Monday, April 07, 2014

John Paul the Overrated and more

  • Groups seek to halt John Paul II’s canonization. I have no devotion to John Paul II. His papal name, a tribute to Vatican II, pretty much says why not. Assisi, the Koran incident, and altar girls. That said, this story, these groups, are suspect. In other words they want to stop the canonization for the wrong reason. The mainstream media are ginning up mainstream Western anti-Catholicism by calling the scandal "pedophilia." Actually, good Wanderer-reading Catholics, REAL Catholics, blew the whistle on those crimes and were blown off by liberal bishops. Now the liberals are on the bandwagon of righteousness, hiding the problem of homosexuality, calling the problem pedophilia, and even using it to attack the conservative Catholics who first attacked the problem. Calling for liberal "reforms" like having priests marry like Protestant ministers, women priests, and yes, teaching that homosexuality is fine. By the way, when many of these crimes happened, the secular left was sort of OK with sex with kids. (NAMBLA didn't come out of nowhere. Those golden-era public-service films were right. Homosexuals try to recruit and seduce teenagers. Tried it on me twice. That's my answer about gay scoutmasters.) If John Paul the Overrated is sainted, no problem. I'll just keep not venerating him. I have Jesus, Mary, and the traditional saints East and West. John Paul who? The petition is signed by Catholics for a Free Choice. What did I tell you? How, pray tell, is stopping predatory gay priests related to the "noble cause" of baby murder? (The feminists' sacrament, parodying the Incarnation and the Eucharist. "I will not serve.") By the way, didn't/doesn't Playboy fund that group? (The sexual revolution: pig heaven for alpha players and ultimately nobody else. Playboy: more sex for players, while at least before the Internet, the losers were stuck paying for Playboy's product. How convenient as Dana Carvey used to say.)
  • Brendan Eich. If you had told someone in the golden era that, say, General Sarnoff, head of RCA and NBC, would be forced to quit his company for holding the radical, offensive notion that two men or two women can't marry each other, he would have told you that you were crazy. (One of neoconservatism's points: the Jewish gentlemen of the old left rightly hated the hippies.) This society's in a death spiral. Hint: the state has an interest in promoting the common good, and marriage is ultimately about producing children, for that good. Any other definition of marriage, such as for mutual happiness, from no-fault divorce and remarriage to same-sex pseudogamy, isn't about that good. So the state shouldn't call it marriage. Also, freedom of association. Homosexuals only have the right to live unharmed like anyone else ("hate crime" = thoughtcrime); one should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Ludwig von Mises: money's money, so discrimination is self-limiting because it's self-defeating. The state has no right to redefine reality.
  • Outrageous historical denial. Not of an acceptable (substitute) religion, of course, such as the magic number "six million" about you-know-what ad nauseam (Bishop Williamson and science: try "hundreds of thousands"), nor "the Burning Times" when wonderful, woman-affirming witches were burned by the hundreds by evil Christian white men (false), but... the church's early martyrs in the Roman Empire. So says pretty theology professor Candida Moss. Why I don't give places like Notre Dame a second thought. Vatican II and the Land O'Lakes compromise (break with the bishops, get government funding) shot them in the foot; they're only about sports as big business, and I don't follow sports. Granted, as educated Catholics before the council such as Donald Attwater knew, many legends of the saints are just that, fanciful and not part of the faith. But this rewriting of history comes close to heresy. No surprise. Our Protestant host culture, even in the North where it doesn't go to church anymore and has turned into political correctness, wants to assimilate us.
  • Quo vadis? To those who are in or know about the Catholic Church: what do you think will happen to it in 50 years? My line: Most kids don't go to church, but Catholics who do tend to join the trads and the reform-of-the-reform conservatives. The liberals are dying. So the American Catholic Church will still be here, and will be almost traditional again, but will be much smaller. (As Pope Benedict envisioned.) Other say Pope Francis is the sign of things to come as Third World/Global South liberation theology will essentially take over so traditionalist and conservative First Worlders will be sidelined at best. At best orthodox but low-church. Churchmen will try to keep their power and influence by continuing to align with liberal democracy (as they have been doing since Vatican II) even as that fades (we're becoming the Third World: no real republic anymore and no more middle class; a few very rich and a lot of very poor). So you won't see bishops heroically excommunicating pro-abortion politicians - they want to keep having their pictures taken with the president to show that Catholics have succeeded in America. And giving tenure to professors like Dr. Moss.
  • From Takimag:
    • Mass cisteria. A flint-faced New England farmer was out walking his hedgerows one day when he chanced upon 2 Sodomites in the midst of their abnormal gyrations. He cocked his head to one side and took in the scene, and after a moment, said: "I hate to break it to you fellas, but you can't have a baby doing it that way."
    • Gaytheism.
    • Gilding the Bagel. New York City is the capital of the world. Been there many times.


  1. My review of the Moss book.

  2. "To those who are in or know about the Catholic Church: what do you think will happen to it in 50 years?"

    I know enough to know that I don't know enough to make predictions of the future. Sometimes lukewarm and even lapsed Catholic nations, if their faith is deep-rooted and old enough, unexpectedly return to active devotion when the persecution begins- think of Ireland under British rule, or Poland under the Communists. Even successful persecutions take longer than we think; England first officially broke with the Church in 1534, and it took over 170 years of ferocious repression and multiple revolutionary upheavals to finally almost eradicate the Faith (England was probably still 13-15% Catholic when James II was overthrown, with many more sympathetic). The Church also tends to pick up talented and energetic converts in times of decadence and societal decay, when the prevailing mood of despair and materialism alienates the thoughtful and introspective.

    Against these, though, is the sheer extent of the self-inflicted damage. The human governors of the Church put the barrel of a shotgun into Her mouth and pulled the trigger; it's only by Divine protection that She miraculously survived. It's hard to predict that nominal Catholics who want to protect their culture, history, and national heritage will rally to their ancient Faith, when most of the bishops who are charged with leading that Faith are shamelessly toadying to the ones responsible for the destruction. Similarly, thoughtful men and women repulsed by the decadence, materialism, and irrational perversity of the world around them aren't hearing much criticism of those things from the mouths of the official spokesmen of Catholicism.* "Public Arena" Catholics today mostly resemble those who sat at the beginning of the Reformation- smug, self-satisfied, unconcerned by corrpution and abuses in others even when they themselves do not participate, and inclined to believe that deadly threats to the Church will disappear on their own if ignored long enough.

    Nothing that happens to the Church is really new, but I do have the sense that the usual process of decay and renewal may start happening at a much faster rate than in the past. I've personally known enough young, twentysomething seminarians and candidates for the religious life in the past few years to be cautiously optimistic. Some of them, though certainly not most, are a little naive, but they're almost to a man reflexively hostile to anything that smells of McBrien-style Liberalism. The Church will be ferociously attacked from without in the coming decades, but it won't have to suffer another large-scale revolt from within anytime soon.

    *The best example of this I can think of is the so-called "New Feminism" promoted by certain sincere but hopelessly soft-brained Catholics. Instead of coming out and saying what intelligent people have been figuring out for themselves for the past few decades- that Feminism is a toxic, Marxist-inspired cocktail of envy and sexual deviance, devoid of any rational connection to reality as we know it- they're taking traditional Catholic ideas about proper sex roles (ideas that have been around since ancient Rome), and pretending that these are new inventions that Catholics could only figure out once Betty Friedan set us straight. It's reminiscent of the Yugoslavian free-market economists who pretended to call themselves "Marxists" in the years immediately before Communism fell.

  3. "Homosexuals try to recruit and seduce teenagers. Tried it on me twice."

    As a Catholic, I knew intellectually from Church teaching that homosexuality was wrong, but it wasn't until I was approached by an elderly man of that persuasion, when I was just barely out of my teens, that I realized firsthand just how damaging it could be to a person's personality and soul. He had obviously once been a very intelligent and accomplished man- former British Army officer, educated to be an Anglican priest but eventually declined ordination- but his entire view of history, theology, and the world around him was deeply, deeply warped by his sexual obsessions and decades of self-indulgence. He seemed incapable of discussing anything without returning to the subject of sodomy, and at various points almost implied that most people are naturally homosexual or at least bisexual, and it's only a sinister worldwide conspiracy (headed by the Catholic Church, naturally) that makes people pretend to be straight. He also expressed the most virulent misogyny I've ever heard in my life (Roissy is a radical feminist by comparison), and seemed to be quite clearly borderline-suicidal. I hadn't personally known any homosexuals before then, except by reputation, but seeing what 40+ years of sodomy could do to an otherwise talented man has left me with a healthy revulsion ever since. I don't pester people to their faces and I don't make cruel remarks, but I've never been foolish enough to believe the lie that "Our love is the same as everyone else's".


Leave comment