiff was too preoccupied with beheading his collaborators to receive one of his most faithful and elderly advisers.

We have gathered here some of the things the Cardinal said during a meeting he had with some friends and colleagues in Rome. On the situation in China and Hong Kong, he is not very optimistic: “We are now at the bottom,” he said, and he fears there will be some dramatic development in the near future.

“I came for the sake of one thing for Hong Kong. To plead the case for [the appointment of] our future bishop.

– For more than a year and a half we have been without a bishop in Hong Kong. At the beginning, there was the good idea of making an auxiliary bishop who would remain when the bishop died; a nice Franciscan who is also courageous: Msgr. Joseph Ha Chi-shing… He has criticized the government courteously, without shouting.

– This auxiliary bishop was spoken of as a successor. But now it is said that someone is needed who has the blessing of Beijing, and so a priest is being put forward, Peter Choi. Many of us do not see him as a good choice. The community has been divided.

– At a certain point they understood that he [Choi] was not a convenient choice and they said: let’s look for a third person. In these days I see, I suspect, that the other group is trying to again put the second name back into play, that is, Peter Choi.

– I came with a letter for the Holy Father, to tell him that if this happens it will be a disaster for the Church of Hong Kong, a disaster for decades. I told him that I am here for 3-4 days, if he wants to call me…but I was not called. I delivered the letter that I had written to the Pope to his personal secretary, Gonzalo Aemilius. I understand that he must be very busy…

I waited four days to be called, but I have not been called. And so today I am going back to Hong Kong.

It will be horrible if they make Peter Choi the Bishop.

It is ridiculous that he would be preferred only because he would be agreeable to Beijing. Beijing is a tyrant.

Two Cheers for Archbishop Cordileone

Lex iniusta non est lex  (An unjust law is no law at all) St Augustine said, and the Angelic Doctor agreed with him (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 96, a. 4, c.).

From Catholic Culture

By Phil Lawler

As much as I admire Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for challenging restrictions on the Church in San Francisco…

As much as I applaud him for bringing our Eucharistic Lord out onto the streets of the city…

As much as I thank him for taking the lead (when so many other prelates remain silent) in insisting that religious worship is “essential activity”…

As fully as I agree with him that the response from city officials—or rather, their failure to make any response—is an insult to Catholics…

Still I wonder: If the archbishop thinks that the city’s restrictions are unreasonable—if he thinks that it would be safe to celebrate Mass for a larger congregation in the city’s cathedral—why doesn’t he take the obvious action? Why doesn’t he go into his own cathedral, invite the public, and celebrate Mass?

Before I go any further let me emphasize that I do not mean to single out Archbishop Cordileone for criticism here. On the contrary, I mean to praise him. The question that I ask of him could apply, far more pointedly, to all the other bishops and priests who have meekly accepted unreasonable restrictions on the administration of the sacraments—to the bishops and priests who have not raised public objections, have not mobilized the faithful, have not organized Eucharistic processions.

Give Archbishop Cordileone full credit for speaking truth to power: for telling the faithful who joined him last Sunday outside the cathedral that city officials “are mocking you, and even worse, they are mocking God.” Credit him, too, for the public campaign that has urged faithful Catholics to call San Francisco’s Mayor London Breed, and has already raised 17,000 signatures on a petition “asking the City of San Francisco to free the Mass.

But again: Why ask city officials to “free” the Mass? There is only one man who has the rightful authority to restrict and regulate the liturgy of the Catholic Church in San Francisco, and his name is Cordileone. If he wants to celebrate Mass for the public in his cathedral, he can do it.

But wait, you say. He can’t celebrate Mass for the public in his cathedral. It would be against the law.

To which I respond: what law?

Argument #1: Is there an actual piece of legislation, duly enacted by the people’s elected representatives, that prohibits the public celebration of the Eucharist? (Here I am deliberately painting the situation with a broad brush, so that my argument applies not just to San Francisco but to the many other jurisdictions where the Mass has been restricted.) Or is this a regulatory order, issued by a bureaucrat whose authority is at best uncertain? Is it an executive order, issued by a mayor or governor? And if so, are ordinary citizens—who are not employees of the executive—legally bound? Diocesan lawyers should be exploring those questions aggressively.

Argument #2:: Even if there is a law, and it does have prima facie validity, is it not a clear violation of our First Amendment guarantee that prohibits not only the establishment of religion, but also “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? Christians should not be “asking” the government to lift discriminatory restrictions on public worship but demanding our rights, and enlisting legal help to challenge every such restriction.

Argument #3: Even if a legitimate act of legislation is in place, and even if that law survives a Constitutional challenge, it is an unjust law, and the Church teaches that unjust laws do not command our obedience. Indeed the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes further, saying: “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.” [emphasis added]

What could be more directly contrary to the demands of the moral order than a draconian restriction on the celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit” of our spiritual life? What could be more clearly contrary to the teachings of the Gospel than a regulation that is a “mockery of God?”

Last Sunday, speaking to the crowd outside the cathedral, Archbishop Cordileone acknowledged that on at least one past occasion he had knowingly violated the law. He explained:

I was aware that I was breaking the law, since it is against the law to provide transportation to an undocumented immigrant. But the highest law is love of God and love of neighbor, and that law has to take precedence over the human-made law of the state when government would ask us to turn our backs on God or our neighbor in need.

Right. And today—and every day—there is nothing our neighbors need more than the celebration of the Eucharist. If it is justifiable to defy the law to give a bus ticket to a stranger, how much more justifiable to defy a questionable law to give the people the Eucharistic food that promises eternal life?

Archbishop Cordileone has protested repeatedly that city officials have ignored requests and complaints and pleas and demands from the Catholic Church. Let’s hope, then, that if the archbishop leads the faithful back into the cathedral next Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist, city officials will ignore them once again. The alternative is, I admit, distressing: hundreds of Catholics, including the archbishop, could be jailed. Distressing, but not unprecedented. Over the years countless thousands of Christians have spent time behind bars.

Again, I do not mean to single out Archbishop Cordileone for criticism. He has done far more than his episcopal colleagues to rally the faithful and to vindicate the rights of the Church. What I have said above applies far more forcefully to those bishops who have not challenged unreasonable restrictions on the practice of the faith.

Last week Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia, issued a letter suggesting that the Covid lockdown had produced a “Pentecost moment” for the faith, encouraging many new initiatives of creative evangelization. Bishop Burbidge, too, obviously intended to encourage these initiatives, to promote the active practice of the faith in a difficult time. In praising new ways of communicating the faith, Bishop Burbidge pointed to St. Paul as “the model of the early Christian communicator.” Of course St. Paul spent time in prison, and eventually was executed by civil authorities. But Bishop Burbidge notes: “The Church grew even when facing the harshest of persecutions.”

Just before citing the example of St. Paul, Bishop Burbidge made another important point about the early Church:

When threatened by authorities to cease preaching in public about the Good News of the Lord, the response of St. Peter and St. John was that to stop communicating was not an option. “It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” [Acts 4:20]

The apostles didn’t stop celebrating the faith, despite threats of legal punishment. Insofar as they are our models, neither should we.