“Regina Coeli” (Queen of Heaven), The Monks of Glenstal Abbey, from the album “The Sound Of The Spirit From Glenstal Abbey“, 2009
March 19th just past was the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is just a short post, in this time of great uncertainty and temptation to anger and judgement. A short post to describe a consecration to St. Joseph, my Name Saint, which I found today on Mark Mallett’s Blog site.
The Immaculata and The Terror of Demons
I have been following Mark Mallett’s blog for quite a while now and find in his writing a constant source of encouragement and hope.
If one is a little lacking in belief and faith (and who isn’t these days) then a first reaction to his articles might well be “No Way!”
But look about you … suspend judgement for a moment … and follow up on his references and the material he points to.
He is following in the footsteps of a 2000 year old tradition with the full approval of his bishop and his spiritual director.
Another excellent site is that of Fr. Don Calloway and his Consecration to St. Joseph. The image on the left is from his new book, “Consecration to St. Joseph: The Wonders of Our Spiritual Father,”
So, from Mark’s post: ” … just a word on Joseph himself. He is a profound model for us in these extremely turbulent times as we approach the Eye of the Storm.
He was a man of silence, even when tribulation and “threat” surrounded him. He was a man of contemplation, capable of hearing the Lord. He was a man of humility, able to accept the Word of God. He was a man of obedience, ready to do whatever he was told.
Brothers and sisters, this present crisis is only the beginning. The powerful spirits that are being sent to tempt us at this hour are the antithesis of St. Joseph’s disposition. The spirit of fear would have us enter the noise and panic of the world; the spirit of distraction would have us lose our focus on God’s presence; the spirit of pride would have us take matters into our own hands; and the spirit of disobedience would have us rebel against God. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)
And here is how to submit yourself to God: imitate St. Joseph, encapsulated in the beautiful words of Isaiah. Make this your creed to live by in the days to come: By waiting and by calm you shall be saved, in quiet and in trust shall be your strength. (Isaiah 30:15)
ACT OF CONSECRATION TO ST. JOSEPH
Beloved St. Joseph, Custodian of Christ, Spouse of the Virgin Mary Protector of the Church: I place myself beneath your paternal care. As Jesus and Mary entrusted you to protect and guide, to feed and safeguard them through
the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I entrust myself to your sacred fatherhood. Gather me into your loving arms, as you gathered your Holy Family. Press me to your heart as you pressed your Divine Child; hold me tightly as you held your Virgin Bride; intercede for me and my loved ones
as you prayed for your beloved Family. Take me, then, as your own child; protect me;
watch over me; never lose sight of me. Should I go astray, find me as you did your Divine Son, and place me again in your loving care that I may become strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God rest upon me.
Therefore, I consecrate all that I am and all that I am not
into your holy hands. As you carved and whittled the wood of the earth, mold and shape my soul into a perfect reflection of Our Savior. As you rested in the Divine Will, so too, with fatherly love, help me to rest and remain always in the Divine Will, until we embrace at last in His Eternal Kingdom, now and forever, Amen.
So when we find ourselves tempted to rush to judgement and attribute motives, when we find ourselves upset and second guessing the orders of our Bishops, and the sometimes unclear directions of our elected leaders. Keep in mind that they are likely just as uncertain and perhaps fearful as we are with the added burden of all eyes being on them and second guessing everything they do and say.
From Saint John of the Cross via “Divine Intimacy”: “God wants from us the least degree of obedience and submission, rather than all the works we desire to offer Him.” Why? Because obedience makes us surrender our own will to the will of God’s will as expressed in the orders of our superiors; and the perfection of charity, as well as the essence of union with God, consists precisely in the complete conformity of our will with the divine will. Charity will be perfect in us when we govern ourselves in each action – not according to our personal desires and inclinations – but according to God’s will, conforming our own to His.
The will of God is expressed in His commandments, in the precepts of the Church, in the duties of our state in life; beyond all that, there is still a vast area for our free choice, where it is not always easy to know with certitude exactly what God wants of us. In the voice of obedience, however, the divine will takes on a clear precise form; it comes to us openly manifest and we no longer need to fear making a mistake. St. Paul says “There is no power but from God” (Rom 13,1), so that by obeying our lawful superiors, we can be certain that we are obeying God. Jesus Himself, When entrusting to His disciples the mission of converting the world, said “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despitheth you, despiseth Me (Lk 10,16)“
“Your Dying Heart”, Adrian von Ziegler, from the album “Requiem”, (2011)
So, when did the Assistant to the Director of the IMF’s Communications Department get the right to make the calls on who gets censured and who gets excommunicated in the Roman Catholic Church? And why is a senior Catholic cleric agreeing with him?
(Tony) … is currently Assistant to the Director, Communications Department, International Monetary Fund. In this capacity, he handles outreach on the sustainable development agenda.
An economist by training, his work centers on the intersection of ethics, economics, and sustainable development. (so definitely not a shepherd).
He plays a leadership role in the Ethics in Action initiative—a project that brings together religious leaders, academics, business and labor leaders, development practitioners, and activists to develop and promote ethically-grounded practical solutions to sustainable development challenges.
He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University, and a B.A. (first class degree and gold medal) and an M.Litt. from Trinity College Dublin. He was awarded a doctorate in humane letters, honoris causa, in 2017 by the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, and was inducted into its College of Fellows.
He is also Knight Commander of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. (and a double Ph.D.)
Tony is probably not an atheist or the Dominicans would be unlikely to be granting honorary degrees or having him inducted into their College of Fellows. But is he plausibly a leading “Bright”, a stalking horse for a “higher order” agenda at the U.N.?
A cursory read of of his blurb at his U.N. site gives one the impression that he pretty much embodies the new paradigm as a charter member the tiny minority of “elite” worshipers of “man”, and “self”, as the higher order personified, the “Brights” of the new paradigm, which seems at odds with the Dominican connection.
So Pietro Cardinal Parolin’s “New Paradigm” of apparently casting doubt on two millennia of authentic Catholic teachings on marriage and the family, seems being pushed through by force and bluster and press releases by the Bergoglian mafia in Rome and by removal or transferring, by our good Pope Francis, of all vocal clerical opponents in Rome and globally,
Some thoughts from the “New American Standard Bible” … we have:
Parable of the Good Shepherd
The Good Shepherd
1“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. 2“But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3“To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4“When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5“A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9“I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. 11“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
12“He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13“He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
14“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16“I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
17“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
What the heck is going on here? The hired hands seem to be making a peace of convenience with the wolves of this day. Is all this just arrogance in action? After all, it is not exactly my responsibility to point out perceived irrationality in my putative betters. Hmm … Gotta be a sin here somewhere. How about “Pride”?
Is this just a great big fat circle jerk of Pride? Pride on the part of all the major players, but also pride on my own part for thinking that I might not only recognize wrongdoing and maleficence on the part of my superiors but that I might actually believe that I know better.
Grey Tribe: In Mission Control the Gold Team, directed by Gerald Griffin (seated, back of head to camera), prepares to take over from Black Team (Glynn Lunney, seated, in profile) during a critical period.
Our picture on the right is: “In Mission Control the Gold Team, directed by Gerald Griffin (seated, back of head to camera), prepares to take over from Black Team (Glynn Lunney, seated, in profile) during a critical period.
Seven men with elbows on console are Deke Slayton, Joe Kerwin (Black CapCom), Vance Brand (Gold CapCom), Phil Shaffer (Gold FIDO), John Llewellyn (Black RETRO), Charles Deiterich (Gold RETRO), and Lawrence Canin (Black GNC).
Standing at right is Chester Lee, Mission Director from NASA’s Washington headquarters, and broad back at right belongs to Rocco Petrone, Apollo Program Director. Apollo 13 had two other “ground” teams, the White and the Maroon. All devised heroic measures to save the mission from disaster.”
It seems that the loud explosion WE just heard, which the Bergoglian Curia are blowing off as a “New Paradigm” this time, might just end in the death of the crew, the traditional human heads of the Roman Catholic Church. Who are we going to call, with our leadership doing their best to get rid of all our grey tribe Gold Team?
Where is our Curiae, our Roman Catholic “Grey Tribe”, our “Amicus Curiae” to devise “heroic measures” to save our mission from disaster? Absent Divine Intervention, as we have seen so many times in the past two thousand years, the future doesn’t seem friendly no matter what the Telus cell phone commercials tell us.
Will the U.N. agenda take over the mission of the Roman Catholic Church? Fortunately most humans only live 70 or 80 years so there is still hope, especially if one keeps in mind that it is Jesus’ church and God’s plan. I keep in mind that we have the eternal Gold Team on our side.
Always remember, when the Scribes and Pharisees declared “better that one should die than that all suffer”, they were not talking about “all” the people, they were not talking about us, they were talking about all the entire crop of Scribes and Pharisees of that day …. they were talking about the “all” of themselves and the threat to their own power, pride and honor which Yeshua embodied.
Saint Teresa of Avila says “However slight may be our concern for our reputation, if we wish to make progress in spiritual matters we must put this attachment right behind us, for if questions of honor prevail we will never make great progress or come to enjoy the real fruits of prayer, which is intimacy with God.”
The Saint also says that concern for their honor is the reason why many people who have devoted themselves to the spiritual life, and are very deserving on account of many good works, are still “down on earth” and never succeed in reaching the “summit of perfection”.
They remain mired because they are so insistent on preserving their reputation, so extremely attentive to every small point, every minor rule and little detail, so strict or exact in the observance of the formalities or amenities of conduct or actions with regards to their station in life.
To paraphrase Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D. from the book “Divine Intimacy”: Attachment to the things of this world, especially to our honor, is shown in all those large and small susceptibilities arising from our attitude that wishes to affirm our personality, hold onto the esteem of others and make our point of view prevail.
This attitude shows up in the various schemes, conscious and petty or not, to obtain and keep privileges and honorable positions where our own views, which we always think are good, will prevail. In this way we hope to make obvious our abilities, works, and our own personal merits which are always worthy in our own eyes.
Pride, pride, pride, it is always about pride. It is also about obedience and the lack of same …. more on that later.
Quid hoc ad aeternitatem, as old Saint Bernard of Clairvaux used to mumble when faced with the usual parade of travail, what does it matter in the light of eternity?
“Hamachidori“, by Ryutaro Hirota, played by Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra & Kazumasa Watanabe, from the album “Konomichi―Favorite Japanese Melodies (Japanese Melody Series)” (2004)
“Konomichi―Favorite Japanese Melodies (Japanese Melody Series)” (2004)
In all seriousness, I understand that as soon as I am sincerely sorry for my sins, for having offended God, He forgets all my sins and malice and forgives me, for He is truly infinite goodness, infinite mercy.
And I understand that to look back in remorse for sins which have already been forgiven is to commit another sin, a sin of pride.
A sin of “Pride” because, as sure as God made little green apples, I am busy sinning away right now. Getting maudlin about the past, or even blaming the past, is just a distraction from dealing with the sins of right now.
Looking back on past sins is a sin of not trusting that I am in fact forgiven. Lack of trust is fraught with self reliance and self centeredness. Looking back is “Pride” in action, an absence of humility, rather than a practice of humility.
I have to apply myself first of all to humility of heart and continue to deepen the sincere recognition of my nothingness, my weakness. An important part of that recognition is a sincere acceptance of responsibility for my thoughts, words, and deeds.
One certainty abides, through all the stormy rhetoric, namely, that this “nothingness” which I contemplate with horror, is not the fault of any other creature and the mere attempt to “place blame” or “attribute responsibility” on or to another creature for the folly and beliefs I entertain about my self is abject knavery in action.
Only the truly, madly, deeply, cowardly, the quintessential poltroon makes the attempt to deflect responsibility onto another creature for thoughts, words and deeds which that bad actor inflicts on others. Down the path of deflection lies in wait a truly insidious trap, and also an accidental gift.
The trap is spiritual death for the deflector, but God permits the accidental gift to that poor creature which is receiving blame and humiliation because it is impossible to become humble without experiencing humiliation, and God wants us to be truly humble.
It is an even greater gift (“gift” raised to some power) when the humiliated are, by their hard work, making the humiliation possible, by providing every single tiny part of the sustenance needed for the poltroons, the bad actors, to exist.
The Emperor of this world
And by their works shall you know them … It seems to me that this deflection of responsibility onto others is one of the most prominent identifiers, a true hallmark, of modernist self worshipers, the slaves of “This World”.
It seems that the less they know (especially of themselves), and the worse their behaviour, the more these actors blame it all on someone else, and excuse their own behaviour.
These actors seem to be willing to attempt any gymnastic contortion in their efforts to blame other creatures, or some event, or circumstances over which they have no control, literally ANYTHING will work for them as an object to blame.
They need a target of their wrath, a perpetual motion engine of hate, in order to avoid having to face the evidence of their own actions, their own sins, and in this avoiding of all responsibility for their thoughts, words, and deeds, these actors pretty much exclude the possibility of ever gaining anything remotely resembling wisdom, that is self-knowledge through experience.
Now, wisdom seems to encourage patience, patience with the foibles and eccentricities of other creatures, our neighbors, and more time encourages more patience, tending eternally until the someday heat death of the universe.
The older one gets (God willing) the more patience one develops, because one has a wider experience of foibles and eccentricities. Another word for the creature so enlightened by this wisdom of experience is, “Conservative.” Been there, done that.
“Kojo No Tsuki” (Rentaro Taki), performed by Yo-Yo Ma, Michio Mamiya, & Patricia Zander, from the album “Japanese Melodies” (1990)
Kojo No Tsuki (Rentaro Taki), performed by Yo-Yo Ma, Michio Mamiya, & Patricia Zander, from the album Japanese Melodies (1990)
As I have previously pointed out in random past posts, the more one knows about a subject, the longer one has studied a subject, the more detailed one’s understanding of any subject, the more sure one becomes about the reality of that subject, the more “Conservative” one becomes towards it.
On the other hand, the less one knows, the more liberal he or she becomes, and the more inclined he or she is to embrace “progress” and “reforms.” Socialism and Communism embody reform by the unknowing, and these socioeconomic systems are always imposed from above or from outside by those with no practical knowledge of that which they are reforming. But even a Communist may prove a very “conservative” hockey player, once he learns something about hockey.
As a Polish immigrant friend of mine once said, to answer my question about why he worked in a print shop when he had a Masters Degree in Economics: “It’s really very simple (Joe), Communists know nothing about economics, and my Masters Degree from the Warsaw School of Economics was granted under the Communists. My Masters degree in Economics is in an area which that school, at the time, knew nothing about.”
This seems a universal principle. Everyone knows something about something, and is very unwilling to embrace change in that which he knows much about. Quoting David Warren again: “The one exception may be journalists, who know nothing about anything, and are therefore liberal all round.”
So, because I have studied sin, and I have a lot of practical knowledge about sin, perhaps a virtual PhD in Sin gained in the “Work Term” of life. Ha, just imagine that, a Doctorate in Sin, because of my experience of sin I hold a “Conservative” view of sin.
There seems to be an iron law of bad behaviour, an iron law of sin, and it seems to have two manifestations … it seems to be that if the actor (the sinner) accepts responsibility for the self’s thoughts, words, and deeds, the sinner thereby internalizes these events and can move forward fruitfully to asking, nay, begging for forgiveness as the enormity of one’s sins wash over the self.
On the other hand, if the actor denies all responsibility and clings desperately to the fantasy that no forgiveness is needed because nothing is the actor’s fault, and because there is no fault, therefore no blame accrues, and no guilt is felt, and no repentance is required. It’s all a magic show … Wax on, Wax off … deflect and disarm, B.S. baffles brains, right?
Occupy Wall-street, or in Canada’s case Occupy Ottawa which Capital City owes it’s very existence to the hard work of all those creatures who are being blamed for what is wrong by other creatures who contribute nothing but only suck, and suck, and suck, yup … life really sucks.
Responsibility, or no responsibility,
That is the question— Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And, by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep—No more—and by a sleep to say we endThe heartache and the thousand natural shocksThat flesh is heir to—’tis a consummationDevoutly to be wished! To die, to sleep.To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub,For in that sleep of death what dreams may comeWhen we have shuffled off this mortal coil,Must give us pause. There’s the respectThat makes calamity of so long life.
We are such victims of other’s delusions as to sometimes wish for death … This delusional behaviour can even go so far as to target entire groups of creatures (individuals unknown to the deluded) in an arbitrary category of scapegoat, the blame-game targets. A blatant example of this was brought up by David Warren in his blog a small portion of which I quote as a teaser:
“Among the signs of our time is a poster mounted by a local “educational” institution. (One must use this term very loosely, these days.) The headline reads: “Check Your Privilege,” and in case you don’t know what the long word means, a definition is offered:
“Privilege: Unearned access to social power based on membership in a dominant social group.” (ed. Ooooooooo … that’s just so spine-tingling clever I about wet myself in the thrill of the moment)
Naturally, one then wonders what the author means by “unearned,” “access,” “social,” “power,” “membership,” “dominant,” and “group.” But that’s only a beginning. The graphic design is professional, slick, expensive. Underneath this frankly Orwellian statement, we have a “black list” (quite literally, white type reversed from a black rectangle) resembling a Canadian election ballot. There are nine entries, which the viewer is invited to mentally check off: … ” (go read the rest at David’s blog post, it is really quite amusing)
It seems obvious that the local “educational” institution in question must be a publicly funded institution.
And it is equally obvious that the institutionalized inhabitants of this “academy”, both academics and students, belong to that perennially vocal class of creatures who are always blaming others, entire groups of other creatures, for what are provably their own failings, inadequacies, and disappointments.
Sigh … ever was it so, at least in living memory.
YEAAHHH !!!! Lets give a big cheer for free public education … and it is worth exactly what you pay for it.
All of the above is the articulation of an observation of a phenomenon, of something “real”, in the “real” world, which observation raises an obvious question. Is the articulation of the observation a “sin” in the sense that we are talking about? Is it a sin to write about observed behaviour of other creatures?
Or is the “sin” actualized in thoughts about the motives and actions of those other creatures who would organize and present this propagandized interpretation of “Privilege” at the expense of other creatures.
“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)
“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)
Now, I looked it up on Google, and as we know we can find everything on Google and Google has this to say about Privilege:
But not a damned thing related to this “Privilege” thing, as “Unearned access” anywhere. I am thinking that in fact what this is all about is “Envy”, another great sin as old as man. Pride and Envy, two of the seven deadly sins …Everyone knows of the seven deadly sins.
The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a grouping and classification of vices within Christian teachings. Behaviors or habits are classified under this category if they directly give birth to other immoralities. According to the standard list, they are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth, which are also contrary to the seven virtues.
These sins are often thought to be abuses or excessive versions of one’s natural faculties or passions (for example, gluttony abuses one’s desire to eat). This classification originated with the desert fathers, especiallyEvagrius Ponticus, who identified seven or eight evil thoughts or spirits that one needed to overcome.
The idea of “Privilege” does raise another thought, it is interesting to note that, by inference, all of us creatures, both the blamers and the blamed, are indeed “privileged” by ANY definition of the word, because any impartial judge could not help but find that none of us are worthy of existence simply on our own merits. We are all privileged to come into and remain in existence solely through the goodness and mercy of God.
And every second of every living day we commit sins against our creator by continually failing to follow the manufacturers instructions. We are indeed guilty, we are indeed to blame, for all the evil that we think and say and do. We desperately need to be forgiven and the only path to forgiveness is acceptance of responsibility, repentance, to be sincerely sorry for our sins, and to affect a conversion to a new way of living, thinking and acting.
Being forgiven doesn’t balance the scales, in fact I am never able to balance the scales of justice. That is made up for by God’s own mercy, but I have to work out my penance, with fear and trembling, by mortification, prayer and exercising humility.
We are all sinners, or so I am told, but the only sinner I am sure of is myself. Of course the are numerous scriptural reference to salutary examples of bad behaviour and the conduct of ancient sinners. Sometimes it is good to remind oneself of sinners long gone to their reward … and there is nothing new under the sun.
“Àki”, Rodrigo Rodriguez, from the album “Inner Thoughts” (2006)
Even as thou seekest the truth, the truth that thou seekest thou shalt find. So finding a relevant post while considering the mocking commentary of the trolls whenever I include some portion of “Divine Intimacy” in my posts I herewith re-post from Fr. Hunwicke’s site:
“Continuing to consider Archbishop Lefebvre’s book, from my own background in Catholic Anglicanism, I discern in it more than a whiff of that admirable Anglican Ulsterman,C S Lewis. Not that Archbishop Lefebvre, I am sure, will have read him; but because first-rate Christian thinkers so often, laudably, converge.
Take a particular tricky theological problem: explaining how souls rooted in a false religion may find their way to God, without asserting – or leading others to think you mean – that all religions are more or less as good as each other: ‘syncretism’ or ‘indifferentism’.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Mgr Lefebvre writes ” … in the false religions, certain souls can be oriented towards God; but this is because they do not attach themselves to the errors of their religion! It is not through their religion that these souls turn towards God, but in spite of it! Therefore, the respect that is owed to these souls would not imply that respect is owed to their religion”.
And: ” … these religions [he has just mentioned Islam and Hinduism] can keep some sound elements, signs of natural religion, natural occasions for salvation; even preserve some remainders of the primitive revelation (God, the fall, a salvation), hidden supernatural values which the grace of God could use in order to kindle in some people the flame of a dawning faith.
But none of these values belongs in its own right to these false religions … The wholesome elements that can subsist still belong by right to the sole true religion, that of the Catholic Church; and it is this one alone that can act through them”*.
I think this is admirably expressed, and it reminds me strongly of the penultimate chapter in Lewis’s The Last Battle. A young Calormene, brought up in the worship of the false god Tash, meets the Lion Aslan, the Christ-figure in Lewis‘s rich narrative. “Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days, and not him. …
But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.
He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true … that thou and Tash art one?
The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. … Dost thou understand, Child?
I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I also said (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek”.
Note: “…these religions [he has just mentioned Islam and Hinduism] can keep some sound elements, signs of natural religion, natural occasions for salvation; even preserve some remainders of the primitive revelation (God, the fall, a salvation), hidden supernatural values which the grace of God could use in order to kindle in some people the flame of a dawning faith.”
Truth-teller: At a time when intellectual fashion was on the Left, historian Robert Conquest had the guts to lay out, in devastating detail, the truth about the blood-soaked Soviet experiment
But what is one to find in the worship of self and the corollary deprecation of all others of all religions which might kindle a “flame of dawning faith”? What can one find in Atheism, the ultimate worship of self, which might kindle the “flame of faith” in the Divine?
Back in the day, there was a term in use in some quarters which precisely described those who sincerely believed a ideology or philosophy which was empirically provably wrong. That term was “useful idiots“.
Robert Conquest was the principle proponent of of this “Useful Idiot” terminology to describe the “Brights” of his day.
Back then, the Soviet Union appeared in rude health and the old men in Moscow ruled an empire based on fear. It is easy now to forget just how terrifying the Cold War (WW III) seemed. Across the Western world, many (including most in the military) doubted Communism could be defeated without unleashing nuclear Armageddon.
The Trudeaus and Castro
What is more, many Western intellectuals — from Marxists such as Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm and his friend Ralph Miliband (a political theorist at the London School of Economics, a devout follower of Marx and an unswerving believer in revolutionary socialism) (and coincidentally one of Pierre Eliot Trudeau’s professors during PET’s time at the London School) to woolly, well-meaning Lefties in universities across the country — were quick to defend the (Soviet) regime whenever it was criticised.
Lenin and Stalin, these ‘useful idiots’ claimed, had been much misunderstood. It was Conquest, more than any other writer of his generation, who did most to expose this deceitful drivel.”
So too in the spiritual realm, the “Useful Idiots” uphold the narcissistic adoration of self as the “ultimate good” and consider man as the pinnacle of all things.
These poor benighted souls are the useful idiots of the spiritual world, those unknowing followers of the dark one, the “Father of Lies”, who has existed for all of man’s history and never ceases to strive to drag all souls down to his realm of darkness.
Perhaps one of the best portrayals of how this process works in the spiritual realm is C.S.Lewis’s book: “The Screwtape Letters”.
The principle tenant of the doctrines of communism, socialism, fascism, secularism, and all the currently fashionable “isms” of the progressives is that man is the measure and pinnacle of all things, in other words “self worship”.
This is THE fundamental plank of the platform, the defining characteristic of all secular progressives and a defining characteristic of all those who mock believers of every stripe, lumping all who do not share their religion of self worship into the single pot of “those superstitious fools”, not the enlightened elite like “We Brights” who have put aside the “crutch” of religion.
This “crutch” is in reality a “life-ring” in a sea of desolation, and this action by the worshipers of self is a blessing for traditional religious believers, namely all those who believe in a Supreme Being above man, because:
“… The immediate action of creatures, especially if their malice has a share in it, makes it more difficult for us to discover the divine hand. A greater spirit of faith is necessary here, that we may pass beyond the human side of circumstances, the faulty way of acting of such and such a person, and find, beyond all these human contingencies, the dispositions of divine Providence, which wills to use these particular creatures, and even their defects and errors, to file away our self-love and destroy our pride. … “
This mockery of the “Brights” strikes directly to the roots of pride in ourselves, our attachment to esteem and the respect of others, hence the blessing in such mockery. Our attachment to the things of this world must be ripped up root and branch and replaced with attachment to God.
Yashi No Mi (Ohnaka), Jean-Pierre Rampal, from the album “Rampal: Japanese Folk Melodies”, (1978)
He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.
Trouble is, for all of us, we have to choose to accept what Christ is offering. Christ simply presents us with “options”. He does not impose His choices, “for our own good”, very much unlike our current crop of all too human masters, in all their myriad halls of power from the sublimely national to the municipally trivial. All for “our own good”.
We, the laboring proles are plainly just too stupid to come in out of the rain and therefore require some serious “looking after”, as any of thousands of public service bureaucrats will plainly tell you while staring down their collective noses at this afront to their routine and wondering who let the sheep and goats into their office complex. Get back to the barnyard you sheeple. Leave important things to us management piggies.
Jean-Pierre Rampal, Yamanakabushi: Japanese Melodies, Vol 3 (1978)
So, that last paragraph is a illustrative example of pride in action. It’s just oh so easy to slip into. Hurt pride to counter the affronted pride of the management piggies. Obviously, you useless drones, I am waaaay more important than all those other animals. Pay attention to me and render unto me the obsequious respect due one of your employers.
Better be careful Joe. Hit the wrong manager on the wrong day and you just might become a test case for a “quality of life” policy decision. After all, this is Canada, and remember, the managers have now made it legal to remove ANY inconvenient animal, not just the inconvenient babies.
Be patient, be humble, be uncritical, be undemanding, be “invisible”, collect your Kool-Aide ration on time (just remember not to drink it). Whatever you do, don’t attract attention, it just might become the undesired kind of attention.
Lest we forget, I have read somewhere about a number of socialist progressive regimes in the not-too-distant past who had perfectly wonderful benefits and great retirement plans for “believers” and which believers “were just doing their jobs”.
And for the run-of-the-mill barnyard animals, there were always scenic holiday camps in beautiful far away places like at Treblinka and Ravensbruck for those who made themselves too obnoxious. The final solution never looked so promising.
Those were indeed salad days for the progressive proponents of eugenics, finally being free to deal with some serious problems of social engineering which had been plaguing good citizens for generations.
The progressive world was enraptured, George Bernard Shaw and the idolized ladies of the Famous Five finally had their fondest dreams, which they dedicated most of their lives to realizing, coming true in living color, the smoke of the crematoriums rising like incense to their god.
History tells us that the political construct fabricated by dead white males known as “Western Christendom” thought otherwise. It seems in those days that a lot of regular folks and their political proxies didn’t agree with the fond views of the progressives.
Yes, Virginia, there once was a time when even politicians had a moral code (at least publicly) and it still resembled Christianity, and killing folks who looked different or didn’t agree with you was still frowned upon in “polite” society.
“The Greatest Generation” stepped up to the plate and at great personal sacrifice and risk denied the progressives their breakout victory that time. Where are they now?
Does any thinking human being see the same courage and conviction in Gen-X, the Facebook generation? That’s an open question. I know where my money is sitting, your mileage (kilometrage?) may vary. Can anyone smell “breakout victory” in the 21st century.
But in Canada, just in case there are some geriatric relics of courage and integrity left, we now have Bill C-14, known euphemistically as Canada’s “Assisted Dying” law (just like the other euphemism, Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 gift to posterity, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also known as the “Pro-Choice” law).
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Kojo No Tsuki (Rentaro Taki), performed by Yo-Yo Ma, Michio Mamiya, & Patricia Zander, from the album Japanese Melodies (1990)
I have no doubt that every single loyal German or Russian regime follower was quite comfortable typing the memos, pushing the buttons, making up the schedules, and buying the supplies as long as they could have cover. And now we can all do the same thing here in Canada, all, amazingly, here and now, just like we old farts read about in the history books before history was banned and replaced with “Social Studies”.
I wonder when D Day will come for us. And it will, oh it surely will.
The only thing in doubt is whether the agents of justice will be some heretofore unnoticed tribe of courageous isolationists (the remnant) with backbone and moral courage, or if the agents will be supernatural, as in Egypt’s plagues. Because it is certainly coming, no mater what the worshipers at the pool parrot at their critics.
“I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)
Instead of Humility I/we indulge ourselves in Pride. Instead of Love we look for approval and call that love. We look at the invitation to follow Christ’s plan, the Manufacturer’s Instructions regarding this Model 1 Human, conceived and created in the image and likeness of God.
Our response is that we are not Godlike creations but rather highly evolved ape animals and as far as the plan, well “Thanks but no thanks, we already have a better plan”, and as every bureaucrat can tell you their plan is superior to everyone else’s, including God’s.
And we can all see how that plan is working our every day in every way all around us in our society. Are you over 65, have a handicap, are you “inconvenient” for someone? Maybe you just voted the wrong way and some civil servant found out. Have you got your notice in the mail yet to report to the nearest “quality of life” processing centre?
I just watched a movie called “Equilibrium” a movie from 2002 staring Christian Bale. In a futuristic world, a regime has eliminated war by suppressing emotions: books, art and music are strictly forbidden and feeling is a crime punishable by death.
Clerick John Preston (Christian Bale) is a top-ranking government agent responsible for destroying those who resist these rules. In the movie the authorities call this “processing”, and the killing takes place at “processing centres”. And reality is not much different now.
You can rationalize literally any course of action with the right regulations, professional associations and government encouragement which can just as easily be a carrot as a stick depending on which direction the “initiative” is taking, which “options” are being pursued.
So far what this is all about is the Wimbledon of Pride, the endless back and forth of pride and the offshoot of pride, anger, and the endless search for approval so necessary to self. So lets see what Father Gabriel has to say about Humility.
“Charity is the essence of Christian perfection, for charity alone has the power to unite man to God, to his last end. But for us poor, miserable creatures, whom God wishes to raise to union with Himself, is charity the ultimate basis of spiritual life? No. There is something deeper still which is, so to speak, the basis of charity, and that is humility.
Humility is to charity what the foundation is to a building. Digging the foundation is not building the house, yet it is the preliminary, indispensable work, the condition sine qua non. The deeper, and firmer it is, the better the house will be and the greater assurance of stability it will have. Only the fool “built his house upon sand,” with the inevitable consequence of seeing it crumble away very soon. The wise man, on the contrary, “built … upon rock”; storms and winds might threaten, but his house was unshakable because its foundation was solid.
Humility is the firm bedrock upon which every Christian should build the edifice of his spiritual life. “If you wish to lay good foundations,” says St. Teresa of Jesus to her daughters, “each of you must try to be the least of all” That is, you must practice humility. “If you do that … your foundation will be so firmly laid that your Castle will not fall”. Humility forms the foundation of charity by emptying the soul of pride, arrogance, disordered love of self and one’s own excellence by replacing them with the love of God and our neighbor.
The more humility empties the soul of the vain, proud pretenses of self, the more room there will be for God. “When at last [the spiritual man] comes to be reduced to nothing, which will be the greatest extreme of humility, spiritual union will be wrought between the soul and God.” (Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D. from the book “Divine Intimacy” meditations on the interior life for every day of the liturgical year.pp 301 – 302)
Always remember, “Be charitable in your judgements, and never take yourself too seriously”
“Think Of Me”, Andrew Lloyd Webber, from the “Phantom Of The Opera” soundtrack album, (2004)
-8 degrees Celsius, sunny with cloudy periods, or cloudy with sunny periods. Sunday is a good day for thinking. I might even get dressed! Or not! Sure wish I had a hot tub.
I’d guess that most of this is a personal gedanken experiment, the meanderings of someone who has too much time to think and not enough experience of the reality of daily life given that I have retreated to the Shire and spend my time congratulating myself about how intelligent and fortunate I am.
So I am indulging myself by contemplating my lack of charity, patience and humility, my default position (un-vocalized these days) that I know the answer, or at least I am on the right track, and anyone who doesn’t get that is an idiot, full of sound and fury but (fortunately) signifying nothing.
Why do I feel deeply offended by some of what I read over at (for example) Being Liberal(how convenient that there is an easily accessible site where the left can effusively wear their heart on their sleeve), and other sites, and by what I hear every day on most of the MSM both Canadian and American (thank God for satellite TV)? Polarized doesn’t even begin to describe the gulf between the views.
Is it uncharitably to imagine progressives in the image of Tolkien’s Orcs and Goblins? I am certain that in fact the orcs and goblins of “The Lord of The Rings” were in fact literary references to the progressives of Tolkien’s day. Was Tolkien uncharitable?
Is it because they and their opinions are truly wrong or is it simply because they don’t agree with me? Why do I strongly feel that they (Progressives) haven’t thought through the implications of their declarations about reality and desirable social engineering, and the concomitant ridiculing and vilification (Bulverism) of virtually any voice raised in disagreement (is this what I am doing?).
Many of these folks are manifestly intelligent and well intentioned. Many of them do a lot of “good” work, spending their lives helping the downtrodden and disenfranchised, the needy and destitute.
But equal or greater numbers seem to spend all their waking hours ridiculing their “enemy” and explaining in great depth and with great volume why anyone who disagrees with them, any religious who do not share their religion, are wrong and not to be credited with any reasonable points.
Any attempt to engage in any discussion is met with an immediate attack aimed at destroying the new opponent which their “sensors” have detected.
In a logically twisted sort of way it seems at times that if they ( Progressives) are right (as in “correct”) to castigate and vilify those whose views they don’t share, that is, if they are truly OK to be writing and broadcasting and posting what they “believe” is reality (because after all they are all “basically good people”), then it must be equally OK for me to do the same thing, right?
And if they are wrong about what they believe and post, etc., then is it not equally wrong for me to indulge myself , so where do we go from this impasse? How do we move from this “preferential option for confrontation” to a place where we can discuss methods and directions “with good will”?
Maybe the answer can be found in looking dispassionately at the declarations and the methods and examining the points, assumptions and observed results, all the while striving not to take anything personally. I think “Not taking anything personally”, even when is is obviously intended to be both personal and as hurtful as possible, is how we get out of this conflict.
That requires a boatload of Charity and Humility, which I find to be in short supply these days. That’s what I’m working on, and I am making progress, albeit glacially at times.
So methods and declarations, the slings and arrows of outrageous fate … I find these days, having arrived at a political position closely akin to “A Pox On All your Houses“, that politics simply no longer provokes anything beyond sadness, but Faith, Logical argument, unreasoned Theological or Philosophical opinions still field barbs I cannot resist. No lack of Pride there, eh?
“The Music Of the Night”, Andrew Lloyd Webber,from the “Phantom Of The Opera” soundtrack album, (2004)
For example, “God can create anything so can he create a weight too heavy for him to lift? (or some other rhetorical impossibility)”. This is a rhetorical question of the sort I have had thrown at me when I respond or comment on egregious declarations about Catholicism.
In the past, unfortunately, I had great difficulty letting them pass (still a struggle) and my naturally provocative nature makes non-believers uncomfortable.
Which sort of discussions frequently came up (before I learned to keep my damned mouth shut) when being accosted by unbelieving family members (or other acquaintances who are also unbelievers) who in their cleverness and self worship imagine themselves astute. ( AHA! I’ve got ya now Joe). Let’s discredit Truth and by proxy discredit guilt and responsibility.
Another variation goes like this “If god can do anything, can he create a 4 sided triangle or a square circle?” (Now I’ve really gotcha, eh?). The argument might be termed “Reductio ad absurdum” but is actually “Ad hominum”. Always looking for a way to put down and belittle believers, insecure in their unbelieving, and unaware of their logical error since logic has been conspicuous by it’s absence for most of their 50 or 60 years on this earth.
Of course God CAN create anything, and God CAN do anything … except self contradiction is not a thing. God is THE absolute almighty being and imagining a weight which The Almighty can’t lift is is to imagine a contradiction in terms. A four sided triangle or a square circle are glib but utterly meaningless constructs.
These geometric and physical fantasies are all nonsense, all nothing, rather like approaching the real world with nothing but theories about how things “should” operate and more theories about why the world doesn’t conform to the first theories. And if the world fails to conform to one’s narrow view, well, I have a theory about that…
If one is accustomed to believing one’s theories about the world and people no matter how incongruent with observed facts and events, when the world diverges from the theories, then it is a small leap to believing that things like square circles are logical.
By way of illustrating the prevalence of illogic in daily life let’s look at the canard of “Pro Choice”. Very popular with my sisters – Pro-Choice – interesting place to build your house of cards.
Imagine us entering a restaurant and being shown to our table by a helpful Maitre d’. The waiter approaches with your drinks and menus and everyone quietly peruses their menu. The waiter returns after the drinks are almost gone to take our order “Ladies and Gentlemen, may I take your order, what are your choices?”.
Vulnerable … the Deception
I order Prime Rib Au Jus, rare with all the trimmings and veggies, my partner chooses the Baked Atlantic Salmon with Roast Potatoes and a Spinach Salad, the rest of the guests reply “Yes!”
The waiter, a little confused, repeats “What are your choices, folks?” and the rest of the guests reply again “Yes!, we are pro-choice, therefore Yes!, our choice is “choice”!
“I am very sorry folks but we cannot serve “choice” here, we are unable to create “choice” here, we need you folks to make a choice between the various items which you have on the menu.
Then and only then can we move forward here, you have to MAKE a choice, “choice” is not a choice. The waiter is faced with an insoluble problem both logical and grammatical.
You have to make a choice! You can’t choose “Life” because that would make you “Pro-Life”, and unfortunately the only other “choice” is “Death”. Death for the children, death for the elderly, death for the handicapped, death for the ugly, “eugenics” that’s the game, and we are well on our way to the Great Society. Newspeak presents “Pro-Choice” as a euphemism for “Kill everyone who you find inconvenient”. Pro-Choice is the biggest, most cowardly, cop-out of our modern society.
What’s the moral difference between killing folks in a clinic, and killing folks in a ditch?
The logic of “Pro-Choice” can apply to any behaviour in the entire range of human behaviors, and the language of Progressive Newspeak will give you a get out of jail free card for any perversion or inhuman crime imaginable. Just vote the right way and you can do anything you like, because you are basically a nice person, right?
There is no such thing as sin, “I’m OK, You’re OK” that’s what Progressive Social Theory teaches the voting public. And this social theory leads to some unbelievable practices. But the problem is that “denial” is not the same as “proof”, and material reality in every aspect requires “proof”. Of course, “outside” the material is also part of reality but no proof regarding extra-material things is possible for humans.
Any cursory observation of modern life and the memes dispensed by the talking heads on MSM outlets make it manifestly obvious, that for the Secular Progressive Humanist, the Theory is more important than facts, logic or anything else, especially any part of daily reality that seems to go against the Theory!
Unfortunately, if one is completely immersed in the sea of illogicality it is impossible to understand that God cannot do or create anything that is a self contradiction. All self contradiction, is nonsense, is “Nothing”. There is no such thing as a “Triangle which has three sides, but on some occasions it might have four, maybe.” This is a “nothing”.
Self contradiction is a place reserved for Modern Humanist “Thinkers”. Self contradiction is a “nothing” and as some of us know “nothing is impossible to God”.
Back before there were “Progressives”, and “Wiccans, and Gia“, and “Atheists”, and “Secular Humanists”, and “National Socialists”, aka Modern Progressive Humanists of all stripes, the folks (and philosophers and scientists for that matter) understood that you needed both “Theories” and “Practice”.
“Learn To Be Lonely”, Andrew Lloyd Webber,from the “Phantom Of The Opera” soundtrack album, (2004)
Queen of The Sciences
So, our medieval ancestors understood Theology as the “Queen of the Sciences”. Her twin sister Sophia (the Greek word for “wisdom”) was also venerated in the discipline of Philosophy. It was hard to tell the two beauties apart, but together they once ruled the many domains of human knowledge. This was the domain of “Theory”. Theories fell into the disciplines of Theology (The Queen of the Sciences) and Philosophy (Wisdom).
Practice was how you did things in the material world while taking into account the dictates of the Queen and the Handmaid. The practice was guided by the theory, but the theory was proven out by the practical experience of daily life. Theory and Practice are equal partners. Theory without Practice is like a wagon without wheels, a hard load to pull. Equally, Practice without Theory, is like riding swiftly down the road in your wheeled wagon while stone cold blind, a sure recipe for utter disaster!
Today we find that Philosophy and Theology are increasingly irrelevant backwaters in the modern university, ridiculed for engaging in seemingly endless “solipsistic” debates. Not surprisingly, we find the modern view is theoretical, Godless, and endlessly self referential.
Gee! That sure sounds like the actual definition of solipsism! Solipsism is the idea that a person’s mind is the only thing that actually exists. It is a philosophical argument that maintains reality is based on the perceptions of one’s mind, and therefore nothing really exists except for that perceptual reality of one’s mind.
So how do they come off accusing the disciplines of Philosophy and Theology of “solipsism” when the foundation of both sciences is fundamentally outward looking in search of answers that man cannot find on his own – nothing even slightly self referential there. I’d guess this skull twister would be explained buy the modern concepts of “attribution” and “transference”, but that discussion has to be for another day.
Contemplating one’s sins. The problem with developing a conscience is that is is really uncomfortable and one can rarely do much about those times in the past when one swallowed one’s leg up to the hip, except to be ashamed and sorry.
In our outrage at a perceived evil do we indulge ourselves in an “injurious manner of speaking”? When we write about apparent errors and evils perceived in the secular world around us do we do so with charity and compassion or with the very malice and contempt the use of which we are castigating in others’ propaganda efforts, the secular sales pitch which tempts and converts so many?
In essence, what I ask here is “Do I (and others whose work I read) retaliate in kind for perceived injustice, do we match “atrocity with atrocity” in a small verbal war of attrition fought in our own minds and transmitted through our writing?
Am I using a “Donald Trump” style of communication or a “Jesus Christ” style of communication?
When I match them, the “others”, stone for stone and stick for stick, am I loving my enemy as Christ commanded or am I returning hate for hate because of my own wounded pride?
Whatever my “good intentions”, am I on the side of the Angels or the side of the Orcs? Sins of pride piled upon sins of malice piled upon sins of hate, sins, sins, and more sins to the last syllable of time, Screwtape, and the father of lies must be laughing all the way home.
I am reviewing all my posts, doing fact checking (again), and looking for inappropriate content and style. Looking back, checking the back trail, in retrospect it’s kind of like looking at a large mirror of one’s thoughts, undeniably one’s own sins and biases and food for reconsideration of one’s approach now removed from the heat of the moment. In a post a couple of years ago I quoted a small book called “Liberalism is sin”.
In the uproar after it came out in Spain in the 1800’s, the work was denounced even within the church because it offended some bishops. Eventually, the conflict made it to Rome where the ruling came down in favour of the original work and the detractors were required to withdraw their efforts to suppress the little book.
In part the Sacred Congregation wrote: “The same judgment, however, cannot be passed on the other work, that by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover, his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda than against the latter’s supposed errors.
Therefore, the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pazos, admonished by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from circulation, and in the future, if any discussion of the subject should arise, to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more since Our Holy Father, Leo XIII, whereas he urgently recommends castigation of error, neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their piety.”
So I guess the take away is simply that “the ends never justify the means”. That using the same styles and tools as one’s opponents to berate and castigate ones opponents instead of dealing only with the facts in question is simply never acceptable. My grandfather used to say, “if you can’t say something good about someone then say nothing at all.”
Looked at in this way the problem of how to write about these atrocities, dressed up as they are in a secular cloak of desirability, is rather magnified. The bar of quality and justice is significantly raised when considering writing a charitable blog about evil things in the mainstream culture.
Always remember, “be charitable in your judgements, never take yourself too seriously” and of course “Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I’d follow my own damned advice. And who says he is an idiot? Maybe he’s right and I am the idiot, maybe not, but can I leap to judgement using the same clubs the “idiot” uses?
Do you ever do or say things that, on later thought, you are not real proud of? I can think of lots of things over the last 65 years or so. Saying I was sorry or made up for it or didn’t know any better or … whatever still doesn’t make them OK in my own estimation and I am very much self loving and self centered. How does it look to a loving Father to see His child behaving so badly?
Not real comfortable with yesterday’s post. Can’t take it back, but there it is, not comfortable with the actions and opinions of my yesterday self. Blogging has this good/bad side, in that you can reconsider what you have opined at a later date and no matter how hard you thought about it at the time, it comes about that later you may not feel that way or may see problems with your thinking, see the smart remark or acid image for what it really is, none other than a reflection on your own lack of charity and poor judgment. At the same time, having posted it one cannot deny that you thought and said it, can’t pretend to a personal superiority you don’t have.
Yesterday I posted a caustic image reflecting judgement upon some prominent people who I don’t really know at all, simply finding myself offended by their stated views I judge, and judge harshly. No only that but I share that judgement by way of this venue with other like minded viewers thereby compounding the harm that I do by my harsh judgements.
“Brothers, I want to send all of you away comforted today. So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be. And if it is true that few are saved, it is because there are few who live well.
As for the rest, compare these two opinions: the first one states that the greater number of Catholics are condemned; the second one, on the contrary, pretends that the greater number of Catholics are saved. Imagine an Angel sent by God to confirm the first opinion, coming to tell you that not only are most Catholics damned, but that of all this assembly present here, one alone will be saved. If you obey the Commandments of God, if you detest the corruption of this world, if you embrace the Cross of Jesus Christ in a spirit of penance, you will be that one alone who is saved.
Now imagine the same Angel returning to you and confirming the second opinion. He tells you that not only are the greater portion of Catholics saved, but that out of all this gathering, one alone will be damned and all the others saved. If after that, you continue your usuries, your vengeances, your criminal deeds, your impurities, then you will be that one alone who is damned.
What is the use of knowing whether few or many are saved? Saint Peter says to us, “Strive by good works to make your election sure.” When Saint Thomas Aquinas’s sister asked him what she must do to go to heaven, he said, “You will be saved if you want to be.” I say the same thing to you, and here is proof of my declaration. No one is damned unless he commits mortal sin: that is of faith. And no one commits mortal sin unless he wants to: that is an undeniable theological proposition.
Therefore, no one goes to hell unless he wants to; the consequence is obvious. Does that not suffice to comfort you? Weep over past sins, make a good confession, sin no more in the future, and you will all be saved. Why torment yourself so? For it is certain that you have to commit mortal sin to go to hell, and that to commit mortal sin you must want to, and that consequently no one goes to hell unless he wants to. That is not just an opinion, it is an undeniable and very comforting truth; may God give you to understand it, and may He bless you. Amen.”
Rather Sobering … not many “cheers” here.
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. In the end we are all free to choose whether to reject this world and all it’s temptations or acquiesce to the easy path. We choose to be free or to be slaves.
Started yesterday shoveling madly at 7:00 AM to make sure the walks and such were clear for customers and deliveries. Here we are 24 hours later and everything is melting and every where I shoveled is clear and dry. Great.
Today things were warm enough to melt in places and the weather geeks are calling for rain tonight before everything freezes up again and makes morning driving treacherous. Japanese Chill Out on the speakers, sipping Port and contemplating the difficulties for modern man in the FIAT of the Blessed Virgin.
“I am struck by the contemporary response to the ancient Christian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as of the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. We just can’t believe anyone was so “pure.” Which is a paradox: for in the same moment we think this we have undermined our notion that there is no such thing as purity. We have revealed that we know exactly what we are denying. This is the paradox of atheism. I’ve never met an atheist who did not know exactly which God did not exist, little as he knew Him.”
“Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est: “For He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is His name.”
This is the mystery of the fiat of Heaven, the decree that we are strangely free to honour or ignore. In our sinfulness, we usually ignore it. But she who was without sin honoured it without hesitation, becoming in that moment the Mother of God. At the moment of His earthly conception, she, as his mother, set for the world His first example, of joyful obedience to the Father’s will.
We sinners find this hard to understand. We moderns are afraid to render the fiat as Mary did; are alarmed even to hear it, because God’s plan for our own future may not be congruent with our own plans. And it is true that we have the right to choose: the way of life or the way of death. And have been given some time to think about it.”
And, as he so often does, David has absolutely nailed my stumbling block to the wall in perfect clarity.
As Augustan prayed “But I, miserable young man, supremely miserable even in the very outset of my youth, had entreated chastity of You, and said, Grant me chastity and continency, but not yet. For I was afraid lest You should hear me soon, and soon deliver me from the disease of concupiscence, which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished.”
– Confessions, XIII, Chapter 7, 17
I find myself vaguely reluctant, a shadowy background of reluctance, seen out of the corner of my spiritual eye. Reluctant in my prayers offering myself and all that I am and ever will be wholly to God’s plan for me lest it turn out to be not what I expected or wanted. I remarked on “Confessions“ in another post alluding to this discomfort.
I know with certainty that as much as I am reluctant so am I failing to live God’s will for me and yet I know absolutely that He holds everything in his hand and I am nothing without his thought. So much for logical embracing of reality … my mirror is warped. I see the knot and cannot touch it with the tools at hand. What now?
To think on the fact that God created all and is all good and deserving of all our love. How could a being such as this have anything but my best interests in mind in His plan for me? So it has to be as Augustine proclaimed: “…concupiscence, which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished.”.
I am, obviously, quite attached to my favourite sins, my favourite trains of thought, my favourite judgements and opinions, my pride, my ego, my surety that I see things aright … hmmm. Charity for all and malice towards none, a high setting of the bar. Do I REALLY want to give up being judgmental when it is so much fun and makes me feel so superior?
Time for another glass of Port.
“May God grant you always…
A sunbeam to warm you, a moonbeam to charm you,
a sheltering Angel so nothing can harm you.
Laughter to cheer you. Faithful friends near you.
And whenever you pray, Heaven to hear you.”