Vatican II became a lightning-rod for discontent due to the obtuse “spirit” of the shameless progressives who deliberately misinterpreted and mischaracterized it (and still do)

newchurch

My theory is that it is precisely those who have abused Vatican II by continually ignoring or even counterfeiting its teaching who have produced a situation in which the same Council is becoming increasingly distant, wearisome, vexed, and irrelevant. For example, had there been a clear and humble acceptance of the teaching ofSacrosanctum Conciliumand, therefore, had the Church been free from widespread liturgical abuses and the hermeneutic of rupture that is still the modus operandi of most parish communities, there can be no question that the traditionalist movement would have spent far less of its time critiquing Vatican II as such. Put simply: it was not inherently necessary that the Council become a lightning-rod of discontent. It was made to be that by the purveyors of its “spirit.”

If Vatican II dies the death of an irrecoverable failure, it will be solely the fault of the progressives who thought they could ride the horse of Vatican II all the way home to a “new Church,” and who met with considerable success in persuading the world to believe the same lie. As there is one Body of Christ planned from all eternity, sojourning on earth in the unity of faith and charity, and destined to live forever, there cannot ever be a “new Church.” Those who were content to remain in the one and only Church there is can hardly be blamed for turning a deaf ear to so much tiresome twaddle about the Council. Over time, the historical Council insensibly merged with the virtual or media Council, and as a result, the real teaching, the authentic documents, have become marginalized.

Read more at New Liturgical Movement

Message to Obama cultists: Only God (the real one) has the power to simply “speak” good things into existence.

obamamessiah

Our modernity is style rather than substance. It’s Obama grinning. It’s the right font. It’s the right joke. It’s that sense that X knows what he’s doing because he presents it the right way. There’s nothing particularly modern about that. In most cultures, the illusion of competence trumps the real thing. It’s why so many countries are so badly broken because they go by appearances, rather than by results.

The idea that we should go by results, rather than by processes, by outcomes rather than by appearances, was revolutionary. For most of human history, we were trapped in a cargo cult mode. We did the “right things” not because they led to the right results, but because we had decided that they were the right things. There were many competent people, but they were hamstrung by rigid institutions that made it impossible to go from Point A to Point B in the shortest possible time.

And we’re right back there today. The entire process of ObamaCare was the opposite of going from Point A to Point B. It was the least competent and efficient solution every step of the way. There was no reason to think that its website would be any better. The process that led to it being dumped on the American people was completely devoid of any notion of testing or outcomes. It was the right thing to do because… it was the right thing to do. It was cargo cult logic all the same. So was its website.

Healthcare.gov, like ObamaCare, was going to work because it was “good”.

Read more

The trends unleashed in the 1960’s threw all of American Christianity into crisis.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.

Read more

The critical difference between liberals and leftists

While many conservatives merge liberalism and leftism, there are huge differences between the two camps.  Liberals, like Gail, want a kinder and gentler America.  They choose safe, suburban suburbs, with schools that (as of yet) do not radicalize their children.  While it’s the rare liberal who would display a flag on July 4, he still cares about this country, supports Israel, and is wary of radical Islam.

The progressive/leftists are an entirely different species entirely; they do not love this country or Israel.  In fact, the far left would like nothing better than to knock the US and Israel down from their high horses.

Leftists sympathize with the “victims” of the United States, not those Americans who are brutalized by thugs or terrorists.  The left practices third-worldism,  the belief that the paths of Chavez and Lenin are vastly superior to our own Founding Fathers.  Having become smitten by the renegade image of Che Guevara, they fashion themselves as post-modern revolutionaries, who set out, with a missionary zeal, to change the world.

Consequently, leftists turn a blind eye to the savagery of the third world, e.g. the burqua or beheadings.  Progressives justify the brutality of gang violence and perhaps engage in mob behavior themselves.  While they label conservatives as reactionary, leftists are, in truth, the true reactionaries, reacting against Mommy, Daddy, God, and country.

Read more

Progressive Christian Creed: We recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, just as our ways are true for us.


Read the 3-part article

Psychology in the Age of Obama

While the field of psychology has always been liberal, now the radicals have virtually hijacked the profession. With Obama in office, the militants are emboldened.

For instance, psychology students are indoctrinated from day one in the triumvirate of multiculturalism, social justice, and white privilege. Students are strong-armed into accepting all alternative lifestyles, even ones that diverge from their moral principles. Naysayers are oftentimes persecuted, if not outright expelled.

Psych grad students have been run out of the profession for not marching in lockstep with the radicals’ drummer. In a couple of recent cases, Christian women have been kicked out of their programs for not supporting homosexuality.

In a situation closer to home, militants have pressured CAMFT, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, to expel reparative therapists. (Reparative therapists offer services to homosexuals who are unhappy with their lifestyle and want to go straight.)

Read more

Contrary to the recent rhetoric, there has been NO REFORM of CCHD.

I’ve downloaded and read the CCHD “Review and Renewal of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development as Accepted and Affirmed by the USCCB Administrative Committee,” – promulgated on September 15, 2010 – and can only cry in absolute frustration, that nothing has changed. The new, improved CCHD is still all about funding Alinskyian organizing (organizing based on the organizational theories of the late, great Saul Alinsky)….which is still all about progressive politics…which is still all about killing babies.

Yes, CCHD grants will go to progressive organizations that are also concerned with decriminalizing undocumented immigrants, socializing medicine, and nationalizing public education, as it always has, but those are issues good men and women can disagree about. Good organizations, on the other hand, don’t support politicians and policies that kill babies. Since CCHD continues to fund organizations that support pro-abortion politicians and policies, nothing has changed.

Link

The Sharia Threat To America

Under shariah, Muslim unbelievers are labeled apostates and warned to repent; if they do not, they are murdered. Non-Muslims, called infidels, are given the following choices: convert, agree to live under an apartheid-like system as a subjugated second-class resident called ahl al-dhimma, or be prepared for the violent death of jihad.

There are two brute facts about the shariah common denominator among the world’s fully committed mujahideen and the still dangerous but lesser committed jihad sympathizers — collectively numbering in the hundreds of millions according to surveys in the Muslim world.


FACT ONE: The shariah doctrine which calls for the murder of apostates and jihad against the infidels is not some perversion of a peaceful Islamic law.
Shariah by its own terms is a holistic doctrine and system not subject to division such that the innocuous ritual laws — for example, those that regulate diet — can be amputated and cauterized from the broader corpus which divides the world up into the dar al-Islam (the realm of peace) and dar al-harb (that part of the world controlled by infidels and therefore in a state of constant war with the Muslim realm as a matter of doctrine).

FACT TWO: U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, military, and political authorities have not as of yet conducted a serious study and analysis of shariah as the common enemy threat doctrine.
That is, the authorities who have taken an oath to protect and defend our lives and our Constitution from this nation’s enemies have consciously chosen not to engage the enemy by willfully failing to “Know the Enemy,” the most fundamental rule of successful warfare. What drives this failing is not the lack of empirical evidence of the threat doctrine, but the politically correct fear that identifying shariah as the enemy threat doctrine will somehow make hundreds of millions of “moderate” Muslims go “radical” and join the jihad, either in body or in spirit via aid and comfort. Ergo, we live in a P.C.-fear mode, ever mindful of the threat from “radicalized” “moderate” Muslims.

Link

Liberals and progressives at USCCB have exchanged the Catholic principle of subsidiarity for socialist stateism

For anyone who needs a reminder of what this principle (of subsidiarity) means, here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (CCC 1883):

Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’.

It’s important to note that subsidiarity is not an “anti-government” or “anti-state” principle. Indeed it affirms that there is a role for government because (1) there are some things that only governments can and should do and (2) sometimes the state does need to intervene when other communities are unable to cope temporarily with their particular responsibilities. Nor, it should be added, does subsidiarity always translate into the very same policy-positions, precisely because some elements of the common good are in a constant state of flux.

Read more

Does this sound like anybody you know?


At the turn of the century (19th to 20th), Progressivism was allied with international, monopolistic, Capitalism. The leading Progressives were industrialists, bankers, Socialist/Fascists, and educationists. Select corporations and literati formed an oligarchy. They were, in many cases, Marxist-Leninists, Social Darwinists. They held no loyalty to any sovereign nation.

Read more

Good news from Los Angeles: gays, progressives and liberals hate to see Cardinal Mahoney go!

These are only some of the comments of a disappointed, openly gay priest who is no longer permitted to exercise priestly faculties:

Cardinal Mahony, wrote Fr. Farrow, “who likes to view himself as a progressive, would never voluntarily be replaced by a member of the ultra-reactionary group, Opus Dei. His replacement by someone from Opus Dei clearly communicates that Mahony has lost all practical influence in Rome and was not able to name his successor.”

“What does this mean for the future of the Catholic Church in Los Angeles and California?” asked Farrow. “It means a sharp thrust to the right. The Archbishop of Los Angeles does not merely run the church in LA; he also has tremendous influence on naming the bishop in its associated sees (i.e. San Diego, Orange, Monterey, Fresno, and Riverside) and Region XI, which includes the rest of California. Many of these sees will soon require new bishops and Gomez will have tremendous influence in naming who those bishops will be. He will also reshape the education and formation of new priests for the whole region since St. John’s Seminary, where priests are trained and formed, is under his direct control.”

“(Archbishop) Gomez is an excellent choice from the perspective of Rome,” wrote Fr. Farrow. “He is a member of Opus Dei and therefore ‘orthodox’ and more importantly subservient to Rome. He is a Latino who speaks broken English with a heavy Spanish accent and possesses a populist ‘easy going’ demeanor. He will be a huge hit with Latinos in Southern California and politicians will think twice before confronting Gomez on any point.”

Read more

Editor’s note: After a long string of various scandals and embarrassments, plus some $600 million in abuse settlements, things (finally) appear to be looking up for left-coast Catholics!