Pen as Sword - Social Commentary, The Inner Struggle

Second Thoughts … (part two) implications of the New Paradigm …

Snow”, by Kobudo, from the album “Ototabi”  (2013)

Kobudo, Ototabi, 2013

Kobudo, Ototabi, 2013

As mentioned in the previous post, I have decided that this needs to be broken into multiple parts – again.

First, while it is fresh in my mind, I mentioned in a previous post the expression “Check your Privilege”, which was mentioned in an article by David Warren.  Coincidentally I just got an email this morning from an MP, (that would be a Federal representative in the House of Commons) Maxime Bernier, which read as follows:

*****

” … to be effective, justice must be blind.  And our government should be too. The way to solve the injustices of the past is not to create new categories on which to base discrimination. It’s to treat all citizens equally. That’s not what the Liberals are doing.

They recently tabled a budget where money is allocated on the basis of “inter-sectional race, gender and sexual identities.”  They’re creating more division and more injustice. And when I called them out on it, I was told to “check my privilege and be quiet.”

This wasn’t just another troll on the internet. It came from a Liberal Member of Parliament. There are people in this government who believe my opinion is less valid because I’m a white man. They believe the government should segregate people based on their gender and skin colour and treat them differently.

Help me fight this radical ideology. I believe the government should be blind. And that it should work to the benefit of all its citizens.”

*****

Why is this not a surprise? It seems that Liberal Members of Parliament have a new expression for Virtue signalling, which we all know is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for political ideas or cultural happenings, or even another person’s personal values.

Welcome to “Check Your Privilege” as the latest strawman putdown belittling anyone and everything which the leftist progressives dislike or disagree with, which obviously includes anything or anyone with the damned nerve to point out their peccadilloes.

 a breathless "Me To, Me To"

A breathless “Me To, Me To”, Celebrating A Big Shiny Bright Red Nothing …

NEWS FLASH! … THE EMPEROR IS NAKED!.  And, as usual, in this and every societal directive and direction, the sitting members of the Canadian government are years behind the curve. Evidence current Canadian legal policies on infanticide and parricide which are a decade behind Europe’s.

But then Canada has always been a breathless “Me To, Me To” sort of place, a place where the inhabitants never really matured past the grade school recess. If you ever want a window on Canada’s future 10 years down the road, just look at whatever is fashionable now in Europe.

Lieberose Solar Park

Lieberose Solar Park

The prevailing paradigm in Canada is to always be ten years late to the progressive social policy party or better yet 20 or thirty years late, for example the global warming party and solar power party and carbon taxes party which Europe has now abandoned as completely unworkable.

Which is why we now have German Solar Power companies, fresh off the boat from the country with the highest electricity prices in the world, building Solar Farms in Alberta – they are out of work in Europe where there is no more public money to be had for that particular golden calf.

when one is living in a country where the norm is to be ten years old … ten years late … no new paradigm … ever,  just other people’s failed ideas and programs, it is truly jarring to have the Magisters of the Roman Catholic Church beating the “New Paradigm” drum.

What impact does this “New Paradigm” have on two millennia of Catholic teaching on marriage and the family?  Either Jesus said it, or Jesus didn’t say it … this observation is binary, at least to me in my ignorance.

Lightning on the Tiber

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in Rome …

Let’s just “blue sky” this thought pattern for a bit. If Jesus is God, and God is “All Good and All Truth, then “It”, that is “Truth” is not subject to Reform and Paradigm Shifts. You can’t just dump two thousand years of “Truth” because is has become unfashionable in our “New Age”.

If Jesus is not the source, if Jesus is not God, then there is no church, and no Truth,  and certainly no need for the curia and all the old men of the Catholic hierarchy.

Absent tradition, the Magisterium, the Petrine Ministry, and the Catholic Church, all that remains is “Anti-Christ” and the global agenda of the United Nations, and the “New World Order”, a World Government.

In that context, why do we see the Holy Father, our “Godfather”, cuddling up with China, or being vocally supported by the agents of the “Sustainable Development” and “Family Health” agenda of the U.N.?

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State for the Holy See

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State for the Holy See speaking at the United Nations.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State for the Holy See, and his “New Paradigm” can only exist in a world where “Truth” is not truth … where everything is mutable and changeable according to the fashion of the moment.

BUT:

*****

“Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.” (Deuteronomy 23:14)

*****

Where is the “Holy” in this “New Paradigm” … if what has gone before is so unworthy that a complete “New Paradigm” is necessary then how are we, the ignorant sheep of the flock to know and trust anything?

Arianism was a new Paradigm,  Pelagianism was a new Paradigm,  Jansenism was a new Paradigm, Albigensianism (Cathar) was a new Paradigm, Islam was a new Paradigm, the Reformation was a new Paradigm, Modernism was a new Paradigm. and each in its day was sincerely believed by its founders.

Medieval

Medieval – Lissner Troice Sergieva Lavr

No wonder then that Modernism and Secular Humanism and Progressivism all conflate “Organized Religion” with human maleficence and essentially teach that all religions are the same, delusional, superstition, Medieval, and should not be taken seriously by any reasonable person, any sophisticated “modern” person.

Still, mankind feels an undeniable thirst for the spiritual, a thirst for something above and beyond himself, a thirst for a “higher order”. And the Progressives seem to be comfortable ignoring the “deeply spiritual” New Age movements proliferating in their own ranks even as they mock and denigrate the ages older “organized religions”.

They seem to be able to ignore the fact that the adherents of “organized religion” have always vastly outnumbered the “New Age” pantheist religious of our “modern” day.

And both old and new together dwarf the tiny minority of vocal unbelievers, the “elite” worshipers of “man”, and “self”, as the higher order personified, the “brights”, the atheists, who get all the publicity from the “…journalists, who know nothing about anything, and are therefore liberal all round.”

We moderns are too advanced for such “religious” superstitions. So we get such joyous “nuanced and contextualized” outbursts as Cardinal Parolin “pontificating” about new paradigms …

*****

Pope Francis

Pope Francis

VATICAN CITY, January 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Vatican’s Secretary of State Pietro Cardinal Parolin stated that Pope Francis’ teaching on marriage and the family found in his  controversial 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia arose from the Pope’s “new paradigm” for the Catholic Church.

*****

There is much ado these days, much controversy, in Catholic Church circles and some media, about this “New Paradigm” in Catholic doctrine, as initially expressed in Chapter 8 of “Amoris Laetitia“, and most recently we see:

*****

Pope Francis, and Father Antonio Spadaro

Pope Francis, and Father Antonio Spadaro

February 20, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Papal confidante Father Antonio Spadaro retweeted a call for EWTN to be severely censured “until they get rid of Raymond Arroyo.”

The call for an “interdict” to be imposed on the Catholic media empire started by Mother Angelica came from Anthony Annett, Assistant to the Director at the International Monetary Fund’s Communications Department.

*****

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?

Well, that is for the next post …

Cheers

Joe

So much to read, so little time, this “thinking” thing really makes life harder doesn’t it?

 

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary, The Inner Struggle

On Second thought … another look at “A New Paradigm”

“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)

“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)

“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)

03:30AM … Silence, and unanswered questions, and doubts, and “Nacht und Nebel”  or the modern variation, FUD, that is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Hiding … Why does talking about this make me uncomfortable?

Revisiting this particular train of thought to see if it takes me anywhere new, can I see any new peaks from the metaphorical dome car on the way through the Rocky Mountains of my mind?

*****

7And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

8And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? (Genesis 3: 7-9)

*****

Where art thou? Things always seem grimmer after a relatively sleepless night … Where art thou … indeed … separated at birth … separated  ourselves … broke with our creator … self inflicted wounds … will not serve … and death entered in …

Was there ever a time in human history when mankind was not completely mired in sin and evil? Was there ever a time in human history when mankind wasn’t playing “Russian Roulette” for pride and personal ambitions and frequently blowing his own brains all over the wall of life?

Cardinal Gerhard Müller

Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I find this inner struggle of developing spiritual awareness is frequently made more difficult by the reported antics of those charged with my instruction.

Is the error, my sin in this, my curiosity, that I seek after this reporting? Or perhaps is it that I deceive myself in believing that I somehow know what is right, is this all just my pride?

I don’t know, so I cling desperately to Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s explanation that this is simply a misunderstanding. Again and again, Cardinal Müller has been the victim of criticism in some Traddy circles. This, in Father Hunwicke’s view, is totally unjustified:

*****

” …  (Müller’s) stance on Amoris Laetitia is perfectly rational and it doesn’t need guarantees of its perfect orthodoxy. His is one way to skin a cat.

4 Cardinals

His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), and His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany)

The other skinning method is that of the Four Cardinals (the Dubia Cardinals – two of whom have since died); to seek a clarification which will put its orthodoxy beyond the doubt which they judge some prelates and some hierarchies have created.

Each Feline Modality is directly aimed at the affirmation of the same orthodoxy. Whether as a matter of fact there is ‘doubt’ about what AL teaches, is for individuals to assess.”

*****

Or is the error in this distress, an error of my honest expectation that those who have devoted the entire course of their lives to this struggle for awareness should not have found meaningful examples and left trail blazes to guide me easily on my travel?

Or is this train of thought really just some sterile version of self-pity? This post started out as a momentary “what the heck” exclamation prompted by the latest “pontifications” emanating from the Vatican.

It seems that much of what comes out of Rome these days is a freeway to sin rather than guidance towards the good, that is, a preferred guidebook on the narrow path to Divine Intimacy.

Fear in Rome

Fear in Rome

I end up experiencing sadness instead of joy every time I wander into that neighbourhood. Continuous flashbacks to late 60’s early 70’s, and the chaotic fall-out from Vatican II.

Flashbacks to a time when, in my all-knowing youthful pride, I decided that I didn’t give a rat’s backside about the Catholic Church since they (the Curia) obviously didn’t know their own backside from a hole in the ground.

How can one reform “Truth”? Only “Not Truth” can be reformed, only “Not Truth” can give rise to “A New Paradigm”, a bureaucratic “Policy Change” with a new “Briefing Book” full of platitudes, half baked excuses and accusations.

So the post grows and grows with each new thought … again I am realizing that this spontaneous outpouring of angst is now around  5000 words and I’m still writing. Realizing, as when I first attacked this discomforting subject that it is just too long.

I have decided that this needs to be broken into multiple parts – again … like multiple therapy sessions on the couch … whoever is sitting on the chair behind my head must be VERY patient. Who knows, when we start, where the train of thought is going? Maybe it needs a disclaimer at the start of each part, or maybe a warning about toxic waste?

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 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.

Cheers

Joe

And “The Guardian” is announcing that the Vatican has reached an agreement with the Peoples Republic of China … Seriously?!  They can’t actually mean that, can they? Interesting times indeed … I wonder where this new “Orient Express” is heading?

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Pilgrimage 2 …

So where were we? Ah, yes … “What if all of life, for everyone, is simply a pilgrimage? What if we are not yet home?” Does it not seem that the universal suspicion that this material “all we know” is not reality, not all there is, may well be at the root of our desperate a priori adherence to material causes, our worship of the material, rooted in our worship of our self? We feel if we just whistle loud enough the graveyard will go away and not be. Over on David Warren’s site today I found the following:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The quote fell out of some article in the New York Review of Books, from nearly twenty years ago.

My own a priori argument is that this universal suspicion that there is more, perhaps much more, then “all we know” presupposes the existence of a supernatural reality of which our natural reality is a subset. I believe this because in every recorded culture in every recorded time man and his society has a spiritual dimension of more or less popularity in any given hour but solidly there no matter what the critics and unbelievers attempt to prove. I simply find it impossible to accept that I and my contemporaries know more, or are more “enlightened” than all those billions of souls who came before. I think the notion that modern man and modern “civilization” is more enlightened than those in the past is clinical evidence of mass psychopathy amongst our Illuminati.

So lets set the rules of engagement. On the face of it, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the idea that human beings have free will, that is, they are capable of making choices even if those choices are circumscribed by circumstances and the impact of other’s free will on the choices they can implement. Of course even not choosing is a choice, which pretty well covers the entire spectrum.

A second point which most folks would agree with is that, absent circumstances which force human beings to work hard, the human default in the short term is to take the easiest path regardless of the predictable long term consequences, so we can safely assume that whatever is the easiest path in the short term will be the  path most traveled by free choice.

Thirdly, it is generally accepted that thinking clearly and acting logically is harder than thinking emotionally and acting on those emotional thoughts. More thinking = more work = harder. The easy path is that which requires the least thinking and it works fine as long as there is someone else to do the heavy lifting and look after you – somewhat like children depend on their parents.

A fourth generality would be be the observed almost universal belief that “I am right and that all sensible people think like me”. But we know from experience that there are an “awefull number of stupid people out there who don’t think like me”.

So we have:

  1.  free will.
  2.  always take the easiest path.
  3.  don’t think too hard (see #2)
  4.  I’m smart, and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.

These four points are a simple set of observations, easily proved virtually anywhere in the modern western world. And that easy path of little thought, free will and depending on “experts”  quickly gets cluttered up by rules and commandments originating ostensibly from the folks who are doing the heavy lifting and taking care of things, who, not surprisingly, want things to be made easier for them to take care of the less energetic members of the family, society, culture and of course to get their own needs met which is why they are doing the heavy lifting in the first place. But most often those commandments and rules and laws have their root in higher orders of authority and in “natural law” and religion. In other words, in spirituality and a belief in the supernatural.

Then we arrive at a place where some of the folks want some of the rules because those rules they like because they help them do what they want to do, but they don’t want some other rules because they interfere with what they want to do. This place is usually called something like “The Reformation” or “The Revolution” or something more obscure but implying that the “New” is much better than the “Old” way of doing things. Of course the folks who like the old way don’t agree and we get to politics and power and smorgasbord religion, and just who the Hell is in charge here anyway?

And as we go along, in many places, where folks believe in, or at least follow, a patrimony of natural law, we see the development of compromise and the acceptance of some rules we don’t like because on the whole the fabric of rules gives us a better, more comfortable, result than rejecting them all because we can’t get everything we want. There are of course other places where the opposite applies and they are less pleasant places to be if one happens to disagree with whoever is setting the rules.

Of course, eventually tolerance and compromise give way to some folks pushing for less and less rules or more and more rules about certain things which proves easier to do in the earlier stages of tolerance and compromise until people start to resist. Then things must move more and more towards the totalitarian “rule by fiat” model, thus moving towards the less pleasant model followed by less pleasant places.

One of the first stages of this move is to get rid of the importance of anything which cannot be “proved” materially, that is to say we must get rid of God  and gods if we are ever going to get anywhere with this human perfection thing, and we get a lot of interesting “science” because “science” is the new “Opiate of the Masses” and now of the new Elites as well.

Quite possibly the loudest talkers about “scientific” methods have never done or applied any science in their life but the folks they are talking to don’t know that and don’t care anyway because the talking heads beating the “science” drum are offering a reason to let folks do what they want to do … at first. Hell, most of these authorities haven’t done any “science” since their Doctoral theses, after which they hit the talk circuit and were simply devoured in joy by their publishers, the deviant mass media and all their slobbering groupies. it’s probably a safe bet that “the more talk, the less science”.

I am not for a second positing that Real Science, as in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, with all the usual boring dry research and publication and STUDYING and hard work , is not a good and useful endeavour – obviously it has given us huge advances in understanding of how things work and in quality of life, just like all the fields of engineering have given us huge advances.  Unfortunately, a lot of what is called “science” simply is not. It is just pseudo-intellectual baffle-gab, because as we all know, “Bullshit baffles brains”, especially if the brains in question are of the soft study tribe like most MSM characters, soft academics and guv’mint bureaucrats – you know, the PINK tribe who believe in magic. If real engineers and real scientists did some of what is passed off as “scientific” these days they would be out of business in an instant. Folks get understandably upset when buildings fall down, the toilets back up and the vaccines kill people. See #2 above for why most folks don’t understand what “science” is and swallow the B.S. hook, line, and sinker. Don’t take my word for it just click over to:

DEPLETEDCRANIUM

 

 

Anyway, if indeed man IS the pinnacle then there is no need of a higher moral authority to which man must defer. If man wants to do anything then man alone decides what is right and wrong and whether the behaviour is acceptable to society. This train left the station about the time of the enlightenment under the name “atheism” and really got rolling after the first world war with the rise of communism. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. Currently, as a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a tiny minority, albeit a very vocal and well publicized minority, and coincidentally outnumbered by a healthy margin by the mostly ignored pilgrims mentioned earlier.

Whatever the  philosophical and scientific rhetoric in support, it is obvious that the principal driver for the removal of God is the desire to remove all moral fetters on human behaviour. It always comes down to “I wanna do what I wanna do, and you ain’t the boss a me!” whether it is taxing the “rich” or pedophilia, or infanticide or euthanasia, or pornography, or social welfare, or affirmative action, pick your poison. It is always the same platform underlying it all.  Once we successfully destroy the moral order we are only a signature away from Auschwitz, the Gulag and the Killing Fields. This path of human dissolution has always and everywhere ended in the same disaster throughout history. The progression is universal, inevitable, and ultimately self defeating. Prove me wrong!

More to follow?

Cheers

Joe

CSR

 

 

 

Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately

 

 

Standard