The Destruction of Christian Civilization

df7b7a0bf97dffec66f93bb7de93cd4f

The Latin Community is gearing up to post a few essays on the cracking foundations of Christian civilization. As Christians, after assessing these cracks, we can ask, “How did we get here?” However, the answer is different and more serious depending on where you call home as a Christian. In the United States, we are victims of an ‘intellectual’ purge, a sort of quasi-McCarthyism for Christians. If any attempt to profess traditional Christian beliefs and creeds, well will be labeled as bigots and treated as an outcast in society—an intellectual and societal martyrdom. The danger, of course, is if we choose to “obey God rather than men”[1] when human laws violate the laws of God, we may lose our jobs, businesses, friends, social standing, education as well as being shamed in the public sphere. This is the reality of our ‘intellectual’ persecution in the United States. So what is the answer to the question, “How did the United States get here? Pope Benedict XVI begins to clarify this question in his essay “The Spiritual Roots of Europe: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” in the book Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. He writes that the United States “Built the foundation created by free churches (Protestants), it adopts a rigid dogma of separation of church and state…it is characterized by a Protestant Christian consensus that is not defined in denominations, but rather in association with the country’s sense of special religious mission toward the rest of the world.”[2]

What Father Benedict is explaining is the foundations of what I call “The Golden Age of Christianity” in the United States. Of course, studying American history this had been founded on several “Great Awakenings.” Father Benedict explains in the United States’ foundation and early history that the “religious sphere thus acquires a significant weight in public affairs and emerges as pre-political political and supra-political forces with the potential to have a decisive impact on political. Of course, one cannot hide the fact that in the United States…Christian heritage is falling apart at an incessant pace.”[3]

Father Benedict’s essay is mostly about the destruction of the Christian foundation of Europe, which will be discussed in future posts, but what he explains clearly and concisely about the United States was that it grew into a nation that wielded political influence in the name of Christianity around the world—The Golden Age of American Christianity. Notwithstanding, there is a movement that has always and in recently quite successfully undermined this influence seeking to destroy these Christian pillars in American society. Father Benedict uses Europe as the example for his essay to show the erosion of Christianity in the West. I would imagine for various reason: One because Father Benedict is European and the second being that Europe has different issues. However, in many ways, what Father Benedict explains is happening in Europe can also be found in the United States. He says, “Today almost no one would openly deny the primacy of human dignity and of basic human rights.” (Ibid, 75.) The problem though with this idea is that ultimately it’s a political shibboleth. Everyone certainly agrees with the statement but what constitutes as human dignity and rights is often not agreed on. Father Benedict explains that the memories driven by Nazi Germany are still very much in the current mind of modern society, but still today, we’re strangely still employing the same type of Nazi ‘progress; in the name of science and medicine.[4]
Modern humanity, as Father Benedict explains, with its love affair with technology and scientific progress is continuing to violate the realms of human dignity by such actions as cloning, the storing of human fetuses for research and organ harvesting.[5] American society is also beginning to glamorize the idea of designer babies through the genetic manipulation. Recent examples of these types of actions are the recent Planned Parenthood scandal after the organization had been exposed by conducting less than legal activities, all the while the organization receives protection from the American government and media. The other example with attacking the dignity of humanity is the praise of celebrities such as Chrissy Teigen using scientific “progress” to choose the sex of her child. Modernists do not concern themselves with the possibility of creating two classes of people. The people whose parents were affluent enough to have them created versus those who are natural.

How did we get here? The enemies of Christianity have finally subverted the stronghold of the institution of the family in the 21st century. Of course, enemies of Christianity attempting to undermine the traditional Christian institutions such as the family is nothing new. Since the end of the 19th century, Friederich Engles wrote in Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884): “[The family] is founded on male supremacy for the pronounced purpose of breeding children of indisputable paternal lineage.” Now Engles certainly gets more in depth, but this quote although subtle illustrates the goal of the enemies of Christianity. In the course of the Soviet Union, the communist learned ultimately you could never have complete loyalty to the state if there were still traditional families, because more times than not, the children will always choose their parents over the state.

So how has the family been undermined in the West? Father Benedict explains that “the integrity of marriage has been undermined by easier forms of divorce and the practice of cohabitation between a man and a woman with legal marriage.”[6] Furthermore, marriage has been eroded by what Father Benedict infers a ‘demand’ for same-sex marriage—now more or less a reality. He explains that “such a development would fall outside the moral history of humanity. Regardless of the diverse legal systems that exist, humankind has never lost sight of the fact that marriage is essentially the special communion of man and woman, which opens itself to children and thus to family.”[7] Father Benedict goes on to explain that this not a matter of discrimination “but what constitutes the human person as a man or as a woman.”[8] As we, the Charity of Christ, has witnessed in recent years with the rise of gender theory in the world. It is no longer accepted in secular society to call what is man…man or woman…woman. The dangers of this movement are explained well by Cardinal Robert Sarah in his book God or Nothing.

Cardinal Sarah explains, “According to gender theory there is no ontological difference between man and woman. It claims that masculine and feminine identities are not inscribed in nature but are only a result of a social construct…for these theorists, gender is performative, and the differences between man and woman are nothing but oppressive norms, cultural stereotypes, and social constructs that have to be undone so as to arrive at parity between man and woman…A man will never become a woman, and she will never become a man, no matter what mutilations one or the other agrees to undergo. To say that human sexuality no longer depends on the identity of a man or woman but rather on sexual orientations such  as homosexuality, is nightmarish totalitarianism.”[9]

So again I ask, “How did we get here?” One of the ways that we arrived at our present situation has been from the promotion of the philosophy of multiculturalism, which is now rebranded as ‘diversity’ by many universities. The fundamental problem with the philosophy of multiculturalism is that its proponents insist on its principle of relativism over absolute truth. Marcello Pera in his portion of Without Roots quotes Pope John Paul II, “ belief in the true no longer exists: the mission of true is considered fundamentalism, and the very affirmation of the true creates or raises fears.”[10]

Many universities require their students to take ‘diversity’ courses as a requirement to graduate. These universities missions are to promote their philosophy of relativism and materialism throughout the world. In my own experience, when students, like myself, pushed back against the rhetoric in these classes, we were instructed by the professors that each person has an equal truth. This assertion is flat out false. Christians must begin to stand up and say so without fear of being called a fundamentalist, bigot, or whatever label relativists have created for those who oppose their ideology. The professors that ran this course methods, as Pera explains, is “to proclaim that there are no grounds for our values and no solid proof or argument that any one thing is better or more valid than the other.”[11] However, Pera shows this idea to be inherently false as he states, “The only thing required is that the members of [cultures] A and B wish to enter into a dialogue and submit to each other’s criticism…If a contextual relativist belonging to culture A, speak of error you are contradicting yourself because to recognize an error within Culture B, A and B would share a common criterion for ‘error; that makes possible to distinguish between the real and the apparent in both cultures…then the relativism of the contextualist collapses.”[12]

So how did we get here?

Christians have allowed it to happen by silently standing by in fear of intellectual persecution in the United States. Father Benedict explains,” one issue that is fundamental to all cultures: respect for that which a group holds sacred.”[13] However, those in the university setting, media, and public sphere no longer respect what is sacred to Christians, and as Father Benedict explains that “when this respect is violated in society, something essential is lost to the culture.”[14]

We, the Charity of Christ, must reject the assertions of the relativist in our midst. We must do so at some risk, but we must be comforted by the words of Christ, “and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.”[15]

[1] Acts 5:29

[2] Ratzinger, Joseph and Marcello Pera. Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 70.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 75.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid, 77.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Cardinal Robert Sarah, God or Nothing (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015), 163-64.

[10] Ratzinger and Pera, 37.

[11] Ibid, 13.

[12] Ibid, 13-14.

[13] Ibid, 78.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Mt. 10:22

27 Comments

  1. Thanks for this series Philip. I answered already but I have no idea what happened to my comment. So this will be shorter than the original.

    I think that there are so many things that we think of and forget to think of that there is a tendency not to see what binds these things together; sort of our version of the cosmologists need for ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to make the math work.

    In this regard, I think that Ann Barnhart [love her or hate her] is on to something that may be the glue that combines no only the totalitarian -isms that are rampant but also big business, politics, freemasons, sexual hedonists and many others. I have watched her 3 hr. video on this twice now. You may not agree with her at all and you matnot like her presentation skills or tone but I think that the content is worthwhile. For she has taken the concept of narcissistic personality disorder and made the connectio to the diabolic . . . thereby coining the term Diabolic Narcissism [DN]. Perhaps you will not like who she considers to be a DN but then you can make such judgments on your own as the principle does make sense of how (without having to come up with a conspiracy theory) that it seems all things move in the same direction without needing to be guided to their goal.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have been working on this post for the past week or so. I have also been sitting on it for the last couple of days, deciding if it was the right thing to publish. I wondered if it was the right message to share at this moment. As you know, I often sit in a classroom with students who are desperate need of moral lessons, yet my hands have been tied.

      I was inspired by your comment on AATW. We, the Charity of Christ, must no longer tiptoe around conversations, when we are doing so we’re denying Christ out of fear of our reputation at the least and at most our lives. Have we not learned this lesson from Peter’s denial of Christ?

      We must choose Christ, and when there are those who say that’s not Christ like in an attempt to shame us–even when they themselves do not believe, we should actually say, “Yes it is, read the Gospels.”

      I will watch the video, I may only do chunks of it at a time since it’s 3 hours. It may take may a whole week.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes it is a magnus opus of sorts and I also divided up the viewing of the video. But I think you see what I am speaking of even if her pointing of fingers at individuals may put off some. It is the principle of this abnormalty that I am beginnging to wrap my head around. It is sort of like Einstein seeking a unified field theory which he worked on until his death. I think it has promise. Another talk that speaks to your concerns, as well as mine, was a talk by Cardinal Burke who basis most of his talk on the works of Fr. John Hardon (a man that gave me great hope for the faith during some very dark times}. So if you are to continue this series I think the ideas in both these videos might be of some service to the project.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’ve touched on this a bit in my other Ratzinger posts, but one of things I’d like to touch on is the idea of the relativists and their worship of science. The second chapter in his book Jesus of Nazareth discusses the temptations and the testing of God. The modern relativists wants God to fit under the microscope of science;however, ontologically speaking if man could test God, then he wouldn’t be God, he would be subservient to science, which ultimately those who worship science want him.

        Another topic I’d like to talk about will certainly anger our protestant friends, but the idea is derived from the Professor Thomas Madden’s history on the crusades. The secular historians and other non believers have found a convenient tool to disparage Christianity through the protestant histories of the Crusades, which written to give the Catholic Church a black eye. These histories of course must be challenged and instead of viewing the Crusades through the 19th and 20th century lens of imperialism, they should be properly explained as defensive wars of the faith.

        I am also working a mammoth piece on the historicity of Moses, which secular archaeologists and historians take a consensus claim that he’s not a real actor in history; therefore, Christianity cannot be truth. It’s currently standing at about 2,500 words and I need to add three to four more sources of information on the topic. It may end up being 5000+, but after several conversations with the those who oppose our faith, inspired my desire to begin this work. It may be my Magnus Opus.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. A worthwhile project. Had it not been for the Catholic Church and Her defense against the Muslims we would all be Muslims today. Instead of belittling us they should be thanking us for their very lives and the Christianity that they now are able to profess; until, of course, they give up this right voluntarily via opeing up their borders to a peaceful invasion through refugees. This won’t work its way out peacefully for long I’m afraid.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. This is a point that Madden makes in the first chapter of his book. After the Enlightenment and after the modern wars, It is inconceivable to the modern secularists that there are those in the world that would murder or wage war for religious purposes. However, on September 11th, 2001 they discovered a rude awakening.

        President Obama gives speeches on national television that claims this is the result of the hundreds of years of the Crusades, which is actually the popular belief. However, the Crusades for the longest time were not even studied by Muslims! In fact, not even brought up until around the 19th century. It’s actually relativists attempting to shame Christianity for “imperialism” who are guilty of Western ethnocentrism.

        Furthermore, True believers of the Islamic faith do not want to live in a pluralistic society. There is the abode of Dar al-Islam and the abode of Dar al-Harab. Now, even many Muslims may prefer peaceful means, however, they still want to see the entire world within the abode of Islam–it’s not compatible with the relativists vision of pluralism.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I read a recent poll of the ‘good’ and peaceful Muslims here in the US. Over 70% expressed their desire to live under Sharia. Now I can’t believe that this only endemic to the US. So when the UK soon becomes a majority Muslim nation that is the kind of law and government that will eventually will out unless they want to get involved in a civil war. My own view is that all of Western Europe will be embroiled in civil war or they will submit without even a whimper.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. A pew research poll as Muslim favorability in UK, France, and Germany around 70%.

        Where did you find the sharia law poll? I’d like to be able to cite it for future reference.

        In the Federalist Papers, when discussing the Constitution, both Madison and Hamilton disparaged the idea of democracy. In Europe, once the Muslims become the majority, Europeans who want to save European heritage will be outnumbered. I’d hate to foresee any violence and pray that it will never come to anything of the sort, so I will refrain from any further speculation.

        After reading “Without Roots,” I am beginning to wonder if Europeans wouldn’t just submit to a new coming majority.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. They very well do so until they have to pay the tax, or God forbid, the extremists get power and start lopping off heads or using them as slaves. I think civil war is preferable myself.

        Sorry, I can’t remember where that poll was. You might Google it. If that is not where it was it may have been an informatl on the streets poll in some our biggest cities that I saw on Fox News. I just can’t recall at the moment. Sorry.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. This is where the poll came from: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

        However, it was only 600 adults and it included a number of women. I’m not sure how many women will vote with the men as they are persecuted. But it is possible that they will fall in line with their husbands if they fear Shariah is going to win. So I think that the numbers are likely low. Also, the bulk of these were caucasian muslims and the Middle East variety was a small subset.

        Like

      9. A quick aside for you Philip.

        Several days ago my conscience compelled me to write my priest because in two Masses he had the people hold their hands out in blessing of a baptized child and out mothers on Mother’s Day. I sent him the following:

        Quote:
        2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to “quasi preside” at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

        The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments further clarified this in 2008:

        Quote:
        2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).

        I told him that my intent was not to criticize him personally but to inform him of something that he might not be aware. He is a good priest and answered me in a very positive way. In fact, his homily tomorrow is going to speak about the difference between Ministerial (ordained) Priesthood and the royal priesthood of the laity . . . so he is trying.

        If we want things to get better we must raise our voices without fear of retribution. And if we are going to evagelize others we must evangelize ourselves and our own parishioners first. Without our own change of heart how do expect to draw any fruit from others? Evangelization will not work unless we ourselve have been evangelized first.

        Like

      10. Indeed, Good to hear it. Our head Pastor I feel is unaccessible, which it may just be me. It’s hard to explain–I’d actually prefer to go to the head pastor for confession because of that relationship, he’s a good confessor but there’s no fellowship. The other priests I feel are more accessible personally.

        On this point.

        “Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant.”

        I would be greatly concerned, the above quotation is why I do not hold my hands up in the air during the Our Father, but rather keep them folded.

        Our African Priest has been facing some backlash from the parish. I think part of it does have to do with him being an immigrant, but he is so enthusiastic that you can certainly tell that he is a true believer. Some of the more affluent folks in the parish have expressed their disdain for his message, which is basically he is not teaching only the “Jesus loves you Gospel.” He’s teaching us not to scandalize ourselves in the city of man. I heard from hearsay that after he’s been rebuked a few times he’s been really down. So I called up the parish office and said, “I want to meet Father Samuel.” So I went in and told him that I appreciated his words and that it’s a breath of fresh air that people will reject but they need to be heard. He thanked me for uplifting his spirits.

        I’m not usually a very vocal person in my adult life, I am an academic, I study, think, and write. However, I felt that it needed to be said and that we must accept the Holy Spirits call when it wishes us to act.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Good for you. We must encourage and defend our good priests no matter whether we have to offend the rest of the parish. They are under fire and they are taking the blows for us in the fight. If I have to take a few to defend them, I will.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I have been meaning to read Ratzinger’s book Without Roots. Does he think America’s more political Christianity was a good thing? I get the impression that America’s Christian history is not viewed positively by German theologians (who certainly have had their fair share of involvement in political Christianity). I personally am not really a fan of American Christianity (Protestant or Catholic) because everything is centered on making America into some kind of Promised Land. The Founding Fathers are our saints and Lockean values are synonymous with Christian values. This is not merely a criticism of the Christian Right but the Christian Left as well (the new=the Gospel). Everyone thinks that Rome actually cares what American Catholics think. The painful reality is that the Vatican has never liked America. We need to be less parochial if we want to be valuable theologically to the universal Church. Ratzinger spoke in an interview about the political problems in the German churches. People attend the services or Masses run by their favorite pastors who represent their favorite political parties. I’m afraid we have that in America. I just wish Christians didn’t keep insisting on their rights. We sound so worldly. Pascal says that the Church is in a wonderful place when she only has God to support her. I don’t think Christianity is dying. Christendom (Christianity as a world power) is. But I think that’s good for the Church. It was good that the Pope lost his lands. Caesar was a crazy dictator but Christ did not insist on his rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Without Roots” is mostly about the plight that is facing Europe, but it was published in 2006. I would certainly say as an observer that what Father Benedict is explaining is happening in Europe is either happening now in the United States or has even become more advanced into relativism. However, when Father Benedict does speak about the United States, which I quoted much of it in this piece, it appears that he views the United States’ Christian political influence as a positive force for good in the world.

      I understand your sentiments, but I don’t believe that I entirely agree.

      “Everyone thinks that Rome actually cares what American Catholics think. The painful reality is that the Vatican has never liked America.”

      In regards to your statement on Rome not liking America, I would presume that many American Catholics could take Rome or leave it. The reality of Rome’s dislike for America inconsequential, there are 69 million of the world’s Catholics here and although the majority of American’s are protestant—Catholics are the largest united block and do have influence. The United States carries more influence in the world than Rome at the time. I would also surmise of not ’liking’ is a sentiment that is contingent on Old World European ethnocentrism, but even in the most recent synod the Europeans—mainly those Germans you’ve mentioned—found out from the Africans how little influence they actually hold. It’s simply because Catholicism/Christianity with Christendom is dying in Europe. I would state, ultimately, that American Catholics care very little of Rome. Of course, this is the vital concern of Father Benedict in “Without Roots.” He places value on Christendom.

      I think you are correct that Christianity will survive; however, I do believe that Christendom far more vital then what it appears you give it credit. First off, I would even say Zoroastrianism still exists, but at the same time their not converting new followers at a very successful rate and not influential in the world. Christendom with its cultural influence and institutions does do a vital a good in the world. The Catholic Church donates more money to the poor than any entity in the world. However, what happens when Christendom no longer exists? In the United States, we are already seeing that the Relativists are forcing Christians to disobey their moral conscience to be able to have a public life– a job. When I teach school, I am reminded of the 1977 Soviet Constitution, which barred Christians from evangelizing their faith. When a student asks me, “What is the purpose of life?” I can’t answer the question. Recently, the Obama administration by executive decree has stated that Gender theory will be promoted in the Public schools as the bathrooms are open to everyone. The secularists are attacking the dignity of man and woman, as Cardinal Sarah has explained.

      Of course, the other side of the coin that is the void of Christendom is Islam. The Secularists have allied with Islam to eliminate the influence of Christendom. The danger here is that Islam has ultimately has no place for a pluralistic society. So while the relativists have chosen the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, eventually Islam will not ally with them.

      Where I disagree with you is that I do not think the death of Christendom is good for the Church— The pope will continue to have even less influence in the world. Sure, American Catholics get excited about the Pope when he comes, but as soon as he leaves, it’s back to being an American modernists—this isn’t an American problem.

      You said:

      “Ratzinger spoke in an interview about the political problems in the German churches. People attend the services or Masses run by their favorite pastors who represent their favorite political parties. I’m afraid we have that in America. I just wish Christians didn’t keep insisting on their rights.”

      In my diocese, I go to many different Parishes as I am constantly traveling. I can tell you that I have never encountered the problem of Priest who are more representative of a political party than the Church. Although, I would certainly surmise this may be more prevalent the largest urban areas. For example, in the Chicago area, there is Michael Pfleger who known as a social activist, which he has been suspended a couple of times. Cardinal George tried to place him in an administration job at a High School, the priest said he would leave the Church, the Cardinal told him if that was his view then he has already left the Church. The suspension was lifted and the Priest continues to administer sacraments.

      Now it appears from your above statement that you’re blaming the laity for the actions of clerics. In the above example and others I place the blame on USCCB. They need to defrock Priests turned into social justice warriors—who no longer identify with the teachings of the Church. If Rome cares very little for American Catholics, then they should act.

      Christians will continue to insist on their rights, especially in democratic societies. It is engrained in their upbringing. The United States Constitution is a secular document, now I am sure my protestant friends will argue with me about the Protestantism of the founding fathers; however, there is clear evidence that many of the most influential founding fathers were influenced by deism. Furthermore, John Locke, although I do believe he does have some good ideas, was notoriously anti-Catholic.

      My brother who was also born and raised Catholic, more or less worships the founding fathers, the constitution, and capitalism. The Church does have to compete with these ideas, perhaps the Vatican doesn’t like America, simply because it has never been able to properly refute these ideals.

      Like

    2. It’s an interesting take on how the U.S. is viewed by the Vatican . . . but then it is also interesting to see how the Italian elite of the Vatican views the rest of Europe and the Catholic world. This elitism is dwindling in the Vatican at present thanks in part to Pope Saint John Paul II.

      One must remember that at our founding we in the US were nothing more than a missionary Church; at first bringing Christ to the Native Indians and later lost our founding status to the Protestants and Deists who populated and forged this nation according to their brand of Christianity best expressed in the Constitution. We may still be viewed among the elite of the Church, a brand of Catholicism that has adopted the values of Protestantism in large measure. Americanism was thus condemned and is largely still concerned with our worldliness; our desire to reach our individual capacity of excellence due only to the limitations that we put on ourselves. It is true that this brought wealth and advancement in every area of endeavors; medicine, food production, mass production of goods, inventions and primarily a higher standard of living for most citizens who found work plentiful, food, housing and clothing affordable and freetime to study and advance ourselves via education. We can argue as to how God and the spiritual aims of our lives were often placed secondarily to our desire to free our children from servitude in gaining the basic neccessities of life. If there is something that this country destroyed in our faith life was the uncompromising adherence to Truth; Catholic Truth and our unyielding obeisance regarding the Church and Her Teachings . . . including morality. We developed, sadly a Church that suffered from placing our own temporal good ahead of the everlasting goods that we were blessed to be given the time and the opportunity to advance. Sadly, it has worsened after WWII and we are now showing ourselves to be rather corrupted in our priorities.

      The world it seems, once freed from the fetters of struggle to eke out a living, takes its pleasure in the devils lies and allures to keep us constantly seeking new and more exciting distractions . . . anything but to turn our minds and hearts to God and live for Him alone. It seems that struggle is necessary for victory and without struggle in life, there is no victory. And that is why we seem so impotent though there are signs or bright spots appearing due to the new subtle and not so subtle persecutions that are coming our way. In time these may become manifest but for now we will take our few, brave Catholics and treat them as gems and gold.

      Now the Germans, on the other hand, once a vibrant bastion of the Faith has never recovered from its complete and utter defeat during the second world war. Like France after the Revolution, Catholicism suffered and all but lost its adherents. If they have retained anything at all it is their love of theology, though admittedly it is hard these days to find an orthodox German theologian though when you do, they are usually quite good. This is probably due to the fact that when one is met with adversity and enlist the help of God to combat the errors of this world and from fallen Catholics one usually gets the grace which is needed to confront the enemies of the Church.

      As for following the political priest [the ones that are conservative or progressive] it is a reality for the whole world I am afraid as this has come from the top down. The divisions during the Council began a very “American” idea of change and progress being the basis of all growth and all good. What is new is better and what is better is more freedom and more licentiousness and more participation [read as pandering to the wants of the people] by the people. The Church has copied the Amercan model . . . as it seems to listen to the activists from the ground level and respond as though they were an electorate of sorts. So Americanism spread its errors as did Communism. And sadly, the Americans are the ones that have probably influenced the Church more during the 20th century than any other. Though one might argue that is is an Amercanism that has become increasingly enamoured with thins such as socialism, marxism and even communism. Capitalism, corrupted by cronyism, has long left the ideal of Locke.

      The manipulation of peoples and their values is being done on a widescale basis and one might say that it is now throughout the modern nations; from education, media, business, politics, economics, human rights and social justice. Nothing is what is seems and manipulators of the masses seems to be an art form that is driven by the most detestable of people; the narcissists who are incapable of love or caring . . . those filled with anger, hatred, jealousy and fear.

      If these same types of elites have entered the Church then you better believe that Christianity is waning. However, we all know that Christ has saved His Church in the past when the odds seemed certain that She could not last. Christendom is a good thing . . . it only doesn’t fit with this new world order that we live in . . . it is anathema in this world of ours.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Servus, I am curious, did you see the Pope’s most recent comments comparing Islam to the Gospel of Matthew?

        “I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I honestly do not understand it my friend. I do understand why the Pope every in the history of the Church past or present would make such a remark. What is the motive and goal for such statements? Is this driven by populism? I understand an attempt to soften the Church and to make it appealing, but I find the comparison honestly to be a form of sacrilege.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. It is an insult to all the Catholics and the intercession of Mary to fight off these enemies of the Church. To try to claim that there is somehow a way to make a truce with satan and those who follow an ideology that is not much different than that which Hitler embraced is beyond me.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Indeed, we need to stand up for our faith. I have in the past written to my congressmen and I have pretty much always received formed letters telling me that they were going to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

      So, anymore, I would assert that praying the Rosary is more effective for change.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I really appreciate the time you all spent in responding to my comment. I admit to having views that are less traditional than some others who comment or post on this blog. I was somewhat in a contrary mood when I wrote my comment, so the tone was less than ideal. Still, I stand by what I wrote. Historically, the Church has exhibited a lot of resistance to new developments in society. Now, not every development is good, but those Catholics who embrace the both/and help the Church evangelize the new age. John Henry Newman speaks of the “sensus fidelium”. Reading Church history has taught me that historically lay Catholics have played a larger role in determining doctrine than the Magesterium will ever acknowledge. In the 18th century (on the eve of the Revolution), Louis-Sébastien Mercier wrote a large 4000 page work on Paris in which he predicted the death of the Church in France. Of course, that never happened precisely because there were priests who embraced the Revolution. They faced a lot of resistance from the Magesterium, but in the end the Church survived in France (albeit with much less power and influence) because there were priests who accepted their society. Thomas Aquinas was accused of Averroism by his archbishop Etienne Tempier for engaging with the writings of a pagan. Every “and” statement in the Catholic Church is a fruit of these sort of conflicts. I am a Vatican II Catholic. I obviously read a lot of theologians who lived prior to the Council. It is always necessary to study history and engage with the past. But ressourcement always has as its goal aggiornamento of the Church. Tradition has never meant reconstruction of the past. Otherwise, I would be Orthodox. St. Thomas engaged the Aristotle in his society. He looked for what was good. I think we should do the same.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I appreciate your comments, I didn’t find anything wrong with the tone. I have also claimed that I am a Vatican II Catholic–although with my most recent run in with Call to Action Catholics, they’ve made me feel more like a traditional Catholic. Quite, frankly, I would say I would much rather not label what type of Catholics we are, but rather let us be Catholic.
      I want to promote free conversation between Catholics, and what happens sometimes with conversation is that there’s not always agreement, but I believe it promotes learning, which I think is good.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s