Carlos Caso-Rosendi has writen an opinion piece for his blog casorosendi.com. We agree on this. Here I sit in Chicago at my parents home surrounded by Liberals. They know I am a conservative, so they instantly assume I approve of GWB. No amount of discussion can disuade them from this idea that to be conservative means Republican. It is frustrating for a Monarchist. Carlos has captured my thoughts and has verbalized they far better than I...
We are at the midnight hour of election day in America. Two years ago, the so called "conservatives" in power took a beating at the polls. Did that happen because the administration policies were too conservative, and the country wanted a more liberal course?
No.
It happened because, after 9-11, the Republican administration started behaving like the Lyndon Johnson administration, growing the size of government and spending money as if there was no tomorrow. Hurricane Katrina showed us an incompetent U.S. President, surrounded by incompetent executive aides. One must admit that one of them was aptly named "Brownie". At this point I must make a serious effort not to make a very crass analogy. But I digress.
The war in Irak—justified or not—was incompetently managed until good Gen. Petraeus was given the command and the tools and personnel to turn the disaster around. Gen. Petraeus did an excellent job, militarily and politically. He certainly deserves our grateful admiration. Why those changes were not implemented 48 months before? I hate to repeat myself but no synonyms of "incompetence" come to mind.
Meanwhile, government kept growing. Apparently, the network of national security and intelligence agencies that worked brilliantly for decades keeping the nefarious Soviets at bay, was not enough to keep a bearded idiot plotting in a cave from harming us. We had to move everything around and create Homeland Security. Again, I have no idea if that was necessary or not, but one thing I know: it was not a cheap move.
Then came the financial debacle cooked in the halls of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae under the watchful eyes of our beloved House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Commission. Oh! If we had appointed them to take care of the World Trade Center Towers, may be they would have guarded them with the same zeal they guarded the jeweled minarets of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae! Too bad we did not think of that! Here we are left with a $300,000,000,000 i.o.u. That is the down payment to "save our economy." Thank you our dear Harvard and Yale MBA's!
Not surprisingly, the American voters would have elected ANYONE but a Republican to the presidency this year of the Lord 2008. The size of the punishment fits the size of the monumental incompetence of the pseudo-conservatives. Am I glad they were conservatives! Should they have been liberals, we could be sending our firstborn to China to pay for the latest piece of crap made in Tianjin!
And finally, this prickly issue of the "pro-life" vote. Thanks to you, incompetent pseudo-conservatives, we may have handed the helm and power of the United States to the most Malthusian, pro-abortion administration ever. The little progress we had made for the pro-life cause in the last eight years, is sure to be steamrolled by the hordes of Planned Parenthood and the Party of Death. Wear that in your conscience, Brownies.
I have one more thing to do and that is to congratulate Mr. Barack Obama for an efficient and effective campaign. Sen. Obama, with little political experience managed to organize a winning force out of nothing. Quite a contrast with the administration's gang that could not shoot straight: they got a country with a surplus of reserves and left it nearly bankrupt. We voted for McCain eight years too late!
I hope to see a few of you disappear from the Conservative Movement and retire. You have money and can do it without a problem. To the leaders of the Virginia Republican Party, and those Catholic Conservative 'leaders'—especially those who cannot keep it in their pants—to the whole Bush Brigade, including our most loyal General Pro-Choice: my sincere thanks. It will be nice not to see you any more.
To Mr. McCain, my admiration and sincere thanks for fighting the good fight and also for introducing Sarah Palin to the Conservative scene. She is like a breath of fresh air. I have high hopes for her. God bless both of you and your families.
Palin 2012
Thank You Carlos...
God Remains King!
de Brantigny
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Liberalism: Sin, Iniquity, Abomination
Liberalism: Sin, Iniquity, Abomination
By Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge, S. J.
This essay by Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge has been published in Spanish by Ediciones del Alcázar, Buenos Aires, under the title El Liberalismo es la Iniquidad—La Rebelión Contra el Padre (Liberalism is 'the' Iniquity-The Rebellion Against the Father.)
Many authors have exposed the failures and flaws of Liberalism, its historical and philosophical precedents, and consequences. In this exposition we shall analyze the concept of liberalism as sin. This is what liberalism really represents: a systematic rebellion against Divine Paternity. In the classic sense of the word, Liberalism is an abomination.
Liberalism is not simply a sin but 'the' sin. Therefore, when we call it "a sin", we could misunderstand it as just another sin among many. In reality, liberalism is the sin par excellence, root, base and pinnacle of all sin.
By introducing this brief precision I believe I have interpreted correctly the ultimate intention of Fr. Felix Sardá i Salvany, who titled his work Liberalism is Sin [1]
The thesis
When I say that Liberalism is 'the' sin, the quintessential sin; I intent to advance one step closer to the comprehension of the type of sin we are dealing with, and the reason why Liberalism must be defined in that unique way.
My thesis could be summarized as follows: Liberalism is 'the' sin, because Liberalism is intrinsically evil. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit, the rejection of the Son, and the rebellion against the Father.
We need to understand the importance and depth of this affirmation. Liberalism is the direct sin against Christ and the Father. Consequently, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We shall see later that this is the sin that is called "the iniquity" in the New Testament, the sin of the Devil. The book of wisdom says that by envy—by ακηδία [1] of the Devil—death entered the world and those who belong to them, experience that death when they rebel against God, [2] and just like the Devil they aspire to place themselves in the place of God. They are also in accordance with the Devil in his negative to serve God. This is the sum of all evil, the supreme iniquity. Its complete manifestation is reserved for the Time of the End. This is what Saint Paul calls "The Mystery of Iniquity" (Mysterium Iniquitatis.) [3]
Liberalism is exposed as a manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, denounced by Saint Paul as a force acting incipiently in a covert manner already in apostolic times.
We will return to this topic and examine it in more detail. However, it is convenient to define in advance the concept of iniquity. According to the New Testament, iniquity consists in rejecting Jesus Christ and the revelation of God the Father, as agents of man's life and salvation. Iniquity is the opposition to the Holy Spirit by an impure spirit. It is therefore a direct sin against the Holy Spirit.
This rejection can be explicit or implicit. Explicit like that of the Jews and others who deny the validity of the Christian revelation in history. Implicit, like that of the practical atheists, or those who are indifferent, or those who do not oppose the truth but simply consider truth implicit, and relegate it to the bin of unnecessary, or inconvenient things that are hard to explain.
A recent example
Let me propose an example to show which types of silence, omission, or forgetfulness I am referring to.
His Holiness Benedict XVI introduced a small modification in the text of the Theme of the Fifth Conference of the Episcopate in Latin America and the Caribbean. The title of the theme that was presented to him was: "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life".
The Pope added two words: 'in Him', changing it to "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life 'in Him'".
With this smallest addition of two words ('in Him') the Pope called our attention to something fundamentally essential. If that something would have remained implicit, it could have covered a dire ambiguity in the comprehension of the expression "may have life".
To have life 'in Him' means to have the fullness of life as sons. The life announced by Jesus Christ. The goal of the disciple's mission remains defined explicitly by its objective: "so that they may have life 'in Him'".
This inspired addition, introduced by the Vicar of Christ, prevented the whole theme of the Conference, (and even the Conference itself) from being infected by that kind of Gramscian reductionism, that limits the life of man to a purely material existence. That immanentist reduction that has its roots in Rationalism, Naturalism, and Liberalism, finding its final form in Marxist Materialism.
I would be satisfied if, at the end of my exposition, I had been able to explain the nature of the sin of Liberalism, helping to comprehend better the nature of the danger avoided by the Pope, when he reminded us that the goal of our missionary work is to aid the peoples to have life in Christ through the message of God the Father. That life is the fullness of life that we can only have 'in Him'. Such life consists of entering in communion with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.
Notice how, at the bottom of that vague imprecision in the original phrase—at the root of that casual omission—lay something that could have been wrongly construed as an essential part of the Gospel. That ambiguity left just enough room for a surreptitious infection of the message with the Liberal concept that separates human life from its life in God. In that Naturalist vision, the ultimate horizon in the life of man is merely the quality of life.
That silence could have been particularly damaging if its origin would have been a forgetting of the essential. It would have been demonic if its origin would have been a conscious aversion towards the essential.
Félix Sardá i Salvany: Liberalism is sin
Before going any further it is necessary to define, as a fundamental point of reference, the diagnostic given to us by Fr. Félix Sardá i Salvany in his work "Liberalism is Sin". There Fr. Sardá writes:
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it all heresies are comprehended. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected—from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.
Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth—or a truth consequent upon Revelation—by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.
It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, "I will not serve." Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect—not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.
When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.
We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator. [4]
The road to follow
Fr. Sardá i Salvany tells the truth. There is more, though a lot is implicit in the precise diagnostic of the Spanish apologist. The first consequence we that Liberalism is 'the sin' in a specific sense: it is 'the iniquity' identified in the New Testament as the setting in place of the supreme anti-Christian, anti-God evil. The seed of that iniquity lies hidden in history waiting to sprout a virulent manifestation. This is also an eschatological sign, because it is the cause of the final dissolution of mankind an the preamble to the reign of the Antichrist.
As we shall see, Saint John defines 'that sin' as η ανομία (ē anomía 'the iniquity'). This sin is particular and unique, this η ανομία (indifferent negligence that makes no difference between good and evil) always appears in the New Testament as a characteristic of the Antichrist and the End of Times, the Final Judgment, or the παρουσία (parousia) of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From the beginning of the Church it is applied to the rejection of Jesus Christ and God the Father, whom the Son comes to reveal. Saint John affirms that in his First Letter:
"... many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour [...] This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." [5]
That denial or rejection was experienced by Jesus Christ Himself during his life. He defined it as a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". [6] The same rejection was experienced by all the apostolic ecclesial communities, because it is present and operates within them. Saint John and also Saint Paul interpreted its nature in the light of the words of Jesus. They announced its recrudescence in the End of Times.
One example of evil language
As a sample of the language of the modern iniquity, please read what was said by David Friedrich Strauss, Pastor and Theologian, self-appointed arbiter of what we should consider an acceptable Christ:
As long as Christianity is considered like something given to Mankind from outside itself; Christ as something who came from Heaven; His Church like an institution for the forgiveness of sins by means of His blood; Christianity will be understood in a Jewish way and the Religion of the Spirit will continue to be fleshly. Christianity will only be understood when we recognize in it a Mankind made more aware of itself than it has ever been aware so far: that Jesus is only that Man in Whom that profound conscience was manifested for the first time like a force determinant of His whole life and His whole being; and that sin can be erased only by access to this new conscience. [7]
The rebellion against the Father
The aforementioned words of Saint John, teach us that lastly, 'the sin', the worse evil, is the rejection of God the Father, the rebellion against a God-Father. That rejection and rebellion are manifested in the rejection of the Son (sent by the Father,) and of those disciples sent by the Son. The Son is rejected because the Father is also rejected. The Father is rejected by those seeking to avoid being subject to Him by filial obedience.
We must remember that the rejection of both obedience and subjection to God's government of human affairs has long established biblical roots. Remember the people of Israel who wanted to be freed from the lead of Moses [8]. Later, the Israelites asked Samuel to give them a King, like the kings of the neighboring nations.
God interpreted that request as an intent of secularization of political life, a form of early liberalism: "They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me, so that I don't rule over them." [9] Certainly, the Israelite monarchy would come to be the history of the infidelities of the chosen people to their Covenant with God, with the kings they have asked for, acting as leaders of the apostasy.
In the New Testament we find the Parable of the Murderous Vineyard Workers. They kill the son to take possession of their master's vineyard for themselves.
Let us recall the words of Jesus: "He who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives the One who sent me." [10] Also, inversely: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the Father who sent me." [11]
The rejection of God found in the Old Testament continues manifesting itself, as reported in the New Testament, in the form of a rejection of God the Father.
Heresies of Liberal origin
Within the Christian world—including the Catholic world—there were produced certain forms of religious liberalism. This religious Liberalism, criticized by John Henry Cardinal Newman, produced deviations and heretic theologies containing the rejection of God the Father that we observe and suffer even today.
One of them was the so-called Deism. Deism accepts God as a Creator, a Supreme Architect. But, once the house has been constructed, God leaves it in the hands of its inhabitants. He does not keep any relation with them, leaving them without the possibility of communion or closeness. Deism was a Naturalist, Rationalist rejection of the Christian revelation. It believed in a Creator God with whom there is no possible communion or communication.
Cardinal Pie cleverly diagnosed that, rejecting the communion with a God that invites us to commune, "it is nothing but the fear of vertigo produced by the wondrous heights that God calls us to climb." [12] That fear to the sublime union, will later invade all dimensions of human life, giving origin to Liberal individualism, the master-slave dialectic substituting Christian brotherhood, class warfare, and finally, the dictatorship of the envious that will impose the hatred of the best [13] and the tyranny of Equalitarianism in the name of Democracy.
From Jesus 'without Father' to Jesus 'against the Father'
A further consequence of religious Liberalism has been the Reductionist vision of Christ, in the style of the one proposed by David Friedrich Strauss we read earlier. This Jesuanism presents a historical Jesus separated from the Christ of the faith, with no reference ever being made to the Father as the final goal of the Gospel's message.
In the theological-pastoral discourse emerging from that proposition, the Father is relegated to a silent, implicit role. The Father is only explained when someone demands an explanation.
The Dominican Father Le Guillou has said about that contemporary Jesuanism:
"This places [...] Christ, not with the Father, but in lieu of the Father. In that way we see the vague design of a kind of Christicism, or Jesuanism (generally leaving the name of the Father silent) that tries to pass for real Christianity." [14]
Saint Paul teaches us: "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" [15] That which is not preached is not believed. That is the horrific consequence of leaving the Father in an implicit role, falling outside the conscience of both preacher and faithful.
This fact has been pointed out by Monsignor Josef Cordes in his work: The Eclipse of the Father, in these words:
"When one asks the great contemporary theologians of both confessions (Protestant and Catholic) about the Father of Jesus Christ, one acquires a surprising perspective: the researchers think more frequently and more markedly about 'God' that in the "Eternal Father'. If one calculates the statistical average of how many times the word 'Father' is used in the Father-Son relationship, the word is sadly relegated." [16]
This is the result of the liberal contagion that has affected the common sense of culture and overflows to the faithful, affecting them and the preachers as well. Once could say, extending the words of Saint Paul: How will they preach if they don't believe?
The Jesuanism, or pastoral criticism, is frequently proposed by the Protestant sects and ecclesial communities. Protestants preachers heard in tents and radio programs come to mind. Their message is the announcement of Christ as the personal savior, without a reference to the Father, nor the entering in communion with Him as the point of completion of the salvation they announce.
That same illness has been extended among, and penetrates into the common sense of Catholics, priests and theologians included. I refer you to your own experience in hearing the preachers in our own temples.
Something caught my attention in the final message of the Conference of Aparecida—please note that I am not referring to the magnificent Final Document of the Conference, but to the Final Message, a sort of draft of the Final Document written by the Ad Hoc Commission—In this Final Message, different from the later, final document, the Father ends up relegated to an implicit role in the whole opening part, the doctrinal-kerygmatic speaking of Jesus (10 times,) or Lord Jesus (1 time,) or Jesus Christ (4 times.) In the message the Father is mentioned three times. He is never mentioned in the first part, where Jesus Christ is presented, but later after passing over the doctrinal-kerygmatic moment, in the parenthetical context of the fourth and fifth sections. In this manner Jesus Christ is presented predominantly as Jesus, without an explicit reference to His Father.
The contrast with the original discourse of Benedict XVI is remarkable. There, Benedict XVI reiterates explicitly, that the Father is the goal of the evangelizing process to which the Conference of Aparecida is calling. [17] That is reflected in the Final Document.
This phenomenon I have been describing so far—the growing detachment of Jesus from the Father in pastoral preaching—is emphasized until it reaches a form of paroxysm in the diffusion of Freudian psychoanalysis.
Father Ignatius Anderggen has written:
Freudian psychoanalysis, as a method and technique, is intrinsically in solidarity with its fundamental intent of reaching a full awareness of the rebellion of man against God the Father, the rebellion rooted in the unconscious structure of those vices and passions of man that have not been restored by grace. This intention of Freud, and also of Nietzsche, consists in their conscious opposition against God and their pretension of taking God's place." [18]
Will continue soon...
References
[1] ακηδία, pron. ah-ceh-dee-ah; meaning negligence, indifference, for the wicked are indifferent, make no distinction between good and evil. Latin acidĭa, derived from the same Greek word.
[2] Wisdom 2, 24.
[3] 2 Thessalonians 2,7.
[4] Félix Sardá i Salvany, El liberalismo es pecado, (Liberalism is Sin), Ediciones Cruz y Fierro, Buenos Aires, 1977. Colección Clásicos Contrarrevolucionarios 2. Cited from the Spanish edition in c. III pp. 32-34.
[5] 1 John 2, 18-23.
[6] Mark 3, 29.
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus for German Working People), Leipzig 1864, p. 18.
[8] Exodus 32, 1: When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
[9] 1 Samuel 8, 7; Cfr. Luke 19, 14 `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[10] Matthew 10, 40.
[11] Luke 10, 16.
[12] Alfredo Sáenz, El Cardenal Pie. Lucidez y Coraje al Servicio de la Verdad. (Cardenal Pie. Lucidity and Courage in the Service of Truth). Editorial Gladius, Buenos Aires. 2nd. Ed. 2007, p. 276.
[13] See the study by Helmut Schoeck, La Envidia. Una Teoría de la Sociedad (Envy. A Theory of Society). Ed. Club de Lectores, Buenos Aires 1969.
[14] M. J. Le Guillou, O.P. El Misterio del Padre. Fe de los Apóstoles (The Mystery of the Father. Faith of the Apostles). Gnosis Actuales. Editorial Encuentro, Madrid 1998, p. 196.
[15] Romans 10, 14.
[16] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, cited in p. 167.
[17] In the discourse of Benedict XVI the reference of Jesus Christ to the Father is very clear. Jesus has come to reveal the Father. The discourse expresses clearly this relation of Jesus to the Father in three main passages.
1-By pointing at what must be done by the Conference of Aparecida with the situation faced by the Latin American Continent at this point. "A new situation is being analyzed here in Aparecida. Facing these crossroads, the, the faithful expect of this new Conference, a renewal and revitalization of their faith in Christ, our only Teacher and Savior, who has revealed to us the unique experience of the Father's infinite love for mankind."
2-By pointing at Jesus as the one who reveals God: "For the Christian the nucleus of the response is simple" Only God knows God, only His Son, Who is God, is from God, true God can know Him. "He who is 'in the bossom of the Father', has revealed Him."
3-By pointing at the charism and the mission of those religious and consecrated people: "remind your brothers and sisters that the Kingdom of God has arrived already; that justice and truth are possible if we are open to the loving presence of God our Father, of Christ our Brother and Lord, and the Holy Spirit our Consoler."
[18] Fr. Ignatius Andereggen: Santo Tomás de Aquino- Psicólogo (St. Thomas Aquinas-Psychologist). Sapientia, 205 (1999) 59-68. R. Fr. Andereggen refers these affirmations by Sigmund Freud to: Totem y Tabú (Totem and Taboo), Buenos Aires 1993, 155-156.
[19] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, p. 179.
Thank you Carlos. However, I have to remind you that if liberialism is a sin, then an elected government is sinful. It places the state in the supreme authority over the lives of the people (subjects). Is it not as if the children give the parents authority to raise them? http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2008/09/democracy.html
A tip of the beret to you...
Jhesu+Marie,
de Brantigny
By Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge, S. J.
This essay by Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge has been published in Spanish by Ediciones del Alcázar, Buenos Aires, under the title El Liberalismo es la Iniquidad—La Rebelión Contra el Padre (Liberalism is 'the' Iniquity-The Rebellion Against the Father.)
Many authors have exposed the failures and flaws of Liberalism, its historical and philosophical precedents, and consequences. In this exposition we shall analyze the concept of liberalism as sin. This is what liberalism really represents: a systematic rebellion against Divine Paternity. In the classic sense of the word, Liberalism is an abomination.
Liberalism is not simply a sin but 'the' sin. Therefore, when we call it "a sin", we could misunderstand it as just another sin among many. In reality, liberalism is the sin par excellence, root, base and pinnacle of all sin.
By introducing this brief precision I believe I have interpreted correctly the ultimate intention of Fr. Felix Sardá i Salvany, who titled his work Liberalism is Sin [1]
The thesis
When I say that Liberalism is 'the' sin, the quintessential sin; I intent to advance one step closer to the comprehension of the type of sin we are dealing with, and the reason why Liberalism must be defined in that unique way.
My thesis could be summarized as follows: Liberalism is 'the' sin, because Liberalism is intrinsically evil. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit, the rejection of the Son, and the rebellion against the Father.
We need to understand the importance and depth of this affirmation. Liberalism is the direct sin against Christ and the Father. Consequently, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We shall see later that this is the sin that is called "the iniquity" in the New Testament, the sin of the Devil. The book of wisdom says that by envy—by ακηδία [1] of the Devil—death entered the world and those who belong to them, experience that death when they rebel against God, [2] and just like the Devil they aspire to place themselves in the place of God. They are also in accordance with the Devil in his negative to serve God. This is the sum of all evil, the supreme iniquity. Its complete manifestation is reserved for the Time of the End. This is what Saint Paul calls "The Mystery of Iniquity" (Mysterium Iniquitatis.) [3]
Liberalism is exposed as a manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, denounced by Saint Paul as a force acting incipiently in a covert manner already in apostolic times.
We will return to this topic and examine it in more detail. However, it is convenient to define in advance the concept of iniquity. According to the New Testament, iniquity consists in rejecting Jesus Christ and the revelation of God the Father, as agents of man's life and salvation. Iniquity is the opposition to the Holy Spirit by an impure spirit. It is therefore a direct sin against the Holy Spirit.
This rejection can be explicit or implicit. Explicit like that of the Jews and others who deny the validity of the Christian revelation in history. Implicit, like that of the practical atheists, or those who are indifferent, or those who do not oppose the truth but simply consider truth implicit, and relegate it to the bin of unnecessary, or inconvenient things that are hard to explain.
A recent example
Let me propose an example to show which types of silence, omission, or forgetfulness I am referring to.
His Holiness Benedict XVI introduced a small modification in the text of the Theme of the Fifth Conference of the Episcopate in Latin America and the Caribbean. The title of the theme that was presented to him was: "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life".
The Pope added two words: 'in Him', changing it to "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life 'in Him'".
With this smallest addition of two words ('in Him') the Pope called our attention to something fundamentally essential. If that something would have remained implicit, it could have covered a dire ambiguity in the comprehension of the expression "may have life".
To have life 'in Him' means to have the fullness of life as sons. The life announced by Jesus Christ. The goal of the disciple's mission remains defined explicitly by its objective: "so that they may have life 'in Him'".
This inspired addition, introduced by the Vicar of Christ, prevented the whole theme of the Conference, (and even the Conference itself) from being infected by that kind of Gramscian reductionism, that limits the life of man to a purely material existence. That immanentist reduction that has its roots in Rationalism, Naturalism, and Liberalism, finding its final form in Marxist Materialism.
I would be satisfied if, at the end of my exposition, I had been able to explain the nature of the sin of Liberalism, helping to comprehend better the nature of the danger avoided by the Pope, when he reminded us that the goal of our missionary work is to aid the peoples to have life in Christ through the message of God the Father. That life is the fullness of life that we can only have 'in Him'. Such life consists of entering in communion with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.
Notice how, at the bottom of that vague imprecision in the original phrase—at the root of that casual omission—lay something that could have been wrongly construed as an essential part of the Gospel. That ambiguity left just enough room for a surreptitious infection of the message with the Liberal concept that separates human life from its life in God. In that Naturalist vision, the ultimate horizon in the life of man is merely the quality of life.
That silence could have been particularly damaging if its origin would have been a forgetting of the essential. It would have been demonic if its origin would have been a conscious aversion towards the essential.
Félix Sardá i Salvany: Liberalism is sin
Before going any further it is necessary to define, as a fundamental point of reference, the diagnostic given to us by Fr. Félix Sardá i Salvany in his work "Liberalism is Sin". There Fr. Sardá writes:
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it all heresies are comprehended. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected—from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.
Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth—or a truth consequent upon Revelation—by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.
It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, "I will not serve." Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect—not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.
When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.
We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator. [4]
The road to follow
Fr. Sardá i Salvany tells the truth. There is more, though a lot is implicit in the precise diagnostic of the Spanish apologist. The first consequence we that Liberalism is 'the sin' in a specific sense: it is 'the iniquity' identified in the New Testament as the setting in place of the supreme anti-Christian, anti-God evil. The seed of that iniquity lies hidden in history waiting to sprout a virulent manifestation. This is also an eschatological sign, because it is the cause of the final dissolution of mankind an the preamble to the reign of the Antichrist.
As we shall see, Saint John defines 'that sin' as η ανομία (ē anomía 'the iniquity'). This sin is particular and unique, this η ανομία (indifferent negligence that makes no difference between good and evil) always appears in the New Testament as a characteristic of the Antichrist and the End of Times, the Final Judgment, or the παρουσία (parousia) of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From the beginning of the Church it is applied to the rejection of Jesus Christ and God the Father, whom the Son comes to reveal. Saint John affirms that in his First Letter:
"... many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour [...] This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." [5]
That denial or rejection was experienced by Jesus Christ Himself during his life. He defined it as a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". [6] The same rejection was experienced by all the apostolic ecclesial communities, because it is present and operates within them. Saint John and also Saint Paul interpreted its nature in the light of the words of Jesus. They announced its recrudescence in the End of Times.
One example of evil language
As a sample of the language of the modern iniquity, please read what was said by David Friedrich Strauss, Pastor and Theologian, self-appointed arbiter of what we should consider an acceptable Christ:
As long as Christianity is considered like something given to Mankind from outside itself; Christ as something who came from Heaven; His Church like an institution for the forgiveness of sins by means of His blood; Christianity will be understood in a Jewish way and the Religion of the Spirit will continue to be fleshly. Christianity will only be understood when we recognize in it a Mankind made more aware of itself than it has ever been aware so far: that Jesus is only that Man in Whom that profound conscience was manifested for the first time like a force determinant of His whole life and His whole being; and that sin can be erased only by access to this new conscience. [7]
The rebellion against the Father
The aforementioned words of Saint John, teach us that lastly, 'the sin', the worse evil, is the rejection of God the Father, the rebellion against a God-Father. That rejection and rebellion are manifested in the rejection of the Son (sent by the Father,) and of those disciples sent by the Son. The Son is rejected because the Father is also rejected. The Father is rejected by those seeking to avoid being subject to Him by filial obedience.
We must remember that the rejection of both obedience and subjection to God's government of human affairs has long established biblical roots. Remember the people of Israel who wanted to be freed from the lead of Moses [8]. Later, the Israelites asked Samuel to give them a King, like the kings of the neighboring nations.
God interpreted that request as an intent of secularization of political life, a form of early liberalism: "They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me, so that I don't rule over them." [9] Certainly, the Israelite monarchy would come to be the history of the infidelities of the chosen people to their Covenant with God, with the kings they have asked for, acting as leaders of the apostasy.
In the New Testament we find the Parable of the Murderous Vineyard Workers. They kill the son to take possession of their master's vineyard for themselves.
Let us recall the words of Jesus: "He who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives the One who sent me." [10] Also, inversely: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the Father who sent me." [11]
The rejection of God found in the Old Testament continues manifesting itself, as reported in the New Testament, in the form of a rejection of God the Father.
Heresies of Liberal origin
Within the Christian world—including the Catholic world—there were produced certain forms of religious liberalism. This religious Liberalism, criticized by John Henry Cardinal Newman, produced deviations and heretic theologies containing the rejection of God the Father that we observe and suffer even today.
One of them was the so-called Deism. Deism accepts God as a Creator, a Supreme Architect. But, once the house has been constructed, God leaves it in the hands of its inhabitants. He does not keep any relation with them, leaving them without the possibility of communion or closeness. Deism was a Naturalist, Rationalist rejection of the Christian revelation. It believed in a Creator God with whom there is no possible communion or communication.
Cardinal Pie cleverly diagnosed that, rejecting the communion with a God that invites us to commune, "it is nothing but the fear of vertigo produced by the wondrous heights that God calls us to climb." [12] That fear to the sublime union, will later invade all dimensions of human life, giving origin to Liberal individualism, the master-slave dialectic substituting Christian brotherhood, class warfare, and finally, the dictatorship of the envious that will impose the hatred of the best [13] and the tyranny of Equalitarianism in the name of Democracy.
From Jesus 'without Father' to Jesus 'against the Father'
A further consequence of religious Liberalism has been the Reductionist vision of Christ, in the style of the one proposed by David Friedrich Strauss we read earlier. This Jesuanism presents a historical Jesus separated from the Christ of the faith, with no reference ever being made to the Father as the final goal of the Gospel's message.
In the theological-pastoral discourse emerging from that proposition, the Father is relegated to a silent, implicit role. The Father is only explained when someone demands an explanation.
The Dominican Father Le Guillou has said about that contemporary Jesuanism:
"This places [...] Christ, not with the Father, but in lieu of the Father. In that way we see the vague design of a kind of Christicism, or Jesuanism (generally leaving the name of the Father silent) that tries to pass for real Christianity." [14]
Saint Paul teaches us: "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" [15] That which is not preached is not believed. That is the horrific consequence of leaving the Father in an implicit role, falling outside the conscience of both preacher and faithful.
This fact has been pointed out by Monsignor Josef Cordes in his work: The Eclipse of the Father, in these words:
"When one asks the great contemporary theologians of both confessions (Protestant and Catholic) about the Father of Jesus Christ, one acquires a surprising perspective: the researchers think more frequently and more markedly about 'God' that in the "Eternal Father'. If one calculates the statistical average of how many times the word 'Father' is used in the Father-Son relationship, the word is sadly relegated." [16]
This is the result of the liberal contagion that has affected the common sense of culture and overflows to the faithful, affecting them and the preachers as well. Once could say, extending the words of Saint Paul: How will they preach if they don't believe?
The Jesuanism, or pastoral criticism, is frequently proposed by the Protestant sects and ecclesial communities. Protestants preachers heard in tents and radio programs come to mind. Their message is the announcement of Christ as the personal savior, without a reference to the Father, nor the entering in communion with Him as the point of completion of the salvation they announce.
That same illness has been extended among, and penetrates into the common sense of Catholics, priests and theologians included. I refer you to your own experience in hearing the preachers in our own temples.
Something caught my attention in the final message of the Conference of Aparecida—please note that I am not referring to the magnificent Final Document of the Conference, but to the Final Message, a sort of draft of the Final Document written by the Ad Hoc Commission—In this Final Message, different from the later, final document, the Father ends up relegated to an implicit role in the whole opening part, the doctrinal-kerygmatic speaking of Jesus (10 times,) or Lord Jesus (1 time,) or Jesus Christ (4 times.) In the message the Father is mentioned three times. He is never mentioned in the first part, where Jesus Christ is presented, but later after passing over the doctrinal-kerygmatic moment, in the parenthetical context of the fourth and fifth sections. In this manner Jesus Christ is presented predominantly as Jesus, without an explicit reference to His Father.
The contrast with the original discourse of Benedict XVI is remarkable. There, Benedict XVI reiterates explicitly, that the Father is the goal of the evangelizing process to which the Conference of Aparecida is calling. [17] That is reflected in the Final Document.
This phenomenon I have been describing so far—the growing detachment of Jesus from the Father in pastoral preaching—is emphasized until it reaches a form of paroxysm in the diffusion of Freudian psychoanalysis.
Father Ignatius Anderggen has written:
Freudian psychoanalysis, as a method and technique, is intrinsically in solidarity with its fundamental intent of reaching a full awareness of the rebellion of man against God the Father, the rebellion rooted in the unconscious structure of those vices and passions of man that have not been restored by grace. This intention of Freud, and also of Nietzsche, consists in their conscious opposition against God and their pretension of taking God's place." [18]
Will continue soon...
References
[1] ακηδία, pron. ah-ceh-dee-ah; meaning negligence, indifference, for the wicked are indifferent, make no distinction between good and evil. Latin acidĭa, derived from the same Greek word.
[2] Wisdom 2, 24.
[3] 2 Thessalonians 2,7.
[4] Félix Sardá i Salvany, El liberalismo es pecado, (Liberalism is Sin), Ediciones Cruz y Fierro, Buenos Aires, 1977. Colección Clásicos Contrarrevolucionarios 2. Cited from the Spanish edition in c. III pp. 32-34.
[5] 1 John 2, 18-23.
[6] Mark 3, 29.
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus for German Working People), Leipzig 1864, p. 18.
[8] Exodus 32, 1: When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
[9] 1 Samuel 8, 7; Cfr. Luke 19, 14 `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[10] Matthew 10, 40.
[11] Luke 10, 16.
[12] Alfredo Sáenz, El Cardenal Pie. Lucidez y Coraje al Servicio de la Verdad. (Cardenal Pie. Lucidity and Courage in the Service of Truth). Editorial Gladius, Buenos Aires. 2nd. Ed. 2007, p. 276.
[13] See the study by Helmut Schoeck, La Envidia. Una Teoría de la Sociedad (Envy. A Theory of Society). Ed. Club de Lectores, Buenos Aires 1969.
[14] M. J. Le Guillou, O.P. El Misterio del Padre. Fe de los Apóstoles (The Mystery of the Father. Faith of the Apostles). Gnosis Actuales. Editorial Encuentro, Madrid 1998, p. 196.
[15] Romans 10, 14.
[16] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, cited in p. 167.
[17] In the discourse of Benedict XVI the reference of Jesus Christ to the Father is very clear. Jesus has come to reveal the Father. The discourse expresses clearly this relation of Jesus to the Father in three main passages.
1-By pointing at what must be done by the Conference of Aparecida with the situation faced by the Latin American Continent at this point. "A new situation is being analyzed here in Aparecida. Facing these crossroads, the, the faithful expect of this new Conference, a renewal and revitalization of their faith in Christ, our only Teacher and Savior, who has revealed to us the unique experience of the Father's infinite love for mankind."
2-By pointing at Jesus as the one who reveals God: "For the Christian the nucleus of the response is simple" Only God knows God, only His Son, Who is God, is from God, true God can know Him. "He who is 'in the bossom of the Father', has revealed Him."
3-By pointing at the charism and the mission of those religious and consecrated people: "remind your brothers and sisters that the Kingdom of God has arrived already; that justice and truth are possible if we are open to the loving presence of God our Father, of Christ our Brother and Lord, and the Holy Spirit our Consoler."
[18] Fr. Ignatius Andereggen: Santo Tomás de Aquino- Psicólogo (St. Thomas Aquinas-Psychologist). Sapientia, 205 (1999) 59-68. R. Fr. Andereggen refers these affirmations by Sigmund Freud to: Totem y Tabú (Totem and Taboo), Buenos Aires 1993, 155-156.
[19] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, p. 179.
Thank you Carlos. However, I have to remind you that if liberialism is a sin, then an elected government is sinful. It places the state in the supreme authority over the lives of the people (subjects). Is it not as if the children give the parents authority to raise them? http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2008/09/democracy.html
A tip of the beret to you...
Jhesu+Marie,
de Brantigny
Friday, November 21, 2008
From Russia With Scorn: Bond Girl Denounced by Communists
...or another example of how feebleminded the Russian Communists have gotten.
by Jonathan Crow
November 10, 2008
New Bond Girl Olga Kurylenko has been getting all sorts of attention recently from Hollywood producers, magazine editors and legions of drooling fan boys. The Ukrainian actress, who plays a Bolivian secret agent opposite Daniel Craig's 007 in "Quantum Of Solace", has also gained ire of the Communist Party of St. Petersburg, which in an open letter on its website condemned her for aiding "the killer of hundreds of Soviet people and their allies." The group's statement describes 007 as "a man who worked for decades under the orders of Thatcher and Reagan to destroy the USSR."
The Communist Party of St Petersburg, a splinter group of the second largest political party in the Russian Duma, has made headlines earlier in the year when it denounced "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" as crude anti-Soviet propaganda and called actors Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett "capitalist puppets."
The group appealed to Kurylenko, who was born in the former USSR: "The Soviet Union educated you, cared for you and brought you up for free but no one suspected that you would commit this act of intellectual and moral betrayal." Sergei Malenkovich, head of the party's regional organization, further elaborated to the Associated Press, arguing the movie wanted "to show that a Ukrainian girl sleeps with an American. It's a part of information and psychological war." Never mind that Kurylenko's character does not sleep with 007 in the film or that James Bond is, in fact, not American but British.
Her supposed betrayals will be forgiven, the group promised in its statement, if the actress delivers her co-star Craig to the Russian secret service. "Let him tell what other plans are being written in the Pentagon and Hollywood to discredit Russia and drive a wedge between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples."
If the group decides to take more direct measures against the Kurylenko, they might get more than they can handle. The Bond Girl endured some serious training for the movie including some of the finer points of weaponry. She told Maxim Magazine, "I learned about shooting guns, like how to aim and what position to hold it. I also learned how to strip a gun and put it back together. I'm proud to say I can now take a gun apart in eight seconds."
Uhm, They do know this is a movie right? and Bond is a fictional character.
de Brantigny
by Jonathan Crow
November 10, 2008
New Bond Girl Olga Kurylenko has been getting all sorts of attention recently from Hollywood producers, magazine editors and legions of drooling fan boys. The Ukrainian actress, who plays a Bolivian secret agent opposite Daniel Craig's 007 in "Quantum Of Solace", has also gained ire of the Communist Party of St. Petersburg, which in an open letter on its website condemned her for aiding "the killer of hundreds of Soviet people and their allies." The group's statement describes 007 as "a man who worked for decades under the orders of Thatcher and Reagan to destroy the USSR."
The Communist Party of St Petersburg, a splinter group of the second largest political party in the Russian Duma, has made headlines earlier in the year when it denounced "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" as crude anti-Soviet propaganda and called actors Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett "capitalist puppets."
The group appealed to Kurylenko, who was born in the former USSR: "The Soviet Union educated you, cared for you and brought you up for free but no one suspected that you would commit this act of intellectual and moral betrayal." Sergei Malenkovich, head of the party's regional organization, further elaborated to the Associated Press, arguing the movie wanted "to show that a Ukrainian girl sleeps with an American. It's a part of information and psychological war." Never mind that Kurylenko's character does not sleep with 007 in the film or that James Bond is, in fact, not American but British.
Her supposed betrayals will be forgiven, the group promised in its statement, if the actress delivers her co-star Craig to the Russian secret service. "Let him tell what other plans are being written in the Pentagon and Hollywood to discredit Russia and drive a wedge between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples."
If the group decides to take more direct measures against the Kurylenko, they might get more than they can handle. The Bond Girl endured some serious training for the movie including some of the finer points of weaponry. She told Maxim Magazine, "I learned about shooting guns, like how to aim and what position to hold it. I also learned how to strip a gun and put it back together. I'm proud to say I can now take a gun apart in eight seconds."
Uhm, They do know this is a movie right? and Bond is a fictional character.
de Brantigny
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Challenging votes in Minnesota
In 2000 we found out what a hanging chad was, 8 years later we are presented with the squiggly line. I guess it's true then that Minnesota is the old indian word for Florida.
One challenge headed to the state so far in Plymouth
Posted on November 19th, 2008 – 1:47 PM
By James Shiffer
The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. That’s the only challenge in the special envelope in Plymouth so far, according to Sandy Engdahl, the city clerk and the official running the city recount.
The Canada geese milling on the grounds and parking lot of Plymouth City Hall were oblivious to the gaggle of election officials and observers inside. The drone of “Franken” and “Coleman” was accompanied by the swishing of paper in Medicine Lake Room A. Early on, Engdahl had to admonish some candidate representatives from trying to tell her counters how to count. Clearly, she said, the recount watchers are “very passionate,” but she has to remind them of everyone’s roles in this civic drama.
Eight of the 24 precincts had been counted by 1:45 p.m., and the only challenged ballot, in Engdahl’s view, was clearly a vote for Coleman. Nevertheless, the Franken campaign was allowed to seek a second opinion.
de Brantigny
One challenge headed to the state so far in Plymouth
Posted on November 19th, 2008 – 1:47 PM
By James Shiffer
The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. That’s the only challenge in the special envelope in Plymouth so far, according to Sandy Engdahl, the city clerk and the official running the city recount.The Canada geese milling on the grounds and parking lot of Plymouth City Hall were oblivious to the gaggle of election officials and observers inside. The drone of “Franken” and “Coleman” was accompanied by the swishing of paper in Medicine Lake Room A. Early on, Engdahl had to admonish some candidate representatives from trying to tell her counters how to count. Clearly, she said, the recount watchers are “very passionate,” but she has to remind them of everyone’s roles in this civic drama.
Eight of the 24 precincts had been counted by 1:45 p.m., and the only challenged ballot, in Engdahl’s view, was clearly a vote for Coleman. Nevertheless, the Franken campaign was allowed to seek a second opinion.
de Brantigny
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
An another story from India
In a related story from the previous article is this one...
New Delhi (AsiaNews)
50,000 Hindu fundamentalists demonstrate in favor of religious intolerance by Nirmala Carvalho. The government of Orissa permits a march calling for "an end to the conversions." Meanwhile, in Bangalore, three Christians are arrested under the false accusation of inducing conversion. The AICC provides updated figures on anti-Christian violence.
The government of Orissa has permitted today's demonstration by Swami Laxmananda Saraswati Sradhanjali Samiti in Bhubaneshwar, despite New Delhi's concern that it could unleash further inter-religious violence. Meanwhile, anti-Christian violence continues in Orissa, with churches demolished and Christians arrested under the false accusation of "instigating conversions."
The extremist Hindu group called for the march in protest against the failure to arrest the killers of Laxmananda Saraswati, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), murdered on August 23. Although the police maintain that Maoist groups are responsible, the Hindus have used it as a pretext for anti-Christian pogroms.
At least 1,500 policemen will keep watch to prevent incidents. But in Kandhamal, there is great fear that the march is a pretext for a resumption of the attacks, which have never really ceased. At least 50,000 participants are expected, and the organizers have posted flyers everywhere calling for the arrest of the assassins, but also "to stop the conversions and the killing of cows" and to "defend Hinduism and tribal culture."
In this atmosphere, on the night of November 12 three Christians were arrested under the accusation of "inducing" to conversion some of the inhabitants of a suburb of Bangalore. The leaders of the Christian associations have organized a campaign for their release.
The All India Christian Council (AICC) reports the information provided by Christian leaders in Karnataka: a man, Chandrashekhar, and two women, Kamlamma and Sandhya, were invited to the house of the man's sister, in the neighborhood of Jeevanahalli in Bangalore, to pray for the health of her son.
When they left their home at the end of the prayer meeting, the three were met by a group of about 15 militants of the Bajrang Dal, the youth branch of the VHP. The fanatics beat the man, then called the police accusing the three of inducing a group of inhabitants to conversion. A business owner confirmed the false accusation for the police of Fraser Town.
Chandrashekhar's sister says that she called him to pray for the health of her sick son, and rejects the accusations as "unfounded." Sam Paul, secretary for the public affairs of the AICC, says that "this is one of many examples of Christians who are falsely accused of forcible conversion by Hindutva forces. They are, of course, innocent. The sad reality is that, in India today, legal harassment of innocent Christians is common."
Meanwhile, on the night of November 11, the Catholic church in the village of Tiangia was razed to the ground. The church, which had escaped the earlier violence because it was still being built, was supposed to be inaugurated soon.
According to the AICC, since August 24 in Orissa, violence has been seen in 14 of the 30 districts in the state, with damage in 315 villages. 4,640 homes have been burned, 53,000 people have been displaced, and 60 people have been killed, including two pastors and a Catholic priest. Two women have been raped, 151 churches have been destroyed, and the attacks still continue today. In Bihar, a church has been damaged. In the state of Chhattisgarh, four sisters were attacked. In Jharkhand, Hindu fundamentalists attacked a church and tried to "reconvert" the Christian faithful. Four churches have been damaged in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh. In New Delhi, two churches have been damaged, and another four attacked. In Punjab, three Christians have been detained by the police under false accusations. In Uttar Pradesh, three pastors have been beaten, together with the wife of one of them. In Uttarakhand, two Christians have been killed, a priest and his employee.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
New Delhi (AsiaNews)
50,000 Hindu fundamentalists demonstrate in favor of religious intolerance by Nirmala Carvalho. The government of Orissa permits a march calling for "an end to the conversions." Meanwhile, in Bangalore, three Christians are arrested under the false accusation of inducing conversion. The AICC provides updated figures on anti-Christian violence.
The government of Orissa has permitted today's demonstration by Swami Laxmananda Saraswati Sradhanjali Samiti in Bhubaneshwar, despite New Delhi's concern that it could unleash further inter-religious violence. Meanwhile, anti-Christian violence continues in Orissa, with churches demolished and Christians arrested under the false accusation of "instigating conversions."
The extremist Hindu group called for the march in protest against the failure to arrest the killers of Laxmananda Saraswati, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), murdered on August 23. Although the police maintain that Maoist groups are responsible, the Hindus have used it as a pretext for anti-Christian pogroms.
At least 1,500 policemen will keep watch to prevent incidents. But in Kandhamal, there is great fear that the march is a pretext for a resumption of the attacks, which have never really ceased. At least 50,000 participants are expected, and the organizers have posted flyers everywhere calling for the arrest of the assassins, but also "to stop the conversions and the killing of cows" and to "defend Hinduism and tribal culture."
In this atmosphere, on the night of November 12 three Christians were arrested under the accusation of "inducing" to conversion some of the inhabitants of a suburb of Bangalore. The leaders of the Christian associations have organized a campaign for their release.
The All India Christian Council (AICC) reports the information provided by Christian leaders in Karnataka: a man, Chandrashekhar, and two women, Kamlamma and Sandhya, were invited to the house of the man's sister, in the neighborhood of Jeevanahalli in Bangalore, to pray for the health of her son.
When they left their home at the end of the prayer meeting, the three were met by a group of about 15 militants of the Bajrang Dal, the youth branch of the VHP. The fanatics beat the man, then called the police accusing the three of inducing a group of inhabitants to conversion. A business owner confirmed the false accusation for the police of Fraser Town.
Chandrashekhar's sister says that she called him to pray for the health of her sick son, and rejects the accusations as "unfounded." Sam Paul, secretary for the public affairs of the AICC, says that "this is one of many examples of Christians who are falsely accused of forcible conversion by Hindutva forces. They are, of course, innocent. The sad reality is that, in India today, legal harassment of innocent Christians is common."
Meanwhile, on the night of November 11, the Catholic church in the village of Tiangia was razed to the ground. The church, which had escaped the earlier violence because it was still being built, was supposed to be inaugurated soon.
According to the AICC, since August 24 in Orissa, violence has been seen in 14 of the 30 districts in the state, with damage in 315 villages. 4,640 homes have been burned, 53,000 people have been displaced, and 60 people have been killed, including two pastors and a Catholic priest. Two women have been raped, 151 churches have been destroyed, and the attacks still continue today. In Bihar, a church has been damaged. In the state of Chhattisgarh, four sisters were attacked. In Jharkhand, Hindu fundamentalists attacked a church and tried to "reconvert" the Christian faithful. Four churches have been damaged in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh. In New Delhi, two churches have been damaged, and another four attacked. In Punjab, three Christians have been detained by the police under false accusations. In Uttar Pradesh, three pastors have been beaten, together with the wife of one of them. In Uttarakhand, two Christians have been killed, a priest and his employee.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Orissa bishops warn of ‘master plan’ to wipe out Christianity
While we have a subtle persecution of Catholics in this country by the likes of Maria Shriver (below) and John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, et al. a more violent form of persecution is underway in India. You won't hear about this on NBC, ABC, MSNBC or even Fox. Who cares about Christians anyway? The only "Christians" that the US media worries about are people like the Reverend Phleger of Jeremiah Wright. From the Catholic News agency Orissa, Nov 13, 2008 / 04:54 am (CNA).-
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath
Denouncing what they called a “master plan” to wipe out Christianity, the bishops of India’s troubled Orissa region have written a letter to state’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik concerning the persecution of Christians at the hands of Hindu extremists.
Conveying their “sincere thanks and appreciation” for his appointment with them, the bishops’ November 10 letter brings several concerns to his attention.
First, the bishops addressed the “exodus of Christians” from Kandhamal District. Noting the “considerable reduction” of refugees in relief camps, the bishops denied that those who leave the camps are returning to their homes.
“Most of them have migrated to relief camps in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Jhanla, Berhampur and also settled down in rented houses and in the homes of relations, friends, acquaintances etc. It is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 Christians of Kandhamal district are living outside the district,” the bishops wrote.
People in the relief camps want to return to their villages, but fear being attacked on their return trip or in the villages themselves. The refugees also fear being forced to become Hindus “under pain of death or loss of properties,” said the bishops, who reported that returnees are being told to convert or leave the village, the district, or even the country.
The bishops’ letter reported the details of such forced conversions, saying Christians are compelled to “accept Hindu Samskaras under oath and under pain of divine punishment.” Christians are also being prevented from harvesting their fields unless they become Hindus, and one man was denied burial in his village because he was not a Hindu.
Further, many of the criminals involved in the anti-Christian attacks are still at large.
Naming several injustices against Christians, the bishops noted that Christians are still being chased away from their homes and villages, and the state government has not fulfilled its promises to allot land and money to those made homeless.
According to the bishops, criminals are still looting and burning Christian homes, churches, and institutions.
The bishops challenged characterizations of the anti-Christian attacks as an ethnic conflict:
“Hindu Fundamentalist groups have been trying to name the communal violence as an Ethnic Conflict between the Tribals and the Pano Christians. A cursory look at facts reveals that this conflict is a calculated and pre-planned master plan to wipe out Christianity from Kandhamal district, Orissa, in order to realize the hidden agenda of Sangh Parivar of establishing a Hindu Nation.”
This agenda has allegedly been furthered by concealing the fact that the attack victims were Christians.
The bishops expressed happiness that the Orissa government has decided to establish a Fast Track Court at Kandhamal to expedite the trials of cases related to the violence. In addition, the bishops requested that the judge of the court should be from a religion other than Hindu or Christian.
Continuing their requests, the bishops asked that the presence of national police in Kandhamal be extended until the parliamentary and assembly elections in Orissa are concluded, citing the State Police’s low numbers and inability to defend themselves.
Finally, the bishops asked that churches be built or repaired by the first week of December, 2008, to allow Christmas preparations to begin and spiritual traditions to be observed.
“This will also help confidence building among the congregations and bury the past quietly as they approach Christmas 2008,” their letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Raphael Cheenath, Archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar; Bishop of Balasore Thomas Thiruthalil; and Bishop of Berhampur Sarat Nayak.
Thanks to Maria-Elena at Tea at Trianon.
God save us.
de Brantigny
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath
Denouncing what they called a “master plan” to wipe out Christianity, the bishops of India’s troubled Orissa region have written a letter to state’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik concerning the persecution of Christians at the hands of Hindu extremists.
Conveying their “sincere thanks and appreciation” for his appointment with them, the bishops’ November 10 letter brings several concerns to his attention.
First, the bishops addressed the “exodus of Christians” from Kandhamal District. Noting the “considerable reduction” of refugees in relief camps, the bishops denied that those who leave the camps are returning to their homes.
“Most of them have migrated to relief camps in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Jhanla, Berhampur and also settled down in rented houses and in the homes of relations, friends, acquaintances etc. It is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 Christians of Kandhamal district are living outside the district,” the bishops wrote.
People in the relief camps want to return to their villages, but fear being attacked on their return trip or in the villages themselves. The refugees also fear being forced to become Hindus “under pain of death or loss of properties,” said the bishops, who reported that returnees are being told to convert or leave the village, the district, or even the country.
The bishops’ letter reported the details of such forced conversions, saying Christians are compelled to “accept Hindu Samskaras under oath and under pain of divine punishment.” Christians are also being prevented from harvesting their fields unless they become Hindus, and one man was denied burial in his village because he was not a Hindu.
Further, many of the criminals involved in the anti-Christian attacks are still at large.
Naming several injustices against Christians, the bishops noted that Christians are still being chased away from their homes and villages, and the state government has not fulfilled its promises to allot land and money to those made homeless.
According to the bishops, criminals are still looting and burning Christian homes, churches, and institutions.
The bishops challenged characterizations of the anti-Christian attacks as an ethnic conflict:
“Hindu Fundamentalist groups have been trying to name the communal violence as an Ethnic Conflict between the Tribals and the Pano Christians. A cursory look at facts reveals that this conflict is a calculated and pre-planned master plan to wipe out Christianity from Kandhamal district, Orissa, in order to realize the hidden agenda of Sangh Parivar of establishing a Hindu Nation.”
This agenda has allegedly been furthered by concealing the fact that the attack victims were Christians.
The bishops expressed happiness that the Orissa government has decided to establish a Fast Track Court at Kandhamal to expedite the trials of cases related to the violence. In addition, the bishops requested that the judge of the court should be from a religion other than Hindu or Christian.
Continuing their requests, the bishops asked that the presence of national police in Kandhamal be extended until the parliamentary and assembly elections in Orissa are concluded, citing the State Police’s low numbers and inability to defend themselves.
Finally, the bishops asked that churches be built or repaired by the first week of December, 2008, to allow Christmas preparations to begin and spiritual traditions to be observed.
“This will also help confidence building among the congregations and bury the past quietly as they approach Christmas 2008,” their letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Raphael Cheenath, Archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar; Bishop of Balasore Thomas Thiruthalil; and Bishop of Berhampur Sarat Nayak.
Thanks to Maria-Elena at Tea at Trianon.
God save us.
de Brantigny
Monday, November 17, 2008
Maria Shriver, Cafeteria Catholic...
First let me say that while Maria Shriver may have a fine Catholic education (some would say prized education), has a great deal of money, is related to a rich and powerful family, is married to the governor of California, it will avail her naught at the judgement, nor will her "disagreement" with the teachings of the Church. The Kennedy clan have an unsurpassed hubris.
Maria! I beg you repent before it is too late! See this article
The real name for a Cafeteria Catholic is heretic...
GOD help us...
De Brantigny
Maria! I beg you repent before it is too late! See this article
The real name for a Cafeteria Catholic is heretic...
GOD help us...
De Brantigny
Friday, November 14, 2008
Obama Truths
1.Every now and then, Obama opens his eyes and the world springs into existence.
2.When a tree falls in the forest, Obama hears it.
3.Obama can clap with one hand.
4.Prometheus was punished for plagiarizing Obama.
5.Obama can make a journey of a thousand miles without a single step.
6.Socks worn by Obama are used for climbing walls in Spiderman movies.
7.Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race when she learned Obama's true name.
8."Obama" is the very first word in the English language to be a verb, adjective, noun, pronoun, adverb, interjection, superlative and pronad. (Pronad is a new category made specifically for the word "Obama" so its power can be fully realized).
9.When Obama squints dreamily into the distance, he can see next week's lottery winning numbers. But he never plays because that would mean poverty of ambition.
10.Obama can calculate your guilt just by looking at the numbers in your checkbook.
more...
de Brantigny
2.When a tree falls in the forest, Obama hears it.
3.Obama can clap with one hand.
4.Prometheus was punished for plagiarizing Obama.
5.Obama can make a journey of a thousand miles without a single step.
6.Socks worn by Obama are used for climbing walls in Spiderman movies.
7.Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race when she learned Obama's true name.
8."Obama" is the very first word in the English language to be a verb, adjective, noun, pronoun, adverb, interjection, superlative and pronad. (Pronad is a new category made specifically for the word "Obama" so its power can be fully realized).
9.When Obama squints dreamily into the distance, he can see next week's lottery winning numbers. But he never plays because that would mean poverty of ambition.
10.Obama can calculate your guilt just by looking at the numbers in your checkbook.
more...
de Brantigny
Hank Paulson, Naked Emperor
The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
By Michelle Malkin
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers’ heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now! more...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
By Michelle Malkin
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers’ heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now! more...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Just my two cents
Business Maxims,
1.The Government is not a business, it has no jobs.
2.If the government becomes a business, it is also Socialistic.
3.Business do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide profit for the owners and/or share holders.
4.If a profit may be made by using cheaper labor it will use cheaper labor.
5.No one is owed a job.
6.No one is forced to buy the goods of a business, and they will always go for the cheapest price.
The big Three Automakers have been asking the Federal Government for an additional bailout, otherwise they will have to go bankrupt.
Does any one have a problem with this? Why should the Federal Government subsidise a failing businesses? What is the difference with the big three and the little three?
One thing is unions? At one time Unions were a good thing. Today unions demand so many concessions that 4000.00 of every new auto price goes to unions. The next thing is the cost of oil. The national messiah is not a supporter of new oil drilling, or the use of coal therefore gasoline prices, (down for now will rise again) the more the cost of oil the higher the price, the higher the price the more society will look for a cheaper product. Unions must go.
I think we should let the Big three go broke. Businesses have gone bankrupt before and survived.
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
1.The Government is not a business, it has no jobs.
2.If the government becomes a business, it is also Socialistic.
3.Business do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide profit for the owners and/or share holders.
4.If a profit may be made by using cheaper labor it will use cheaper labor.
5.No one is owed a job.
6.No one is forced to buy the goods of a business, and they will always go for the cheapest price.
The big Three Automakers have been asking the Federal Government for an additional bailout, otherwise they will have to go bankrupt.
Does any one have a problem with this? Why should the Federal Government subsidise a failing businesses? What is the difference with the big three and the little three?
One thing is unions? At one time Unions were a good thing. Today unions demand so many concessions that 4000.00 of every new auto price goes to unions. The next thing is the cost of oil. The national messiah is not a supporter of new oil drilling, or the use of coal therefore gasoline prices, (down for now will rise again) the more the cost of oil the higher the price, the higher the price the more society will look for a cheaper product. Unions must go.
I think we should let the Big three go broke. Businesses have gone bankrupt before and survived.
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Reason to Homeschool?
Indoctrination? Do I hear a teacher of the year award here?
This story had to be broke in Sweden!
Blogged here...
God save us.
de Brantigny
This story had to be broke in Sweden!
Blogged here...
God save us.
de Brantigny
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Faithful Citizenship"?
Moral Courage? The pamphlet and homilies on "Faithful Citizenship" by the Bishops of the United States was largely disregarded. With the exception of a few, the mostly wishy-washy USCCB persuasion argument fell on deaf ears last week.... A finer piece of double talk has never been published.
...the U. S. Catholic Bishops will revisit the topic of "Faithful Citizenship" --their nuanced statement on how believers should guide their vote by a Catholic teachings on a broad spectrum of social issues including, but not exclusively, opposition to abortion -- tomorrow at their annual fall meeting, just a week after their efforts proved largely unpersuasive with the voting flock.
Scores of Catholic bishops counseled -- even threatened -- that a vote for Obama/Biden, who both support access to legal abortion, could endanger a Catholic's salvation by cooperating with evil. In an address titled "Little Murders," Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, said he was only speaking for himself but, "To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse..." more...
Francis Cardinal George in a rather candid opening address at the 2008 Fall General Assembly of the USCCB said, ...We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.
Catholics went largely for Obama. Perhaps, as New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels observed this weekend:
Many Catholics may understandably feel that the bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil -- just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.
...but how can they if the Bishops arguments are so nuanced as to be indecipherable? When will the USCCB rise as in one voice and say "NO!" this is not Catholic teaching, your soul is in jeopardy if you persist the support of abortion. Perhaps I am asking too much... Of the 9 priority initiatives through 2011 life is down at #7.
Dieu Le Roy!
de Brantigny
...the U. S. Catholic Bishops will revisit the topic of "Faithful Citizenship" --their nuanced statement on how believers should guide their vote by a Catholic teachings on a broad spectrum of social issues including, but not exclusively, opposition to abortion -- tomorrow at their annual fall meeting, just a week after their efforts proved largely unpersuasive with the voting flock.
Scores of Catholic bishops counseled -- even threatened -- that a vote for Obama/Biden, who both support access to legal abortion, could endanger a Catholic's salvation by cooperating with evil. In an address titled "Little Murders," Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, said he was only speaking for himself but, "To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse..." more...
Francis Cardinal George in a rather candid opening address at the 2008 Fall General Assembly of the USCCB said, ...We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.
Catholics went largely for Obama. Perhaps, as New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels observed this weekend:
Many Catholics may understandably feel that the bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil -- just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.
...but how can they if the Bishops arguments are so nuanced as to be indecipherable? When will the USCCB rise as in one voice and say "NO!" this is not Catholic teaching, your soul is in jeopardy if you persist the support of abortion. Perhaps I am asking too much... Of the 9 priority initiatives through 2011 life is down at #7.
Dieu Le Roy!
de Brantigny
A new blog
This is my new blog, I will endevour to present the actions of the modern Jacobin faction called the Demorcrat Party and the modern Whig Party who call themselves Republicans. Both are on one side of the same coin.
God Help Us.
de Brantigny
God Help Us.
de Brantigny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)