Modernity is the progeny of Freemasonry: the zeitgeist, with its false notions of liberty, was conceived in Masonic lodges and is doomed to create yet another secular asylum.

One of my family has sadly fallen head over heals in love with the zeitgeist, so much so that he will now own no opinion that does not come with a BBC imprimatur - nor reject any that does.  He recently showed his frustration with my repeated references to the “secular asylum” by sarcastically remarking, “I almost wonder whether your word processor has an app to throw it randomly, at least once a paragraph?”  I thought that was rather a splendid idea, and wondered if anyone knew where I could find such a thing.

In the late sixties, the seventies and eighties I was pro-actively involved in the pro-life movement; I built the largest local pro-life group in the UK and chaired it for twenty-five years.  In the course of that work, I regularly organised, and chaired, public meetings.  It was my practice when doing so to send invites to the local pro-abort organisations, who would obligingly turn up and heckle from the back of the hall.  I would respond by addressing their leaders directly from the platform and inviting them to join me on the platform and use the microphone to make their case.  Rather than lose face, they would usually take up the offer.  When they had finished, I would ask the audience to put questions to them.  Five minutes or so later, I, taking pity on their obvious discomfort, would reclaim the microphone.  Then, as they descended from the platform, I would invite the audience to give them a round of applause for their courage.

Fast forward and compare that civilised and courteous exchange with today: just watch your average Question Time to understand what I mean.  For example, could one imagine in one’s wildest dreams, Shami Chakrabarti, the current director of Liberty, a hard-Left pressure group that hides behind the façade of human rights (and hopes that we have forgotten that it once campaigned for legalised incest), treating her opponents with the sort of liberality I have just described?   I have no particular axe to grind with Ms Chakrabarti, I’m sure this young lady, who unfortunately suffers from the disability of invariable looking as if she has cod-liver oil swilling round her back teeth, is a pleasant enough soul; I merely cite her as a sort of poster girl for the phenomena that I am describing.  Just watch her leading a snarling pack of secular liberals that is set upon anyone who dares to question their latest dogma.  Anyone brave enough to query, in the mildest possible terms, secular myths like global warming, or question, again in the mildest possible terms, whether two men addicted to using one another’s bottoms as masturbatory aids can in reality claim to be married, will be lucky to escape alive.  There will be no attempt on the part of the secularists to argue their case rationally; the person daring to question their latest dogmas will simply be subjected to mob intimidation, and soon after will disappear from public view with a liberal fatwa on their heads.  So the question is: why is the secular liberal seemingly compelled to be so manifestly illiberal.  The answer is, somewhat like an onion, multi-layered.

A good priest explain it thus: a Catholic ought in theory to be intolerant because he is the custodian of revealed truth and consequently error is, or should be, deeply repugnant to him.  He is tolerant in practice because he loves.  The secularist should be tolerant in theory because he denies the possibility of absolute truth.  He is intolerant in practice because he does not love.

This insight, whilst true, only takes us so far.  Modern political life was conceived in the wombs of Masonic lodges and brought to birth in the French and American revolutions.  The dogma at the core of that political reality is that Christ has no place in the public forum.  But if Christ has no place in the public forum, Christ be not God.  But Christ is God.  Therefore the whole edifice that we call modernity is built upon a colossal lie.  And a place where people live by colossal lies is by definition an asylum - and this particular asylum is quintessentially secular.  Hence my repeated references to life in the secular asylum are dead accurate.

And the inmates of an asylum are inherently intolerant.  In an asylum, if a man comes up to you and asserts that he is a horse or Napoleon Bonaparte or that he as just returned from Mars, the last thing you do is respond, “Oh no you’re not.”   The reason you do not reply by asserting the truth is because doing so may very well spark a violent reaction.  Scruples dictate that you should not confirm the delusion, so you move into small talk; the weather is usually a safe option.

Similarly, in today’s secular asylum, a man can invite me to meet his wife and then wheel out some hairy fellow.  Again, I cannot say, “No that’s not your wife, that’s very obviously a bloke.”  The reason is the same as in the asylum: I fear the violence that the truth may provoke.  Yet again some fellow can have himself castrated and pumped full of artificial hormones to make his breast grow and insist that we call him Susan.  Once more, one dare not point out, what is no more than the bleeding obvious, that he is actually a block who has been surgically and chemically mutilated, and that he is no more a woman than he is a horse, because to do so may provoke violence - so we discuss the weather.

There is yet another issue at work, to recognise a lie, you must first believe in truth.  But there’s the rub, for those in charge of the secular asylum no longer believe that there is such a thing as objective truth - except paradoxically they do believe that “there is no such thing as an objective truth” is an objective truth!  Yet, if there is no such thing as objective truth, then the belief “that there is no such thing as an objective truth” is merely a dogma of their new secular religion, an article accepted on blind faith; and, like all dogmas, because it cannot be dispassionately argued, it must be imposed by intimidation and force.

If you are among the few who have managed to remain sane in the secular asylum, you see examples daily of this relativizing of truth all around you, indeed, there are so many that it is difficult to know where to start.  The advance of an irrational intolerance in the secular asylum is now such that we have reached a tipping point from which it is difficult to see us turning back.  I’ll give just a handful of up to date examples.

Example 1: recently the actress, Cynthia Nixon, was quoted as saying that for her being gay was a conscious choice.  Nixon is “engaged” to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years.  This remark, which she stood by when challenged, brought the gay rights movement and the secular liberal establishment down on her head like a ton of bricks.  Why?  Because it is not politically expedient for the secular liberal agenda for it to be “a choice”; note, whether it is true or not is no longer deemed relevant, truth is no longer even an issue.  It is whether it serves the agenda - or not - of those who run the secular asylum that is now the only issue.  Not one of the scores of talking heads who attacked Ms Nixon challenged the truth of her statement; they merely condemned her for letting the side down by telling the truth.  “It wasn’t helpful,” would sum up most of the comments.  Only in an asylum could truth be describes as “not helpful.”

Example 2: recently, somewhere in the north of England, three Moslem men were convicted of a hate crime and are currently looking at a prison sentence.  Their crime was to distribute leaflets that argued that sodomy should be a crime and the penalty for it should be death.  Now let me state up front that this is a view that I regard as quite definitely crackpot, but my sympathies are not the issue here.  What is an issue is that the entire case against these men was built on lies, and, for the few sane men left in the secular asylum, obvious lies.

First we were solemnly informed that the gay community felt intimidated by these leaflets.  No they didn’t!  There was not a single gay man in the UK who took them even a teensy-weensy bit seriously.  The only way one could be intimidated by them was if one believed that there was a possibility of the men persuading parliament to implement such a law, and no sane man believed that.

The second lie was told by the judge when he informed the accused that the law does not allow us to discriminate on ground of “sexual orientation”.  Again not true, the law does nothing to prevent us discriminating against paedophiles for example, which is obviously just as much a “sexual orientation” as is homosexuality.  Had these three men suggested that the penalty for convicted paedophiles should be a good flogging, their views, rightly I believe, would have been dismissed as idiotic, but there would have been no policeman fingering their collars.

Example 3: Pat Buchannan after ten years has been silenced as a political analyst at MSNBC because of a clamour from the left that to permit him continued access to the microphones would be dangerous and an outrage against public decency.  What this actually meant is that he wasn’t routinely parroting the dogmas of their new secular religion, so he had been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy.  The leaders of an organization that had self-certified itself as America’s leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people rent their garments and squealed that Buchanan’s “extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world.”  His extremist ideas? - he believed, along with the vast majority of the human race, that anal copulating was “unnatural and immoral.”   

On cue, Abe Foxman, the leader of the Anti-Defamation League, a publicly funded hard-Left gang of Jewish bully boys, who has sought to have Pat censored for twenty-two years, piled in.  Pat crime here was to have written that “America’s shrinking Jewish population is due to the collective decision of Jews themselves.”  What else explains the projected decline by 50 percent by 2050 of the Jewish population of America, if not the “collective decision of Jews themselves”?   But, I forgot, truth in the secular asylum is not the issue.  Silly me, I keep forgetting.

Example 4: A recent article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed when it is born.  The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.  Note: the values of a liberal society are presumed to include openness to publicly promoting murder, but we may not publicly suggest that anal copulating may be immoral - and my family member believes that we are not living in a secular asylum!

I am very reluctant to use the word “fascist” because it is one of those words so overused by the Left that it has been rendered meaningless, but I fail to see the big difference between the ideological Nazis who forces Jews to wear large yellow stars on their breast in public and the ideological secularists who closes down Catholic adoption agencies because we were not prepared to place vulnerable children with braces of sodomites.   Indeed, on further reflection, faced with an option between walking around with a large yellow star pinned on my breast and placing a vulnerable child for whom I was responsible with a brace of sodomites, I’ll take the star any day.

In Britain today a good married couple can be turned down for adoption because the man confessed to enjoying an annual cigar on his birthday, while the same man, had he confessed to regularly using his best mates bottom as a masturbation aid, would have had a statutory right to adopt!  Similarly, the same lunatics will deny a black child a home with a white couple on the grounds that the child may not cope well with this obvious incongruity in his life, yet will give the same child a hairy bloke for a “mum”, while assuring us that the child won’t notice the obvious incongruity.

The downsides of the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth, is all beliefs become mere dogmas.  And what cannot be supported by reason or evidence, by its very nature, must be imposed by force.  This is why both Communists and the Nazis were doomed inexorably to create Hells on earth; and our current secular masters of the universe are moving, indeed, are compelled to move, inexorably in the same direction.  The closing down of Catholic adoption agencies will prove but the first of many draconian measures yet to come.  Obama latest sally against Catholic institutions is but another stepping stone on the road to yet one more secular hell in a long line of secular hells.  The direction in which we are moving is now obvious, only the speed of travel remains in contention.

Is there then no hope?  Well, from the Catholic perspective there must always be hope.  Has not the Church watched a thousand such asylums come and go; and outlived every one of them?  The secularists are aware of this and that is why they fear and loath the Church.  The Freemasons and homicidal lunatics behind the French Revolution were buried by Napoleon within fifteen years; the Communists, who believed that they were the future of the world, are now merely a project for “O” levels students; in Spain 75 years ago an unholy alliance of liberals, socialist, communists and anarchists murdered in cold blood some 15,000 innocent Catholics, yet before the decade was out, the perpetrators of this gruesome slaughter were facing the firing squads of the triumphant Nationalist army; the German Nazis, who boasted that their empire would last a thousand years, managed to barely clock up ten; so why should we assume that our latest condom waiving, depravity pimping, global warming myth peddling, Christophobic masters of the universe are going to fare much better than the last lot - or the lot before them?  

It is obviously true that the emasculated post-Conciliar Church has been unable to put up the resistance that our forefathers in faith would have done, but even here things are stirring.  Recently, several thousand young traditional French Catholics brought a blasphemous play to a halt in Paris.  Where did these young people come from?  - nothing in contemporary culture or the enfeebled post-Conciliar Church can even begin to explain their existence.  In England, where Catholics have endured a forty year nightmare of dreary bog-standard post-Conciliar Modernists syndicating English sees, we now, against all the odds, have a genuine Catholic man on the see of Shrewsbury - and this just when many of us had given up hope of seeing such a marvel in our lifetime.  Bishop Mark Davis’s appointment could well mark the beginning of the end for the effete, stomach turning, bromidic Warlock x Hume bloodline - we can but pray and fast.  Whilst there no hard evidence that any of our English bishops are Masons, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one can hardly be faulted for wondering …

Ultimately, our hope is not of this world: Our Blessed Lady, when she appeared at Fatima, warned us of the coming triumph of what we may now call the dictatorship of relativism - but she also promised us that her Immaculate Heart would ultimately triumph.  One would need to be a very foolish man indeed to distrust the word of the Queen of Heaven, for, although she is undoubtedly gentle and meek, she is also known to have some awesomely powerful friends.

With Joe Stanley and a bloke in a wig and floral frock reading the bidding prayers at Vincent Nichols’ scheduled Masses for militant gays at Warwick Street, most Catholics can but weep for the once great English province of the Roman Catholic Church.

If a hairy bloke in a wig and floral frock reading the bidding prayers at Mass, cheered on by a dissident cleric, strikes you as a fantasy from Hell, then you probably haven’t viewed the new video on YouTube of the special Masses at Warwick Street for militant homosexuals and a supporting cast of dissident clerics organised by Archbishop Vincent Never-Answer-a Straight-Question Nichols.  Click here to view video now. 

Any genuine Catholics would of course be sick to the stomach to see such sacrilege regularly taking place with the blessing of the English episcopacy.  Nevertheless, were it not for the sacrilege, it would be hilariously funny.  Indeed, Monty Python would be hard pressed to come up with anything quite so surreal - our Archbishop has clearly missed his vocation.

How’s this for surreal: we have a bidding prayer praising God for 97-varieties of wall-to-wall “life giving” sex, which is then followed by a bidding prayers for all their friends who have been killed by that same “life giving” sex.  One honestly couldn’t make it up.

Then there is Joe Stanley’s comical flogging-to-death of the word “integrity”.  However, their litany of “joyful and life giving” sexual disorders (“orientations” they would no doubt prefer to call them) which they claim “embraces the fullness of human diversity and excludes no one,” in reality excludes a whole raft of sexual “orientation” - sadomasochism and paedophilia, to name but two of scores? 

The latter omission is especially odd given that the poster boy of the gay rights movement, the Teflon-coated Peter Tatchell, has assured us that, “Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.  None feel they were abused.  All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy …”  

So why such an exclusive litany that clearly doesn’t even begin to “embrace the fullness of human diversity and exclude no one”? - what’s happened to all that “integrity” you keep banging on about Joe? 

Archbishop Lefebvre -v- the papacy, St Pius X -v- Benedict XVI - Vat 2 has splintered the Catholic Church into factions; and, as in any conflict, truth is the first casualty. On cue, the history of the Artians and St Athanasius is currently being urgently re-written by neo-Catholics to fit their regime of novelties

Neo-Catholics are often obsessed with the SSPX (If you need a definition of “neo-Catholic” you can do no better than follow this LINK).  A certain Mr Robert William’s personal obsession with the SSPX has assumed the nature of the sort of vendetta against them that was condemned so forcefully by Benedict XVI in his letter of the 7 July 2007 (which accompanied his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum), but nevertheless the Catholic Herald regularly publish his letters on the subject.

Mr Williams never misses an opportunity to work the word “excommunicated” into any sentence containing Archbishop Lefebvre’s name.  However, when Benedict XVI lifted the censure of the four SSPX bishops on 21st Jan. 2009, his document giving it juridical force, finished by pronouncing the censure of excommunication promulgated on 1st July, 1988 to be “void of juridical effects …”   Perhaps one of our many amateur canon lawyers can explain how one can be excommunicated by a decree that has been declared “void of juridical effects” by the highest authority in the Church?   

Neo-Catholics naturally object to the similarity between Archbishop Lefebvre and St Athanasius being pointed out.  To counter this rather obvious comparison, Mr Williams asserts that the Church and the papacy “remained resolute” throughout the Arian crisis.  He further claims that this novel view is proved by some unnamed “19th century disputants.” 

St Jerome writing at the time of the Arian crisis (admittedly without the benefit of unnamed "19th century disputants" to draw upon) famously lamented, "The whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian".   One of the popes at the time, Liberius, whose instincts were undoubtedly orthodox, was plucky at first, but torn from his see and banished to Thrace, signed a Semi-Arian creed and, under pressure from the Arians, renounced the champion of the orthodox party, St Athanasius.  If that is an example of “remaining resolute”, it is somewhat difficult to imagine what Mr Williams would regard as “irresolute.”

Can anyone explain why St Paul is a saint when, in his own words, “… when Cephas [i.e. the Pope] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Galatians 2:11), whilst Archbishop Lefebvre is a villain for doing the same (and with much greater cause) vis-à-vis Cephas’s successor?  I have no doubt that Robert William with his forte for legalistic hair-splitting will be able to explain away these episcopal double standards - leastways to his own satisfaction and that of his fellow neo-Catholics.

FROM THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE, FEMINISM AND THE CATHOLIC PRESS - LIBERA NOS, DÓMINE

Someone by the name of Anita de Lacey wrote to the Catholic Herald last November bewailing the fact that the Nicene Creed states “For us men”, as it appeared to her, or so she avers, that women have been excluded!

Man-eating (sorry -
person-eating) shark

Someone once wrote that the oddest thing about Hitler was not that he was mad, yet millions followed him, but that he was obviously mad and yet still millions followed him.  Similarly, what strikes me about such letters, is not that they are crackpot (in a world of seven billion, we must expect that a few will write daft letters) but that they are so obviously crackpot, and yet the Catholic Press still publishes them!

Given the obvious cerebrally challenged status of most of our post-Conciliar English bishops, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that some of them have flirted with this nonsense.  Notably, David Konstant held up the publication of the Catechisms of the Catholic Church while he attempted to rewrite it in Fem-speak.  He would have had Our Lord saying “People do not live by bread alone,” - presumably because he believed that women reading “Man does not live by bread alone,” might labour under the delusion that women could - which suggest that the bishop didn’t have much respect for the intelligence of most women (to learn more, follow this link: HERE).  Unusually, on this occasion, mercifully Rome came to the rescue of England’s long suffering Catholic remnant.

I suggest that the day when Ms de Lacey is torn to shreds after she leaps into shark infested water because she didn’t realise that women were on the menu of man-eating sharks, will be soon enough to start worrying about this sort of patent drivel.

Contrary to what our political masters would have us believe, the current recession, kick started in the US, has nothing to do with capitalism or the free market, and everything to do with governments and government behemoth like Fannie May.

During a family get-together over Christmas, the conversation among the men inevitably got round to the current economic meltdown.  Sooner or later, and sadly just as inevitably, someone trotted out the cliché, "laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work".

My old heart sinks when ever I hear my own flesh and blood mindlessly trotting out these old chestnuts as if they were revealed dogma.  There is admittedly a superficial truth in this slogan; but it’d rather like announcing that marriage doesn't work and then pointing to Fred West's basement as proof of your contention - all that is being demonstrated is that in a fallen world, nothing is perfect.

In the culture of the North Atlantic alliance most have had their compasses confiscated and thus are like walking iPods, and the educational, political and media élite can write on them any tune they want.  Thus they engineer consent to their chosen ideologies and outlaw ideas that they do not currently favour.  They persuade millions that their masters’ ideas and beliefs are their own.  It is depressing to realise that your offspring, whom you carefully raised to be independent thinkers, have morphed into walking compendiums of received opinion.  The problem with “received opinion” - like its smug cousin “conventional wisdom” - is that it's not really opinion at all, but merely the safe adoption or whatever is fashionable and trendy.  There was more independent thought in Spain at the height of the Spanish Inquisition than there is today in Britain under the jackboots of our secular left thought police.

“Conventional wisdom” and “received opinion” would have us believe that the current economic meltdown had something to do with the failure of free markets and capitalism, or a lack of adequate regulation, bankers’ greed, etc.  Whilst the greed of bankers may be repugnant, it is as relevant to the current economic meltdown as my gate post is to the price of fish.

The simple truth is that our current mess has absolutely nothing to do with the market, and everything to do with political meddling in the market driven by left-wing interventionist ideologues.  It is important to note that this secular left mindset is now shared even by those who present themselves as conservatives: George Bush and David Cameron being obvious examples.

There are in fact five culprits who should be in the dock for the current economic mess: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which at one point were underwriting no less than seventy-five per cent of all US mortgages!), the Community Reinvestment Act and affirmative action in lending, the US government's artificial stimulus to speculation, the "pro-ownership" tax code and the Federal Reserve and its artificially cheap credit.  Not one of these guilty parties has the slightest thing to do with the free market: they all arise from government policies driven by the left’s interventionist creed, i.e. the belief that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work.

Let's take a closer look at the first defendants; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, neither of which were constructions of the free market.  They are both government leviathan, capitalised and financed by eye watering sums of taxpayers’ money and that phony cash that the Fed routinely magics out of thin air.

They spent their ill-gotten gains buying up mortgages from banks and financial institutions.  This had a number of entirely predictable results: 1) banks now had virtually unlimited sums to invest in the housing market, sum that go vastly beyond what a free market would devote to that area of the economy; 2) banks are artificially shielded from the normal risk of a free market and thus take risk that they would not have done in a free market; 3) because so much money is slopping about in the housing market, house prices are artificially inflated and eventually shoot through the roof.

As a result of secular left government policies, we now have vast sums of money being loaned to the sort of people the sane would be reluctant to loan a fiver to, in order to encourage them to buy vastly overpriced real estate!  But Fannie and Freddie had not finished: they were then trying to cover their butts by parcelling up the doggy mortgages they had both created and purchased with taxpayers’ money and sold them on as equally doggy investments.  And when the bobble finally burst, as anyone who was not a complete economic dunce would have foreseen, the politicians whose meddling in the free market caused the mess in the first place are now running around telling us that the free market doesn’t work, and needs yet more regulation!

Only around five US senators had enough economic savoir-faire to foresee that this meddling would end in tears.  Of particular note is Senator Ron Paul (one of the front runners for the Republican nomination); five years before the bubble burst, Senator Ron Paul had denounced the whole scheme as nothing more than a giant taxpayer funded Ponzi scam.

Once the bubble burst, banks and financial institutions of course rapidly returned to a more prudent and cautious loan policy, a policy that had served the market well for decades, if not centuries.  What do our politicians do?  Call for the banks to return to the sort of reckless lending that had got us in the mess in the first place!  So the current crisis, having been caused by excessive and imprudent lending, is now going to be solved by still more politically driven and artificially stimulated imprudent lending - yea, and I’m writing this blog riding a camel.

Poulson, the onetime US Treasury Secretary, even bemoaned the fact that “millions of Americans” were facing rising credit rates and reduced access to credit, and thus, “making it more expensive for families to finance everyday purchases.”  What planet are these guys on?  What sort of healthy economy wants people to buy their weekly groceries on credit?

It’s as if a gang of political thugs employ two heavies, Freddie Max and Fannie May, to beat up granny Freda Marwick for money that they allege she owed them.  And when poor Freda dies at the hand of these two heavies, the gang of thugs, when put in the dock, claim that they never had any dealing with Freddie Max and Fannie May (“never heard of em guv”) and it’s all Freda Marwick’s fault for dying in the first place - “You should have all known you couldn’t leave old Freda Marwick to look after herself,” they proclaim.  And in the secular asylum that we are all currently forced to live, the jury actually buys the crap and acquits the bloody lot!

CATECHISING CHRIST’S LITTLE ONES

“This prostitution of Catholic education by our bishops to serve their private Modernist agendas and the awful scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors are flip sides of the same coin, for both are rooted in the willingness to abuse clerical and episcopal power for one’s personal ends.”

By: Don McGovern

It is absolutely critical that the Catholic remnant in this country assumes a pro-active responsibility for catechising their children and there grandchildren if the faith is to survive.  If you are not prepared to equip yourself for this sacred task, then you can kiss goodbye to any chance of them growing up Catholic and a meaningful Catholic presence on British soil.

One of the fundamental errors that most Catholics make is to equate Modernism with liberal Catholicism.  This is an error equivalent to calling a Communist a liberal Conservative.   A Modernist is not a liberal Catholic, he is simply not a Catholic; he is in fact an anti-Catholic!  How else can we accurately describe someone who dissents from much, if not almost all, that constitutes one a Catholic?

A Modernist has much in common with the sixteenth century reformers, but where he differs markedly is in his methodology.  Whereas Luther nailed his dissent to the church door at Wittenberg and shouted his foul mouthed defiance from the rooftop; the Modernists prefers to conceal his dissent and work away to destroy the Church termite-like from within.  There will be no loud, coarse mouthed defiance from him; the last thing he wishes to do is draw attention to himself.  Like the wolf in the story of Little Red Riding Hood, all is disarming smiles, effusive politeness and inflated bonhomie; his handshake is always warm, if a little unpleasantly limp and moist. 

When it suits his purpose he will claim that he is recovering some long lost tradition from the early Church, when he wishes to kill-off some tradition retained from the early Church he will tell us that it is necessary to change for pastoral reasons to better address the needs of modern man.  Thus, he puts himself in a heads I win, tails you loose situation, all the while smiling you to death.

Just one example, Modernists are uncomfortable with the doctrine of transubstantiation.  His attack is multi-faceted: he will encourage us to stand and receive communion in the hand; he will find pseudo-reasons for encouraging every Tom, Dick and Harriett to distribute Holy Communion and invade the sanctuary, and the Tabernacle will be removed from its place of prominence on the high altar.  Most cunning of all, he invents numerous new “Real Presences”, on the premise that we will finish up with so many “Real Presences” that the real Real Presence won’t seem so special anymore.  Thus we have the “Real Presence” in the scripture readings, the “Real Presence” in the priest (particularly mendacious that one, because he doesn’t actually believe in priests), the “Real Presence” in the assembled people, etc. 

The scriptures record that even when Christ was on earth, many disciples deserted Jesus because they rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence (John 6, 60-72).  But whereas the Bible records that these disciples walked sadly away from Jesus, the Modernist prefer to stay and work to undermine the doctrine itself from within the Church.

Another example: the Church solemnly teaches that she does not have the power to ordain women.  The Modernist believes she does.  More accurately, he doesn’t believe that priest have sacerdotal powers (that smacks to much of magic to him - like Christ’s miracles, that are similarly rejected), he believe that anyone, including women, can be appointed by the community to preside.  So you find modernist like Bishop Malcolm Mahon taking two Anglican priestesses with him on his diocesan pilgrimage to Lourdes and encouraging the faithful to attend their invalid (and hence blasphemous) masses.  Thus he replaces our Catholic religion with his Modernist religion without uttering a single self-incriminating syllable.

The Modernist is always keen on ecumenism, but only if it involves mixed bathing with other Modernists.  Thus he will queue up to wine and dine the “Archbishop” of Canterbury, and not tire of publicly slapping himself on the back for being the fine, liberal, progressive fellow he perceives himself to be for having done so.  However, he will rent his garments at the mere suggestion that it might be nice to invite an SSPX priest round for coffee - he’d much prefer to sup with the local mullah or a liberal rabbi to that.  Even brother bishops who evidence signs of genuine Catholicism are rapidly bundled off to outer darkness: witness Bishop O'Donoghue, who discovered his Catholic backbone shortly before retiring and became an instant leper, never again to be spoken off in polite conversation.

Because Modernists are anti-Catholics, nowhere has there termite like destruction been more ghastly and evil than in our schools.  They have introduced religious text books that deliberately set out to destroy our glorious faith and enforce their agenda with a degree of ruthlessness that makes the German Nazis look positively incompetent.  These text books make no mention that the children have a soul to save, no mention of the foundational doctrine of Original Sin, or a host of other Catholic doctrines that are de fide.  A teacher can have his or her career ruined by merely seeking to teach one doctrine of the Catholic faith - and many have.  The story of the persecution of good Catholic teachers by the bishops’ Modernism enforcement tsars would fill many volumes.

This prostitution of Catholic education by our bishops to serve their private Modernist agendas and the awful scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors are flip sides of the same coin, for both are rooted in the willingness to abuse clerical and episcopal power for one’s personal ends.

So what is a genuine Catholic to do in the presence situation?  First up, whatever you do, with a few glorious exceptions, do not entrust the faith of your child to a Catholic school.  Having been force fed Modernists garbage for ten years or more, well over ninety per cent of children who attend our schools lapse, and rightly so.  Indeed, that is not the end of this miserable storey, most of them do not merely lapse, they become actively hostile to the faith!  And don’t expect any empathy from your Modernist bishop; as far as he is concerned this is a success story, for there is nothing he wants more than that our children should share his own hostility to the faith of our forefathers.

Have you not noticed dear betrayed parents that none of our good young priests has ever been near a Catholic school, had he done so, both his faith and his vocation would have been destroyed long before he was anywhere near a seminary.  Bishop Morris, the outspoken Modernist who has recently been sacked by the Pope from an Australian see had not had a single vocation in his diocese for ten years, but that’s real success from the Modernist point of view.  They do not believe in a sacerdotal priesthood, so why on earth would anyone imagine that a dearth of vocations would worry them?

Having removed your child or grandchild from the present corrupt Catholic school system, you need to send him to a good state school and catechise him yourself, or better still home-school him, but we have to be realistic and accept that not all have the time, circumstances or the ability to homeschool well.

Two of our bishops have recently broken ranks and very publicly announced that they are going to phrase out the toxic Modernist programs of their brother bishops from their schools and use text books that are a little more Catholic.  One or two others have also done so, but with less fanfare.  These bishops will need the prayers and militant support of all genuine Catholics if they are to succeed, for they will face absolutely massive opposition, not just from other bishops but also from within their own education bureaucracies.

Regrettably, while they plan to replace the Modernist’s poison with something a little recognisably more Catholic, what they are planning to use is far from perfect.  It is undoubtedly better than Here I Am and Icons, but that is saying little; it would be near impossible to be worse. 

This could be the last chance Catholics will have for a generation to have their children and grandchildren taught the faith properly.  It is absolutely critical that we pray, fast and become militantly active in securing this by insisting on genuinely good Catholic syllabuses.

The best of those that Pro Ecclesia has evaluated is the American Faith and Life Series available from Ignatius Press.  One of the problems in teaching the faith these days is that we have two generations of teaches who are as clueless as their pupils, having themselves been through Catholic schools and been brainwashed by the Modernists.  Faith and Life could almost be described as an idiot’s guide to teaching the faith: it is so excellently and comprehensively structured that one could place it in the hands of an atheist or Muslin, and armed with it they would be able to teach the Catholic faith, and teach it very well indeed.

And Catholic parent or grandparent reading this who wants to catechise there children or grandchildren could not do better than purchase this series.  Ignatius Press can be found at: http://www.ignatius.com

Child Abuse and the Catholic Church

(With acknowledgement to Peter Hitchins and Gerald Warner)

“One should never waste a good crisis”

One should never waste a good crisis; the child abuse scandal is the perfect opportunity to clean out the stables. Benedict XVI should take advantage of the wave of revulsion against our awful post-Conciliar episcopacy and fire the clowns who, while spewing out an endless torrent of modernist’s banalities and ecumaniacal episcobabble, have sat on their purple clad arses for the last forty years whilst Christ body haemorrhaged away. These are the same men who having wickedly denied any meaningful catechesis to the young and in consequence (having produced a generation wholly ignorant of the faith) have all but extinguished the Catholic faith from Europe.

The sex-abuse crisis is a God given opportunity to start to roll back the devastation of the last forty years, to cull the hirelings, stop the apologies, reinstate apologetics and begin replanting the vineyard. It is time for Catholics to roll up their sleeves, to square up to liberals and secularists, and to root out the traitors within our own ranks, and to proclaim again from the rooftops the timeless truths of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Child Abuse and the Catholic Church

All decent people are horrified by the abuse of children, especially sexual abuse, and will instinctively feel deep compassion for the victims and their families. Further, to learn that a Catholic priest, who is supposed to model himself on Christ, has committed such a terrible crime is just too horrible for words.

It is nonetheless essential to put the issue into
perspective

In the USA an appalling 17 out of every 1000 Catholic priests have been found guilty of sexual abuse, which is a shocking 1 in 59. In the UK the figures are much lower: 4 in every 1000 priest have been accused (fewer still have been convicted) - that is one in 250 accused.

Appalling as these figure are, you are, statistically speaking, still safer leaving a child in the care of a Catholic priest than you are leaving a child in the care of a teacher, a youth leader, a doctor, a lawyer, a farmer or indeed a family member, for all these groups offend more frequently than do Catholic priests. Catholic priests are actually at the bottom of the ladder.

So why the media blitz on the Church? Simple: the current hounding of the Church by the secular media has absolutely nothing to do with concern for children and everything to do with a deep latent hatred of the Catholic Church. This totally bias propaganda is comparable to the sort of evil cant that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, used to spew out against the Jews and their rabbis. Anti-Catholicism, unlike anti-Semitism, is a respectable (indeed, mandatory) prejudice among the secular left.

The second thing one needs to do is accurately identify and name the problem.

All the independent studies that have been carried out have demonstrated that over eight out of ten of the victims (in some independent studies it has been as high as nine out of ten) were not children strictly speaking, but adolescent males (i.e. teenage boys). That should tell anyone without a liberal bias to defend that the problem is not paedophilia but homosexuality.

Rome is not blameless, for one of the root causes of the problem is the plethora of effete liberal bishops she has foisted on the Church in the aftermath of Vatican II. These men, desperate to embrace the secular liberal agenda, opened their seminaries to homosexuals, and boy they flooded in! Entirely predictably, a significant number of these men have proven to be predatory sodomites. These problems were further exacerbated by the fact that a significant number of the bishops were themselves homosexuals and were thus willing and anxious to cover up the sins of their clergy. Had post-Conciliar bishops not started willfully ordaining homosexuals there never would have been a significant “child abuse scandal”, so-called, in the first place.

So why is this truth, which is no more than the bleeding obvious, never addressed by the media or the Church? Again the answer is simple: both the media and large sections of the western Church are currently in hock to the militant homosexual collective - sometimes unkindly referred to as the Lavender Mafia. One has only to listen to Archbishop Vincent Nicholls defending his bizarre decision to sanction regular Masses for militant homosexuals who flaunt, celebrate and seek to promote their disordered inclinations and impure and unnatural life styles, to realise the truth of that last sentence. How many Catholics forty years ago would have foreseen that one day they would listen to a successor of St Augustine pimping for perverts? Why are there no similar Masses for shop lifters, drug peddlers, pedophiles or sadomasochists, one may legitimately ask? I‘m sure they, and indeed many others who have the misfortune to suffer from disordered inclinations, would appreciate a Mass where they are “accepted” and encouraged to promote their favourite moral disorders.

Recently, Cardinal Bertone, one of the Pope’s right hand men, was courageous enough to point out that most independent experts agreed that the problem is homosexuality – his statement put one in immediate danger of being trampled underfoot by the frenzied stampede of English bishops frantic to distance themselves from his statement. Yet further evidence, if needed, that large sections of the western church are deeply compromised by their now routine obsequious stance before the militant homosexual collective.

Liberal fatwas and the bigotry of militant atheists

The secular mindset is characterised by irrationality, dysfunction and overinflated egos. It is a mindset further characterised by little humour and even less joy. The secularist have only one real enemy, the Catholic Church: that is why just before the Pope’s arrival a number of secular Ayatollahs wrote to the Guardian protesting the visit of Benedict XVI. On their “charge sheet” of course was the issue of child abuse. Among the list of the usual suspects was the Teflon-coated Peter Tatchell, a man who has built a career out of campaigning for legalised paedophilia since the 1990s!

As Michal Matt has pointed out, what we have here is a campaign by militant homosexuals to brand the Pope as homophobic for failing to deal sufficiently rigorously with the crimes of homosexual priests! As they say, if you can make sense of that humbug, “You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”

On June 26^th 1997 the Guardian published an article by Mr Tatchell, defending a book called “Boy-Love”. This book Tatchell argued was not shocking but “courageous”. The book he applauded documented “societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal”. He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where “all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood” [One might be excused for wondering if they “all” do it, just how consensual it is] and allegedly grow up to be “happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers”. Mr Tatchell further wrote: “Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy … it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.” Further, in 2008 Mr Tatchell had an article published in an Irish paper in which he argued that the law should allow adults to have sexual access to fourteen year olds.

So there you have it, buggering little boys is fine provided it is done by some depraved tribe or one of Mr Tatchell’s friends but not by a Catholic priest! There can be no more stomach churning humbug than the wheeling out by the media of men of the likes of Peter Tatchell to attack the Pope for the Church’s failures to adequately address the issue of abusive clergy. Mr Tatchell’s way to protect children from abuse is by redefining it so that abusive priests who succeed in persuading children that they want sex aren't criminal but legal lovers!

The opposition to the papal visit came from an unholy rat pack of condom waver, abortion peddlers, anal-copulating pimps, feminism fanatics and value-free sex-ed ideologues (and they tell us Catholics are obsessed with sex!). This sordid collective of those whose centre of gravity appears to be permanently fixed six inches below their belt buckles have already advanced into our primary schools and ensure that pornography seeps like sewage from million of teenagers’ bedroom computers. They will clearly not be content until they rule the world and have dismantled every last moral barrier.

And therein lays the rub. The only institution big and powerful enough to stand in their way is the Catholic Church. The Church may be undermined by the sex abuse scandals and compromised by the weak leadership of men of the ilk of Archbishop Vincent Nicholls, men who prefer to genuflect before the Zeitgeist than before Catholic truth and peddle diversity and equality like a card-carrying Marxists, but the Church has a history of rising from the ashes and there will always be a large remnant of genuine Catholic who, bloodied but unyielding, will not back down in this culture war … and we may take heart from the fact that we will not stand alone, there will always be others willing to stand alongside us.

If the campaign against the papal visit was really about protecting children, the signatories would have ensured that the egregious Mr Tatchell wasn't allowed within a mile of it - they didn't, because it isn't. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to Mr Tatchell for, unlike most of his ilk, he is honest enough to point out where the sexual revolution is headed.

Has the Church done enough?

Of course not! Whilst I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of Benedict XVI’s horror at what he calls these “unspeakable crimes”, the fact is that it is action that Catholics seek, not words. It is a depressing fact that nowhere in the entire world has a single bishop been disciplined for covering up child abuse and protecting the criminals - not one! On the contrary, Cardinal Law, one of the most prolific protectors of clerical child abusers in history, was called to Rome by JPII and given a plumb job!

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who moved around child sexual predators (Father Michael Hill among several others) during his time as bishop of Arundel and Brighton, kept popping up during the recent papal visit. Furthermore, he has also been given the job of helping sort out the Irish Churches sexual predator problem - one honestly couldn’t make that one up. Can one imagine anyone in the secular world retaining such a position of responsibility with such an awful track record?

To understand the uncertain leadership and mixed messages Rome continues to put out: one needs merely to again recall that something in the order of ninety per cent of the perpetrators of clerical sexual abuse are homosexuals and then reflect that one of the supporting cast in the papal visit, the current Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, encourages, justifies and promotes homosexuality via his Warwick Street Masses and cannot even bring himself to state that the Church will never bless the unions of sodomites!

Hypocrisy

Before Vatican ll Catholics were taught that the four marks of the Church were that she is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The post-Conciliar Church can surely add a fifth mark: hypocrisy - and the predatory sodomites in the ministry and their episcopal patrons are not the only charlatans. The sex abuse scandal has given the post-Conciliar Roman Protestants who fill our pews - the fruits of forty years of the Novus Ordo - the perfect excuse for apostasy. Tens of thousands who had never been abused, or even stood close to someone who had been, have found the perfect excuse to lie in bed Sunday morning. One can only assume that, according to what passes for logic among this generation of frauds, the fact that some sexual degenerate, who should never have been allowed within a million light years of the priesthood, violated young people, proves that the Son of God did not become man, redeem us on Calvary and found the Catholic Church?