On Feminism, Homofascism, and the Errors of Russia: A Video Crash-Course

This post will be short on text, but rich in ideas. I present to you three videos, each one longer and of wider scope than the one preceeding it. It's a kind of intellectual journey into the heart of darkness, but one which will leave you with a much better understanding of what's actually going on in the Church and the world today.

The first is quite short - ca. 4 minutes - and offers a profile of the Minnesota chapter of the subversive "Catholic" group Call to Action. While there is plenty of interesting information to be found online regarding this group - including this blurb on its history - the video offers viewers some insight into how the people involved in the group translate their particular ideology into action. While watching the video, be sure to note how the views espoused by the members of Call to Action are shared by numerous bishops and cardinals currently attending the Synod on the Family, as can be gathered from the statements being issued almost daily from the Holy See Press Office. (A shout out to my #RosicaBlockParty compatriots.)

The second video is somewhat longer - ca. 20 minutes - and provides a brief yet very informative history of the concept of Political Correctness as a tool of social change, how it was introduced into the American educational system, and what it intends to bring about (H/T to Ann Barnhardt for the link). As should become apparent while watching the presentation, Call to Action and similar groups claiming to represent the "oppressed" within the Catholic Church were born from the ideology of the people discussed here.

The third video is considerably longer - ca. 100 minutes - but well worth your time, especially if you watch it to the very end. I discussed this video in some detail back in June of this year, but I consider its content to be so vital in understanding the course of western social politics in the post-Cold War era that I do not hesitate to remind readers of its existence. It contains the testimony of one Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas D. Schuman, an ex-KGB agent who defected to the West in the 1970's, on the topic of socio-political subversion. Mr. Bezmenov's presentation puts the ideology of the Frankfurter School of Marxism, discussed in the previous video, into its larger strategic context, which has as its goal nothing other than the subjugation of the human spirit and the acquisition of totalitarian power.

This, gentle reader, is what Our Lady of Fatima referred to as "the errors of Russia," and they are running rampant in the halls of the Vatican today.

Please share this material with your family, friends and loved ones - particularly with young people attending high school, university or college. It could well save them a life-time of intellectual slavery and an eternity of spiritual suffering.

I leave you with a brief but insightful excerpt from an article written by the recently deceased Solange Hertz (RIP), a true daughter of Holy Mother Church:

How do you get a cat to eat hot pepper? This question, a classic in Marxist training manuals, opens an exercise in revolutionary technique. The answer, to which the student is led by logic and common experience, explains how Communism has been able to take over a third of the world without serious opposition. 

How does one get a cat to eat pepper, a condiment as unpalatable to him as Marxist doctrine is to healthy human nature? The first answer to present itself, says the primer, is obvious: Force open the cat’s jaws and cram the pepper in.

Wrong, the student is told, because the cat’s willing cooperation is lacking. The second answer - to conceal the pepper in a tasty fish - is equally inadequate, because as soon as the cat detects the pepper he simply regurgitates it. 

The correct answer: Sprinkle the pepper all over the cat’s mat. When he lies on it, the pepper will cling to his fur and sting, so that he will soon be licking himself to get it off. This method assures perfect assimilation because (1) the cat is actually ingesting, (2) entirely on his own initiative, (3) and a completely conditioned initiative at that, (4) pepper, which he hates.

On Bishop Peter Doyle and the Queering of Theology

Vatican Radio just released an audio recording of an interview conducted by Philippa Hitchen with Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton, England. While you can listen to the whole recording here, I'd like to focus your attention to a two-minute section of the interview which dealt with so-called "LGBT" issues. The following is a transcript of that section (emphasis mine):

***

Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton

Vatican Radio (VR): I know that you received correspondence from the LGBT Catholic community in England and Wales sharing their hopes for this Synod with you. What kind of response do you think you can take back to that group?

Bishop Peter Doyle (BD): I have to confess, I'm a little concerned that we don't seem - in the Synod - to have faced up to those issues. So, I'm very concerned for people in that group. It would seem to be that the majority of Synod Fathers are not regarding that as the main issue in their own situation, and the issues have been raised occassionally, but I've been surprised that they've been put into a siding.

VR: Is that because they're too difficult?

BD: I think it's a combination of it being too difficult and also the basic, I suppose, theological anthropology - what I mean by that is that our understanding, from the Scripture, of man and woman... there is no room at the moment for a same-sex relationship. And so, I think they've sort of said - well, they haven't actually said this, but in my heart I wonder if they're saying - "We don't know what to do." Now, that's not going to be very helpful for these good people, and maybe something will come out unexpectedly, but at the moment, it seems to be being parked to one side.

VR: So, a strong sense of denial?

BD: I'm not sure that there's a denial. There may be a denial in some parts of the world, or maybe it's just that they haven't got to that point. I don't think there's a denial in Europe, among the European Bishops or North America, but I just don't think people know what to do or how to respond at the moment.

VR: Would you be wanting to encourage greater theological exploration, as you say, of the anthropology?

BD: Well, I think that has got to happen, hasn't it? I think we can't leave people dangling in the air, and in limbo, and the Lord loves us all, so somehow we've got to find a way of embracing everybody. But it's a real challenge at the moment, and I just don't think we've really begun to deal with it in any serious manner. That would almost need a Synod all it's own, I think. I think it would be really difficult to embrace all these issues that have been brought to us at this Synod now.

***

If that last bit about an "LGTB"-Synod struck you as far-fetched, gentle reader, recall that Bishop Doyle's musings follow immediately upon the heels of Pope Francis' statement that "the journey of synodality is the journey that God wants from his Church in the third millennium" - as if the last 2,000 years of meticulously preserved and vigorously defended orthodoxy were just a warm-up for the heretical free-for-all currently unfolding before us. If they don't get what they want this time around, there's always next year's Synod. It could be a Synod on Technology, and Cardinal Marx & Co. would call for an examination of how advances in medical technology have "deepened" our understanding of the "flexibility" of human sexual identity. A Synod on Geography, you say? Simply unthinkable without discussing the complex tapestry of sexual spaces around the globe. (Think I just made that up? Think again.)

What troubles me most about the Bishop's comments, however, is his openness to a "theological exploration" of an "anthropology" which would "embrace" those in "same-sex relationships". This is Modernist-lingo for "finding a loophole to circumvent the plain and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture." I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that they don't feel confident enough to claim outright that Sacred Scripture supports sodomy. But give them time. Can there be any doubt that there is a team of Jesuits working overtime to produce just such a theological abomination?

The Worship of Rest and the Abstention from Labor

Thirty-Fourth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by

 Fr. John H. Stapleton

Monsieur Désiré Dihau
Herni Toulouse-Lautrec (1864-1901)

Participation in public worship is the positive obligation flowing from the Third Commandment; abstention from labor is what is negatively enjoined. Now, works differ as widely in their nature as differ in form and dimension the pebbles on the sea-shore. There are works of God and works of the devil, and works which, as regards spirituality, are totally indifferent, profane works, as distinguished from sacred and sinful works. And these latter may be corporal or intellectual or both. Work or labor or toil, in itself, is a spending of energy, an exercise of activity; it covers a deal of ground. And since the law simply says to abstain from work, it falls to us to determine just what works are meant, for it is certain that all works, that is, all that come under the general head of work, do not profane the Lord's day.

The legislation of the Church, which is the custodian of the Sunday, on this head commends itself to all thoughtful men; while, for those who recognize the Church as the true one, that legislation is authority. The Church distinguishes three kinds of profane works, that is, works that are neither sacred nor iniquitous of their nature. There is one kind which requires labor of the mind rather than of the body. These works tend directly to the culture or exercise of the mind, and are called liberal works, because under the Romans, freemen or liberi almost exclusively were engaged therein. Such are reading, writing, studying, music, drawing - in general, mental occupations in whole, or more mental than corporal. The Church does not consider these works to be included in its prohibition, and they are consequently not forbidden.

It is impossible here to enumerate all that enters into this class of works; custom has something to say in determining what is liberal in our works; and in investigating, we must apply to each case the general principle. The labor in question may be gratuitous or well paid; it may cause fatigue or afford recreation, yet all this is not to the point. The question is, outside the danger of omitting divine service, scandal or circumstances that might lead to the annoyances and distraction of others. The question is: Does this work call for exercise of the mind more than that of the body? If the answer is affirmative, then the work is liberal, and as such it is not forbidden on Sunday, it is not considered a profanation of the Lord's day.

On the other extreme are what go by the name of servile works, which call forth principally bodily effort and tend directly to the advantage of the body. They are known also as works of manual labor. Before the days of Christianity, slaves alone were thus employed, and from the word servi or slaves these are called servile works.

Here again, it is the nature of the work that makes it servile. It may be remunerative or not, recreative or not, fatiguing or not; it may be a regular occupation, or just taken up for the moment; it may be, outside cases of necessity, for the glory of God or for the good of the neighbor. If it is true that the body has more part therein than the mind, then it is a servile work and it is forbidden. Of course there are serious reasons that dispense us from our obligation to this law, but we are not talking about that just at present.

The reason of the proscription is not that such works are evil, but that they interfere with the intention we should give to the worship we owe to God, and that, without this cessation of labor, our bodily health would be impaired: these are the two motives of the law. But even if it happened, in an individual case, that these inconveniences were removed, that neither God's reverence nor one's own health suffered from such occupations as the law condemns, the obligation would still remain to abstain therefrom, for it is general and absolute, and when there is question of obeying a law, the subject has a right to examine the law, but not the motives of the law.

We shall later see that there are other works, called common, which require activity of the mind and of the body in about an equal measure or which enter into the common necessities of life. These are not forbidden in themselves, although in certain contingencies they may be judged unlawful; but, in the matter of servile works, nothing but necessity, the greater glory of God, or the good of the neighbor, can allow us to consider the law non-binding. To break it is a sin, slight or grievous, according to the nature of the offense.

But if servile works are prohibited on the Lord's day, it must be remembered that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," that, for certain good and sufficient reasons, the law ceases to oblige; and, in these circumstances, works of a purely servile nature are no longer unlawful. This is a truth Christ made very clear to the straight-laced Pharisees of the old dispensation who interpreted too rigorously the divine prohibition; and certain Pharisees of the new dispensation, who are supposed assiduously to read the Bible, should jog their memories on the point in order to save themselves from the ridicule that surrounds the memory of their ancestors of Blue-Law fame. The Church enters into the spirit of her divine Founder and recognizes cases in which labor on Sunday may be, and is, more agreeable to God, and more meritorious to ourselves, than rest from labor.

The law certainly does not intend to forbid the kind of works, specifically servile in themselves, connected with divine worship, required by the necessities of public religion, or needed to give to that worship all the solemnity and pomp which it deserves; provided, of course, such things could not well be done on another day. All God's laws are for His greater glory, and to assert that works necessary for the honoring of God are forbidden by His law is to be guilty of a contradiction in terms. All things, therefore, needed for the preparation and becoming celebration of the rites of religion, even though of a servile nature, are lawful and do not come under the head of this prohibition.

The law ceases likewise to bind when its observance would prevent an act of charity towards the neighbor in distress, necessity, or pressing need. If the necessity is real and true charity demands it, in matters not what work, not intrinsically evil, is to be done, on what day or for how long a time it is to be done; charity overrides every law, for it is itself the first law of God. Thus, if the neighbor is in danger of suffering, or actually suffers, any injury, damage or ill, God requires that we give our services to that neighbor rather than to Himself. As a matter of fact, in thus serving the neighbor, we serve God in the best possible way.

Finally, necessity, public as well as personal, dispenses from obligation to the law. In time of war, all things required for its carrying on are licit. It is lawful to fight the elements when they threaten destruction, to save crops in an interval of fine weather when delay would mean a risk; to cater to public conveniences which custom adjudges necessary - and by custom we mean that which has at least the implicit sanction of authority - such as public conveyances, pharmacies, hotels, etc. Certain industries run by steam power require that their fires should not be put out altogether, and the labor necessary to keep them going is not considered illicit. In general, all servile work that is necessary to insure against serious loss is lawful.

As for the individual, it is easier to allow him to toil on Sunday, that is, a less serious reason is required, if he assists at divine worship, than in the contrary event. One can be justified in omitting both obligations only in the event of inability otherwise to provide for self and family. He whose occupation demands Sunday labor need not consider himself guilty so long as he is unable to secure a position with something like the same emoluments; but it is his duty to regret the necessity that prevents him from fulfilling the law, and to make efforts to better his condition from a spiritual point of view, even if the change does not to any appreciable extent better it financially; a pursuit equally available should be preferred. Neglect in seeking out such an amelioration of situation would cause the necessity of it to cease and make the delinquent responsible for habitual breach of the law.

If it is always a sin to engage without necessity in servile works on Sunday, it is not equally sinful to labor little or labor much. Common sense tells us that all our failings are not in the same measure offensive to God, for they do not all contain the same amount of malice and contempt of authority. A person who resolves to break the law and persists in working all day long is of a certainty more guilty than he who, after attending divine service, fails so far as to labor an hour. The question, therefore, is how long must one work on Sunday to be guilty of a mortal sin.

The answer to this question is: a notable time; but that does not throw a very great abundance of light on the subject. But surely a fourth of the whole is a notable part. Now, considering that a day's work is not twenty-four hours, but ten hours, very rarely twelve, frequently only eight, it will be seen to follow that two hours' work would be considered a notable breach of the law of rest. And this is the decision of competent authority. Not but that less might make us grievously guilty, but we may take it as certain that he who works during two full hours, at a labor considered servile, without sufficient reason, commits a mortal sin.

There is a third sort of works to be considered in relation to Sunday observance, which, being of their nature neither liberal nor servile, go by the specific name of common works. This class embraces works of two kinds, viz., those which enter into the common, daily, inevitable necessities of life, and those in which the mind and body are exerted in an equal measure.

The former are not considered servile because they are necessary, not in certain circumstances, but at all times, for all persons, in all conditions of life. Activity of this kind, so universally and imperiously demanded, does not require dispensation from the law, as in the case of necessary servile works properly so-called; but it stands outside all legislation and is a law unto itself.

These works are usually domestic occupations, as cooking and the preparation of victuals, the keeping of the house in becoming tidiness, the proper care of children, of beasts of burden and domestic animals. People must eat, the body must be fed, life requires attention on Sunday as well as on the other six days; and in no circumstances can this labor be dispensed with. Sometimes eatables for Sunday consumption may be prepared on the previous day; if this is not done, whether through forgetfulness, neglect or indifference, it is lawful on Sunday to prepare a good table, even one more sumptuous than on ordinary days. For Sunday is a day of festival, and without enthusing over the fact, we must concede that the words feast and festival are synonymous in human language, that the ordinary and favorite place for human rejoicing is the table, and in this man differs not from the other animals of creation. This may not be aesthetic, but it is true.

In walking, riding, games, etc., the physical and mental forces of man are called into play in about equal proportion, or at least, these occupations can be called neither liberal arts nor manual labor; all manners of persons engage therein without respect to condition or profession. These are also called common works, and to them may be added hunting and fishing, when custom, rightly understood, does not forbid them, and in this region custom most uniformly does so forbid.

These occupations are looked upon as innocent pastime, affording relief to the body and mind, and in this respect should be likened to the taking of food. For it is certain that sanitary conditions often as imperiously demand recreation as nourishment. This is especially the case with persons given to sedentary pursuits, confined during the week to shops, factories and stores, and whose only opportunity to shake off the dull monotony of work and to give the bodies and minds necessary relaxation and distraction is such. It is not physical rest that such people require so much as healthy movement of a pleasing kind, and activity that will draw their attention from habitual channels and thus break the strain that fatigues them. Under these conditions, common works are not only allowed, but they are to be encouraged.

But it must not be lost sight of that these pursuits are permitted as long as they remain common works, that is, as long as they do not accidentally become servile works, or go contrary to the end for which they are allowed. This may occur in three different manners, and when it does occur, the works known as common are forbidden as servile works.

1. They must not expose us to the danger of omitting divine service. The obligation to positively sanctify the day remains intact. Sin may be committed, slight or grievous, according as the danger to which we expose ourselves, by indulging in these pursuits, of missing public worship, is more or less remote, more or less probable.

2. These works become illicit when they are excessive, when too much time is given to them, when the body receives too large a share of the exercise, when accompanied by overmuch application, show or fatigue. In these cases, the purpose of the law is defeated, the works are considered no longer common and fall under the veto that affects servile works. An aggravating circumstance is that of working for the sole purpose of gain, as in the case of professional baseball, etc.

3. Lastly, there are exterior circumstances that make these occupations a desecration of the Lord's day, and as such evidently they cannot be tolerated. They must not be boisterous to the extent of disturbing the neighbor's rest and quiet, or detracting from the reverence due the Sabbath; they must not entice others away from a respectful observance of the Lord's day or offer an opportunity or occasion for sin, cursing, blasphemy and foul language, contention and drunkenness; they must not be a scandal for the community. Outside these contingencies of disorder, the Sabbath rest is not broken by indulgence in works classified as common works. Such activity, in all common sense and reason, is compatible with the reverence that God claims as His due on His day.

The Voice of One Crying in the Desert

Pope Francis speaking at the
50th Anniversary of the Synod of Bishops

In his recent address commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis expounded upon the meaning of "synodality" as a "walking together" of the prelature and the laity - a laity which, as Pope Francis repeatedly underscored, is "infallible in matters of faith." That such infallibility is actually predicated upon "acceptance of the Church's teaching on matters of faith and morals, a willingness to follow the commands of God, and courage both to correct one's brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself" went unmentioned by the Holy Father. I suppose mentioning these vital dispositions would automatically render a great deal of the flock voiceless. How many progressives and revolutionaries in the Church actually uphold every de fide doctrine in its true and proper sense? I've yet to meet one. But I digress.

As many of you know, numerous laypersons have been invited by the Synod Fathers to speak as representatives of the "infallible laity" in order to facilitate the "dynamic of listening" (?) so vital to our Catholic Synodal Church. Quite a few of them turned out to be - quelle surprise! - advocates for changing Church discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion. One presentation, however, stands out as a brilliant example of what an authentic sensus fidei compels any God-fearing Catholic to say in the face of this potentially catastrophic Synod: that of Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea, President of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Bucharest, Romania. She made the following presentation to Pope Francis and the gathered Synod Fathers this past Friday, which I highly recommend to all my readers:

***

Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea

Your Holiness, Synod Fathers, Brothers and Sisters, I represent the Association of Catholic Doctors from Bucharest.

I am from the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. My father was a Christian political leader, who was imprisoned by the communists for 17 years. My parents were engaged to marry, but their wedding took place 17 years later. My mother waited all those years for my father, although she didn't even know if he was still alive. They have been heroically faithful to God and to their engagement. Their example shows that God's grace can overcame terrible social circumstances and material poverty.

We, as Catholic doctors, defending life and family, can see this is, first of all, a spiritual battle. Material poverty and consumerism are not the primary cause of the family crisis. The primary cause of the sexual and cultural revolution is ideological.

Our Lady of Fatima has said that Russia’s errors would spread all over the world. It was first done under a violent form, classical Marxism, by killing tens of millions. Now it’s being done mostly by cultural Marxism. There is continuity from Lenin's sex revolution, through Gramsci and the Frankfurt school, to the current-day gay-rights and gender ideology.

Classical Marxism pretended to redesign society, through violent take-over of property. Now the revolution goes deeper; it pretends to redefine family, sex identity and human nature.

This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent’s offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world. It's an error of religious nature, it's Gnosticism. It's the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger.

Seek ye therefore first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

The Church's mission is to save souls. Evil, in this world, comes from sin. Not from income disparity or "climate change". The solution is: Evangelization. Conversion. Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on. What the world needs nowadays is not limitation of freedom, but real freedom, liberation from sin. Salvation.

Our Church was suppressed by the soviet occupation. But none of our 12 bishops betrayed their communion with the Holy Father. Our Church survived thanks to our bishops’ determination and example in resisting prisons and terror. Our bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists.

Now we need Rome to tell the world: "Repent of your sins and turn to God for the Kingdom of Heaven is near".

Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other Christians to resist it.

Catholic Eduction

Twelfth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

The science of education is still young. What is known as "method" in education has made its best development in comparatively recent years. And one of the chief characteristics of this new science is that the best teachers should be appointed to the youngest children. It used to be thought that any one who knew figures and letters could teach the same to a class of babies. But now it has been discovered that the teacher must not only know all about letters and figures, but also all about babies. He must be skilled in the psychology of the child mind. The young intellect may be made or marred forever, according as its first operations are well or ill directed. The boy is the father of the man. The results of child training reach out into youth, manhood, old age, and life eternal. Hence the greatest importance is to be attached to the education of children. Thus it is that educationists are realizing ever more and more the rich content of the principle, "Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it."

If this is true of education in general, it is eminently true of Catholic education in particular. The future of the Catholic Church in any country depends on the Catholic education of the children. "Give me the children of England and I will make England Catholic." That was one of the favorite sentiments of the late Cardinal Manning. And as so much concerning Catholic education pertains to family life, all Catholic parents ought to know the leading principles. In the field of politics, the education of the people plays a very important role. And in scarcely any country of the world does the Church have its full desire in the matter. It nevertheless continues to work for its ideal, a completely Catholic education for every Catholic child.

Education, in the best sense of the word, is the formation of habits. The formation of good habits is good education. The formation of bad habits is bad education. Education is not merely the acquisition of knowledge. The necessity of examination, especially competitive examinations, is largely responsible for the impression which equates erudition with education. Mere erudition, however, is only a small part of education. It pertains to the faculty of memory. Now, the memory must be trained, but not only the memory. All the powers of the child must be brought out to the highest perfection possible. Its intellect must be trained to perceive the truth. Its senses, internal and external, must be trained to perceive what is beautiful. And, above all, its will must be trained to do what is good. Moreover, since the soul, while in this life, depends on the body for its due operation, the body also must be so trained as to keep in a healthy condition. "A sound mind in a sound body" is an axiom as old as the hills. A training in the fundamental laws of hygiene, therefore, is ministrant to the training of the child's intellectual, aesthetical, and moral faculties.

Further, since man is destined to an eternal life and must attain that eternal life through a life of the spirit in this world, all his natural powers must be made ministrant to this spiritual life. His bodily health, his habits of memory, feeling, taste, intellect, and will must be so trained and directed as to bring forth the best possible fruits in the spiritual life. The supernatural is that which is built on the natural, not that which is built up in mid-air above - separated from the natural. The two merge, one into the other, in such a way that the natural becomes supernaturalized, the psychic becomes spiritualized. In modern parlance, the training of the natural faculties, without regard to their supernatural destiny, is called secular education. It is an education adapted merely to the affairs of this world. On the other hand, the training of the natural faculties with a view to their supernatural destiny, is called religious education. It is an education adapted to the life of the spirit both here and hereafter.

From the foregoing fact, certain principles follow which have an important bearing on presentday educational questions. If man is destined to an eternal life, then he cannot be satisfied with a merely secular education. If grace is ever playing around nature and spiritualizing it, then, under such circumstances, nature will not be satisfied with merely natural occupations and interests. Being spiritualized by a supernatural gift, it must seek a supernatural end and live a supernatural life. A father, then, who leaves a child to choose its own religion, and make its first efforts in spirituality, does the child a grievous wrong. What should we say of a father who only taught his child to walk and did not teach it to use its hands, on the assumption that it would learn that better in its age of discretion? Yet that, and something worse, is what the father does when he leaves the child to choose its own religion. He leaves its spiritual limbs undeveloped, rudimentary, useless. And since to the Catholic, the Catholic religion is the divinely appointed means by which the spiritual life is developed, the Catholic father does his child a grievous wrong if he does not provide it with the best Catholic education possible.

Again, if, on the one hand, secular education ought to be spiritualized by the Catholic faith, on the other hand Catholic education should avail itself of the advantages of secular subjects. The Catholic religion, being the revelation of Truth itself, must appeal to the faculty which has truth for its object. Being a reasonable religion, it must appeal to the reason. The more the reason is cultivated, therefore, the better is it able to apprehend the divine revelation. If, as some educationists hold, Euclid and Latin composition are the best means of making a boy think, then proficiency in Euclid and Latin composition must be a help in giving the boy a grasp of his religion.

Again, the Catholic religion is the religion of the highest morality. It is the religion which is marked out above all others by its fruitfulness in moral goodness, its production of Saints. It must, therefore, appeal to that faculty which has goodness for its object. It must appeal to the will as affording it the widest arena for its exercise and satisfaction, nothing less than the striving for the perfect imitation of Jesus Christ. It must appeal to the will also, as affording it the strength to arrive at moral perfection, the strength which comes through the grace of the seven Sacraments.

The stronger, then, a man's will is, the more perfectly it is exercised in the natural virtues, so much the more fitted is it to avail itself of the helps to supernatural action. Once more, the Catholic religion is a beautiful religion. It must, therefore, appeal to the faculty which has beauty for its object, the aesthetic sense. All sound training in the fine arts, therefore, whether in music, painting, or literature, may be used for the development of the finest and most difficult of all arts, the art of saintliness, the art which absorbs at once all the power of intellect, will, and feeling, the art which expresses the greatest inspirations of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Much too often do we hear people talk as if piety and intellectual proficiency were incompatible accomplishments. Ability in the arts and sciences is supposed to be an occasion of intellectual pride. So it is. The piety, however, which affects to despise these gifts of God is the occasion of a worse sin, the sin of spiritual pride. The natural as well as the supernatural is the creation of Almighty God. And if the Catholic school is to fulfill its mission, it must aim at proficiency in the natural as well as the supernatural, in the natural for the sake of the supernatural.

The high aim and nature of Catholic education postulates some important principles in its administration. We come now to consider, then, the relationships between the school and the family, the school and the Church, the school and the State. The schoolmaster, the parent, the bishop, and the statesman, all have something to say in the matter of the conduct of the Catholic school. The question is complicated, admits of different opinions as to details, and, therefore, cannot be solved off-hand or dogmatically. There are, however, certain leading principles about which the Catholic can have no doubt, and which he must keep clearly before his mind in his efforts to adjust the various claims.

The first and most important principle is that the children belong to the parent under God. They do not belong to the State. Certain States, or rather certain statesmen, claim this right of possession. The Catholic can never admit it. The parents are the authors of the child's body and the parents' wills are the occasion of the creation of the child's soul. The parents, therefore, have confided to their care the nourishment and the education of their children. The mother is fitted by nature for the bearing, the nursing, and the education of children in their earliest years. The father is fitted by nature for providing for the maintenance of all during these years, and providing for the continuance of the education in after years. The State has nothing whatever to do with the possession of the children.

The State exists for the welfare of the temporal interests of the nation. If, therefore, the temporal interests of the nation demand a certain standard of education in the youth of the nation, the State has the right to require such an education from the parents. And in default of the parents fulfilling this obligation, the State has a right to administer such education itself. In doing so, however, it must respect the higher interests of religion.

The children belong to the parents under God. The parents, therefore, have the right to dictate to the State as to the religion in which the children are to be brought up. The parents, moreover, if they are Catholics, have the duty of submitting to the guidance of the Church in the adjusting of the religious and secular claims.

The conditions of present-day society make it generally convenient that the State should provide at least the elementary, and, for the most part, the secondary and higher education of the country. The fact of the government being democratic or monarchical makes no difference to the Catholic principle. Both are compatible with it. Whether as a representative body carrying out the will of the people, or as an absolute monarch carrying out his own will, the ruling body has only the right to administer secular education in so far as it is compatible with the religious education of the children. So long as this principle is saved, there may be much give and take on both sides. The parents must reserve to themselves the right to say what religion shall be taught to the children.

The parents, however, are not absolute masters of their own children. The Power who created all men has the possession of all men. The parents, therefore, must educate their children according to the will of God. To the Catholic, this means that he must be guided by the Church. Governments, however, do not treat with individuals, but with representatives of all. Individual members of Parliament or Congress treat with individual Catholics at election time. That is the opportunity for the Catholic's action, but even then it must be according to the advice of the Bishop. But when it comes to a conference between the State as a body and the Church as a body, then the Bishops assume their right to say what are the Church's requirements. Catholic statesmen have no right whatever to make terms with governments, except with the consent and under the direction of the episcopate.

Owing to diversity of religions and diversity of races, nearly every country in the world holds a different arrangement between the Church and the State. So the Catholic teacher often finds it difficult to adjust the claims of the various parties which in different degrees he represents. He may be engaged directly by the parent, as in the case of a private tutor or governess; or by the State, as in the State schools of the United States; or by the Church, as in the parochial schools and colleges of higher education in this country; or by both State and Church combined, as in the denominational schools in England. And when he enters into his engagement, he is bound in honor to keep to the terms of his engagement.

In most cases, however, he is allowed a certain amount of freedom. It is the head teacher of the school who gives the tone to the school. It is well, then, that he should keep before his mind the ideal at which he ought to aim in so far as is consistent with the terms of his engagement. It is well that Catholics who have a vote in his appointment should have this ideal before their minds. And it is well that non-Catholics should have the Catholic ideal set before them.

Now, the chief characteristic of this ideal is that the teacher, whether he be paid by the parents or by the Church or by the State, is primarily and essentially continuing the work of the parents and not directly that of the Church or of the State. The very existence of the teacher depends only on the assumption of the parents not being able to carry out the work of education themselves. Of course, in so far as the parents are bound to act under the direction of the Church or the State, so is the teacher. But directly his ideal is to carry out the work which essentially belongs to the parents and which they cannot conveniently perform without him.

The Catholic school, therefore, since it is merely a continuation of the family life, and exists merely to help the family to fulfill its destiny, will have its spirit and tone and plans arranged accordingly. Its first principle will be to aim at training the children for future family life.

Schools taught by religious or clergy are not primarily schools for religious or priestly vocations. Doubtless, it is the duty of such religious and clergy to watch carefully for vocations, and to see that no hindrance is put In the way. But they must ever remember that a vocation is an extraordinary gift, whilst marriage is a Sacrament and intended for the generality of men. A school, therefore, whether fitted for elementary, middle, or higher education, whether taught by religious or laity, should be characterized by its likeness to family life. When St. Ignatius conceived and formulated his idea of Jesuit colleges, he did not intend those wonderful boarding establishments, such as Stonyhurst and Beaumont, Georgetown and Fordham. He wished to have day colleges so that the pupils should remain as much as possible under the direct influence of parents and home.

But boarding colleges and convent schools are now a necessity. There is, however, a more stringent obligation on them of approximating as nearly as possible to the family ideal. This is more especially necessary in the schools for girls. The prevailing spirit of these schools should be that of training the future mothers of Catholic families.

The mother is the priestess of the home. She it is who holds the home together. She is the all-important factor in developing the ideal of Catholic family life. Personal piety will be her first accomplishment. Then will come the ordinary school subjects, with "extras," according to the future social status of the child. Then she must be taught how to play. We have hardly yet begun to learn the gospel of Froebel: "Let us teach our children to play." Cricket and tennis and drill have their place, and so has the doll and the doll's house. Then, as the school years draw to an end there are the important subjects of cookery and housekeeping. The Catholic school that neglects these fails to grasp one of its grandest opportunities of furthering its noble aims; that is, of strengthening the family life, of making the nation more Catholic, of hastening the coming of the kingdom of God.

From the foregoing principles there follow some practical conclusions. Parents will first strive to realize that, since the education of children primarily belongs to them, and only by delegation to the teachers, they, the parents, have the obligation of seeking out the most suitable school for their children. The nearest school is not necessarily the most suitable. Nor is the cheapest. The school must first of all be Catholic. Then, in the case of elementary education, the school of the parish or mission will generally be found to be efficient. The elementary school of one's own parish, therefore, has the first claim upon a parent's consideration.

In the case of middle class or higher education, the parents will choose by preference a day high school or college. Then, if the circumstances of the family require a boarding-school or college, the idea of home life will receive the chief consideration. If the future circumstances of the children are such that they can dispense with examinations, then a school which is exempt from public examinations is better than one subject to them. The majority of children, however, require paper qualifications for their start in professional studies. The Catholic parent need have no fear whatever as to the proficiency of Catholic schools in securing excellent results at examinations.

Having used their utmost discretion in the choice of a school, the parents will do well not to meddle with the teacher. An obvious irregularity may arise, in which case it is the parents' duty to act. But, generally speaking, the head master or the head mistress of the school must be trusted to do what is best for the child. To change the school, even once, unnecessarily, is to set back the child's education. To be ever taking the child's part against the teacher is simply to ruin the child's character. Nevertheless the parent should exercise a supervision over the child's school career.

Lastly, if the children are to be educated by a private governess, then the parents must form the habit of mind, and the children and the governess herself must feel it, that she is, as a member of the family, strictly in loco parentis, entitled to deep respect and consideration. She is not called in as a household drudge, but as one even more qualified than the parents themselves to fulfill their high vocation of forming the characters of children, of making them Catholic in mind and in heart, of leading them to their eternal destiny.

The same principle of parental responsibility holds good with regard to ecclesiastical authorities, who undertake the burden of providing a Catholic education for Catholic families. If the State so far neglects its duty that the Church has to provide elementary schools, then the parents ought to support these schools generously. It is not right to allow the priest to go and beg, beg, beg, to support a work which is essentially the work of parents.

So, too, with the high schools and colleges. It ought to be quite unnecessary to say it, yet under the circumstances one must say it: parents ought to pay their school bills regularly and promptly. The work done by such schools and colleges is infinitely more valuable than the money outlay for their material support. It is the least that parents can do to see that the work is not hampered by what so frequently happens: the accumulation of bad debts. The work is God's work, and those who are primarily responsible for it are the parents of families. They have received the Sacrament of Marriage. They have received the graces to bear its burdens. It is not an easy state of life. But with the graces which the Sacrament confers, the married pair are made strong for all exigencies, temporal as well as spiritual.

Vaticanist Confirms Danneel's Ties to St. Gallen Mafia

The German Edition of Catholic News Agency published an interview with Vaticanist Paul Baade today, in which the latter reveals what knowledge he had of the St. Gallen "Mafia-Club" back in 2005, as well as few interesting details regarding the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The relevant section of the interview is posted below in an original Radical Catholic translation (to be updated if CNA puts out their own English translation):

Vaticanist Paul Baade
(Photo: CNA)

CNA: There's a minor scandal brewing in the background [of the Synod on the Family]: Pope Francis invited former Belgian Archbishop Godfried Danneels, who recently admitted before rolling cameras to having belonged to a kind of "Mafia Club" within the Church, to the Synod.

Baade: Correct. I'm not sure whether it's a minor or a major scandal. But it's certainly mysterious. Because it is indeed the case that Cardinal Danneels covered for a Bishop who had abused his nephew. He also pressured - supposedly - King Baudouin to sign into law a proposed bill on abortion, and to be less fussy on the issue. What advice this Cardinal is supposed to be able to give to a Catholic Synod discussing the "vocation and mission of marriage and the family" is a mystery to many, to put it lightly. In regards to the claim he made last month about being a member of some kind of "Mafia" in the College of Cardinals, I can confirm it from personal experience.

CNA: How do you mean that? Did you have information on this beforehand?

Baade: Yes. In April of 2005, I received a reliable tip according to which, a mere three days after the funeral service for John Paul II, Cardinals Martini of Mailand, Lehmann and Kasper of Germany, Bačkis of Lithuania, van Luyn of Holland, Danneels of Belgium and O'Connor of London met in the so-called Villa Nazareth in Rome with the no longer papabile Cardinal Silvestrini in order to formulate together a secret plan to prevent the election of Joseph Ratzinger. I then wrote an article for WELT, published on 17th April, 2005, referring to the meeting and that it violated the directives of the deceased Pope in the 1996 Instruction Universi Dominici Gregis, which laid down new regulations for the order of succession, including the strict directive that no agreements which could influence the outcome of the election were to be made, either befor or during the conclave. Three days later, Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope by a large majority. The retired Cardinal Meisner of Cologne could tell you how, exactly, that came to pass - if it weren't for the order of secrecy regarding all the proceedings of a conclave. But it is no secret that Meisner was, at the time, the most fervent opponent of this group - and especially of Cardinal Danneels. Now, however, it was not him, the old friend of Joseph Raztinger, who was personally invited to the Synod, but rather the equally retired Godfried Danneels, who is six months older than the Archbishop of Cologne. That's a fact.

On Archbishop Myers and Reductio ad Absurdum

As many of you might have read by now, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers recently instructed via official memorandum the Catholics of his diocese to refrain from seeking Communion if they publicly reject Church teaching and from attending events or supporting individuals in opposition to the same. The letter, distributed to priests last Friday, reads as follows:

Archbishop John J. Myers

Principles to Aid in Preserving and Protecting the Catholic Faith in the Midst of an Increasingly Secular Culture

I. The Church will continue to cherish and welcome her members and invite them to participate in her life to the degree that their personal situation permits them honestly to do so. Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments. Non-Catholics and any Catholics who publicly reject Church teaching or discipline, either by public statements or by joining or supporting organizations which do so, are not to receive the Sacraments. They are asked to be honest to themselves and to the Church community.

II. Parishes and other institutions of the Archdiocese should allow use of facilities only to persons and organizations which agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and its canonical legislation or, at least, not oppose them.

III. Catholics, especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at public religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.

September 22, 2015

+Most Reverend John J. Myers

Metropolitan Archbishop of Newark

You can view a copy of the original document here.

Now, much ink is waiting to spilled over this letter - and spilled it will be, rest assured - but I shall leave this to actual journalists better equipped at dealing with the matter in a more fitting and erudite manner. I wish here only to focus on one reaction I ran across while browsing the interwebs: that of Charles Reid, Professor of Canon Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. In a North Jersey newsletter, he is reported to have said:

If Catholics followed the new document to the letter, even a football coach who loudly swears after a close loss or a parent who attends their gay son's wedding would be barred from seeking Communion. And the faithful would have to steer clear of rallies for presidential candidates who disagree with Catholic social doctrine - which includes many Demo­crats, who support abortion rights, and some Republicans, including Governor Christie, a Catholic who supports the death penalty and use of contraception.

In case you missed it, gentle reader, this is supposed to be an example of what's called a reductio ad absurdum or "reduction to absurdity," which is usually accomplished by demonstrating that adopting a given premise would lead - ceteris paribus - to patently absurd results.

Now, if you're like me - and I like to think that you are - chances are good that you find absolutely nothing absurd in the results mentioned by Professor Reid. In fact, they seem like good sense - if not common, then at least possessed of a healthy sensus Catholicus. If you commit a sin, you go to Confession to receive absolution before you go up for Holy Communion. My 8-year-old has this down pat.

The only absurd thing here - besides the fact that Professor Reid has the faculties to teach canon law at a Catholic university bearing the name of St. Thomas Aquinas - is that the good professor finds the idea of barring Catholics, including those who promote contraception and support abortion legislation, from the reception of Holy Communion unthinkable. So unthinkable that he actually uses it do demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum.

Let's review the teaching of the Council of Trent on the subject of receiving Holy Communion worthily:

If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a Sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated. (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11)

Ouch! A professor of canon law one minute, an excommunicated heretic the next. That's gotta hurt.

Of course, I jest. I don't have the power to declare anyone excommunicated, nor to I wish to see the good professor's immortal soul put into such a deplorable state. But it did get me to thinking....

Perhaps one reason why the progressives always seem to have the upper hand is that the Hegelian dialectic is set up to grind conservative resistance into dust. If the only directional force being exerted is leftward, why be surprised at the continual leftward drift? So, what would happen if we changed things up by proposing something radically conservative - restorationist, even? For example, what would happen if a Cardinal or Bishop at the Synod started proposing that we require penitents to declare their mortal sins publicly before the entire congregation, kneel in the back during the Mass of the Catechumens, and then leave the Church before the start of the Mass of the Faithful? This was a common practice during the early medieval period, after all. If it was good enough for St. Theophilus, it's good enough for us, right? Maybe then the Church's present practice would reveal it's true character: as merciful as possible without overtly condoning sin. Or, conversely, maybe the cilice would make a comeback....