Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Sunday, October 31, 2010

The National (Non)Catholic Reporter - Promoting Satan's Agenda

Over the last couple of days, I have become aware of 2 articles on Satan's newspaper of record that once again show that they are pushing an agenda aimed at sending people to hell in droves.
The 1st article is Satan's Blueberry Muffin's obituary of the false "Spirit of Vatican II, although she would probably disagree. ('Don’t even think about it' just isn’t working anymore) In the article she bemoans the rejection by the Catholic Church of what she sees as the "Spirit of Vatican II". In that she is right. The so-called "spirit" she is promoting is being rejected by the Catholic Church, just like it has every other false spirit (Arianism, Manichaeism Pelagianism, Nestorianism, etc) over the past 2000 years. That "spirit" she so dearly loves was not the real Spirit of Vatican II.
What she fails to realize is that the "new spirit in the church" that she talks about rising in the Church isn't new at all. It is the Holy Spirit rising up to combat the false spirit that she bemoans is no longer holding sway. The Spirit rising up is the Spirit of God that she, along with all the other dissident groups & individuals she applauds in the article, have rejected in favor of the demonic spirit they have chosen to follow instead.
Speaking of dissidents, the second article focuses on a recent speech given by Charles Curran at Southern Methodist University. (Curran: How bishops challenge abortion laws is 'flawed') For those of you who don't remember him, he was removed from the faculty of Catholic University in 1986 because of his dissent from a large number of Catholic teachings including contraception & abortion.
Basicly the speech he gave was to tell the Bishops to quit trying to put an end to abortion in the USA. The speech does its best to undermine authentic Catholic teaching on abortion, including when life begins. He attempted to twist Pope John Paul's encyclical "Evangelium Vitae“ to say that Pope John Paul supports his positions. What he is actually doing is providing more cover for pro-aborts like Pelosi, Harkin & Biden to continue on their path of promoting the "culture of death" while claiming to be good Catholics.
I have to wonder if he would have taken the same stand in the battle against slavery 200 years ago. Some of the same arguements he uses here were those used by some to justify allowing slavery to continue.
He also tries to use the fact that the Catholic Church isn't pushing for adultry to be a crime as a justification for not pushing to criminalize abortion. Yes, adultry is terrible. In the Cathechism (p 2381) it is called an injustice. & it is evil. But there is 1 huge difference, adultry doesn't take another life, abortion always does.
Of course there are the other usual dissident suspects on the NonCR website like Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton (whose latest ignores why the publican went home justifed, he repented of his sins*) & Richard McBrien (currently blaming Pope John Paul for the polarization in the Catholic Church rather than taking responsiblitity for it being due to his & others dissent from authentic Catholic teaching).
There is an quote from Winston Churchill that I think is apt to apply to the NonCR gang, "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." As I pointed out early, all we are seeing here is a new group of heretics dissenting from authentic Catholic teaching & expecting a different outcome than what happenned in the past. What will really happen is that they will end up in the same garbage heap as all the rest.
PS Given that Joanie is alledgedly a Benedictine, I think I know what St.Benedict would do with her today if he were arround to deal with her perversity. "If a brother is found to be obstinate, or disobedient, or proud, or murmuring, . . . . if he is perverse, however, let him undergo corporal punishment." (Chapter 23)
"If a sister who has been frequently corrected for some fault, and even excommunicated, does not amend, let a harsher correction be applied, that is, let the punishment of the rod be administered.
But if she still does not reform or perhaps (which God forbid) even rises up in pride and wants to defend her conduct, then let the Abbess do what a wise physician would do. . . .then let the Abbess use the knife of amputation, according to the Apostle's words, "Expel the evil one from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:13), and again, "If the faithless one departs, let her depart" (1 Cor. 7:15)lest one diseased sheep contaminate the whole flock. " (Chapter 28 Note: the translation I am using adapted the even numbered chapters for a women's community. Originally the entire rule was written for the monks. But since it is also used by women monastics the gender doesn't matter. the application is still the same, male or female. Also given she has written her own commentary that totally twists & perverts the rule, I think St. Benedict would appprove my bringing up his solution.)
PPS I need to add that Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell didn't let Charles Curran's attack on Catholic teaching at SMU go unchallenged. In fact he was quite proactive, issuing a statement before the speech making it clear that what Curran was going to say was wrong. Bishop Farrell even makes it clear that Curran cannot use Pope John Paul's "Evangelium Vitae“ rto justify his position.
Of course in the speech Curran tried to claim he wasn't being controversial. Given how he views what he said, to him it isn't. The truth, that Curran is denying, is that he is stirring up controversy to undermine the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. But then he would deny the truth because he doesn't like to admit what he is saying is wrong. & thus admit the damage he is intentionally doing.
* According to Gumbie the Pharisee "recognizes how blessed he is" & was simply citing "what he’s been able to do with God’s help." But later he says "The Pharisee tends to think it’s his own doing". Which is it? Acknowledging God's help or taking the credit himself? It can't be both. The way to justification according to Gumbie is to simply thank God for all He has done for you. Yet that IS exactly what this Pharisee did, Thank God. Remember his prayer begins "'O God, I thank you".
But the big thing is the person in the parable that Gumbie totally ignores, the person that Jesus says goes home justified & why that person went home justified, the tax collector aka the publican (an old word for tax collector) in older texts. & why did the tax collector go home justifed. Not because he praised God. Rather because he admitted his sinfulness & asked God for mercy, seeking forgiveness of those sins.
Now why did Gumbie brag up the Pharisee & ignore the tax collector? Let's talk about the tax collector 1st. I can come up with several reasons. As I said before the older term used for a tax collector was publican. Maybe he thought it was to close to republican & he was afraid of sounding political & partisan? Yeah, right. Given Gumbie's leftist, big government leanings, maybe he was afraid of making someone who he knows is needed to keep it running look bad? Or maybe it was simply that, like many of his false "spirit of Vatican II ilk, he didn't want to admit to what he spent the last 45 years denying, there is such a thing as sin & what the consequences of not repenting are, eternity in Hell. I vote for this last reason.
As for the Pharisee, I am honestly surprized he even said as much negative about him as he did. Let's face it, the Pharisee would fit in perfectly with today's "catholyc" "false "spirit of Vatican II" gang. I can see him lustily singing "We have come to tell our story" or "Let us build a house where. . ." Songs Fr. Mitch Pacwa was critical of on last Wed nite's EWTN Live. As I said, the Pharisee typifies today's "catholyc" so I suspect Gumbie didn't go too hard on him to avoid making any of his buddies take to hard a look at what they are really like.


  • At 31/10/10 9:21 PM , Blogger Larry Denninger said...

    Al - you may want to change your headline. You mean the 'Reporter', not the 'Register'.

    Good article!

  • At 31/10/10 9:25 PM , Blogger TH2 said...

    It was a certain Joseph Ratzinger that that annulled Curran. As I tweeted on Curran: "subtle/blurring of distinctions between a this and a that: 'The presence of a soul at conception is probable, not definite.'

  • At 31/10/10 9:38 PM , Blogger Al said...

    LarryD - OOPS!!!! Grazie for catching it. For some reason I have a tendancy to do that, write register rather than reporter. Wonder what Freud would make of that. Maybe I just hate even giving them acknowledgement?

    TH2 - Yup, Then Cardinal Ratzinger. 1 of his best moves at the CDF.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery