... for those hard-wired to accommodate the spirit of the age, accommodating tops all other issues.
By: Don McGovern
The Southern Law Poverty Centre is basically a JINO (Jews in name only) lobby group positioned on the hard secular liberal left, who make a handsome living from US government grants, which they apparently receive for slandering anyone as a hate group who is not as eager to scratch the very latest liberal itch as they are. Those who to date who have been so libelled includes such wholesome family publications as the Remnant! They similarly vilified the Family Research Council; this resulted in a fruitcake shooting one of the FRC's contracted security guards - we are still waiting for the nut who pulled the trigger to be denounced by the SLPC as a hater.
A friend of mine suggested that we should stop calling liberals "liberals", not only because most of them are manifestly quite exceptionally illiberal, but because "accommodationists" would be a more accurate description. There is logic in this because manifestly what most of them are doing is adapting their own world-view to accommodate the latest doctrine propagated by the Zeitgeist. Thus, on cue and predictably, the SLPC have now adopted with a venomous passion the cause of the militant sodomite collective. Consequently, for example, anyone expressing reservation about the wisdom of handing a vulnerable child over to a brace of sodomites united (more often than not fairly briefly) in a sham marriage by nothing more holy than a mutual commitment to unnatural vice, will be denounced as a hater by the SLPC faster than one can mutter "safe sex."
However, the SLPC is also committed to keeping alive the memory of the Holocaust (I hasten to add that I for one would not fault them for that), but given that the German Nazi Party was born from the loins of militant sodomites, and that almost the entire officer corps of the Nazi Party's military wing, the Brown Shirts (a body of men at one time as large as the entire regular German army), were sodomites, plus, according to survivors, around twenty per cent of the sadistic guards who ran the Nazi death camps in which the Jews perished were also sodomites, I find it peculiar to say the least that the SLPC has embraced this particular cause with such zeal and venom.
One would have thought in the circumstances that the support of the SLPC for the militant sodomite collective cause might be just a tad more nuanced. One can only presume that for those hard-wired to accommodate the spirit of the age, accommodating tops all other considerations. What's it they say about dead fish?
Yet Another, Yawn, Consecration of the World
by Christopher A. Ferrara
abridged and adapted by Graham Moorhouse
Another year, another consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart ... and still no consecration of Russia. How many consecrations of the world have there been in response to Our Lady of Fatima’s call for the consecration of Russia? John Paul II alone performed six: 1981, 1982 1983, 1984, 1991 and 2000.
The last was a kind of omnibus affair that included not only the world and “all people” but also “the young in search of meaning, the unemployed, and those suffering hunger and disease,” as well as “all troubled families, the elderly with no one to help them, and all who are alone and without hope.” In short, just about everybody and everything on the face of the planet … except of course Russia. It would be funny if it were not so deadly grim.
We know that John Paul II wished to consecrate Russia by name, but that, as Bishop Paul Josef Cordes revealed, “... at the suggestion of his collaborators he abandoned the idea. He could not risk such a direct provocation of the Soviet leader.” That is, the ever-vigilant Vatican bureaucracy, led by the Secretary of State, overrode the Mother of God, prevented Russia’s consecration for diplomatic and “ecumenical” reasons.
For neo-Catholic spokesmen - always eager to defend the post-Conciliar regime of novelty, drift, confusion and decay - the perverse evasion of Our Lady’s eminently simple request is no big deal. In his habitual haughty style, Jeff Mirus pontificates: “the insistence that the popes are guilty of serious fault for not following the instructions of Our Lady at Fatima turns the authority of the Church on its head … Mary, we may be certain, is quite aware that she was not made the vicar of Christ by her Son.”
Here the Neo-Catholic mind plummets new depths of absurdity. First of all, it was not the “authority of the Church” that has impeded the consecration of Russia, but rather the counsel of papal “collaborators.”
Secondly, it was precisely the Son - that is, Almighty God - who sent His Mother to deliver the Message of Fatima to the Church and the world, confirming its authenticity with an unprecedented public miracle, proclaimed in advance and witnessed by 70,000 people, including unbelievers who converted on the spot. Therefore, if the Message of Fatima is to be accepted at all, it must be viewed as involving a command for Russia’s consecration that comes from God Himself. There is no way of escaping that bind.
The neo-Catholic mindset regularly subordinates God to the Pope, which they do when they defend any and all papal acts or omissions, even when they are manifestly injurious to God’s holy Church. For the neo-Catholic mind, there appears to be no difference between the papal will and the divine will: whatever the Pope says, does, or fails to do must therefore be defended without any mental reservation.
Mirus predictably recites the usual “private revelation” red herring - as if apparitions containing dire warnings for the Church and the world, confirmed by a public miracle, were merely “private” matters between three shepherd children and Our Lady. John Paul II clearly did not view the message of Fatima as merely as a “private” revelation when he added the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima to the Roman Missal and beatified two of the three Fatima seers. Nor did he speak of “private revelation” when he declared in 1982 that “The appeal of the Lady of the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of Tradition that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on her.” (L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, May 17, 1982, p. 3.)
Descending into yet further inanity, Mirus opines: “It may or may not be the case that Mary is unimpressed by these consecrations of the ‘whole world’ when she only specified Russia (at least at Fatima). It may or may not be the case that if Pope Francis could just get the precise formula correct, all manner of catastrophe could be avoided, and astounding blessings would more or less automatically ensue.”
So, while admitting the possibility that the Popes have exposed the Church and the world to potential calamity by not honouring Our Lady’s specific request for Russia’s consecration, Mirus rhetorically shrugs his shoulders and adopts a wait-and-see attitude respecting the fate of humanity. Maybe the Message of Fatima is false! Then again, maybe it’s true and we will all suffer the consequences of the failure to consecrate Russia. Ho hum.
The insistence that the Pope and the bishops should do what Our Lady requested (i.e. consecrate Russia, not anything else, to Her) Mirus dismisses as “literalism.” Well, yes, I suppose Mirus is right there, the Pope would literally fulfil God’s command to consecrate Russia by consecrating Russia. But then it seems to many that doing literally what God has commanded - rather than something else one judges to be more humanly prudent - may be the wiser course, given that God is not usually open to dialogue or a bit of give and take when it comes to His commands.
Today Mirus and other neo-Catholic spokesmen, continue to provide cover for the corrupt Vatican apparatus, those worldly “collaborators” of the Pope who are determined to impede fulfilment of the Message of Fatima until Heaven itself forces the issue. And if they succeed in their determination, the outcome will not be pleasant for anyone else on the face of the earth, or for Neo-Catholic spokesmen. Mirus and his fellow demagogues may yet have to reflect on their share of responsibility for such a disaster.
Next Meeting of the Inn Catholics
The Next Meeting of the Inn Catholics will feature a FREE talk on the life and work of Father Vincent McNabb OP by Mike Hennessy
The meeting will take place on Tuesday the 12th of November (7.30 PM) at the Greencoat Boy Pub, Victoria, London. 2 Greencoat Place, Victoria, London, SW1P 1PJ.
Mike Hennessy, long-time Bellocian and a student of fine red burgundy wine, encountered the life and work of Vincent McNabb at the turn of the Millennium and has never recovered. A home-schooling father of eight children and a parliamentary official, he sees at close hand many of the glories and idiocies of which McNabb spoke and wrote, and has deepened his appreciation of, and admiration for, this saintly Dominican with each passing year.
''Father McNabb was - with some notable exceptions, principally within his own Order - held in high esteem by his contemporaries, even by those such as George Bernard Shaw or the Webbs, founders of the socialist Fabian Society, who could have most been expected to dislike him. During Father McNabb’s life, G K Chesterton wrote of him, in the introduction to his, Father McNabb’s, book, Francis Thompson and Other Essays:
“Now I am nervous about writing here what I really think about Father Vincent McNabb for fear that he should somehow get hold of the proofs and cut it out. But I will say briefly and firmly that he is one of the few great men I have met in my life; that he is great in many ways, mentally and morally and mystically and practically... nobody who ever met or saw or heard Father McNabb has ever forgotten him.”
Hilaire Belloc, who was in many ways temperamentally similar to Father McNabb, wrote this about him after his death in the Dominican journal Blackfriars in 1943:
“The greatness of his [Father McNabb’s] character, of his learning, his experience, and, above all, his judgement, was altogether separate from the world about him... the most remarkable aspect of all was the character of holiness... I can write here from intimate personal experience [here, Belloc refers to Father McNabb visiting Belloc - at the latter’s request - immediately after the premature death of Elodie Belloc, his wife, in 1914] ... I have known, seen and felt holiness in person... I have seen holiness at its full in the very domestic paths of my life, and the memory of that experience, which is also a vision, fills me now as I write - so fills me that there is nothing now to say.”
The Greencoat Boy Pub is a five minute walk from Westminster Cathedral. If you are in easy commuting distance come along and enjoythe crack.
The Pro-Aborts and Pro-Sodomites Are Not Having it All Their Own Way
Countries Declare No Right to Abortion or Homosexuality
By Wendy Wright
NEW YORK, November 1 (C-FAM) Russia, Ethiopia, Poland and others took the microphones at a meeting – webcast live from UN headquarters – to make clear that abortion and homosexuality are not international human rights.
Diplomats especially chastised the UN’s human rights office for an obsession with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) "rights".
Russia singled out a booklet produced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the epicenter for LGBT activism in the UN. The 60-page “Born Free and Equal” purports to give the “core legal obligations” regarding homosexuality, such as creating asylum categories for LGBT people and extending "marriage" to same-sex couples.
Implementing the recommendations “would inevitably lead to a violation of the rights of the child,” Russia said.
Navi Pillay came under particular disapproval. The amount of attention the head of the UN human rights office spends on sexual orientation “is disproportionately high,” Russia noted. “There are more topical issues in the world for us to deal with.”
Russia’s statement signalled that criticism of its law protecting children from homosexual propaganda has not softened its resolve. Some LGBT activists have called for boycotts of the upcoming Olympics in Sochi, Russia.
The subject of homosexuality is still delicate for some. Nigeria’s diplomat referred to it as “the issue of the rights of certain people with certain tendencies that are at variance” with their country’s law, traditions, religions and customs.
These are “matters of personal preference and lifestyle,” he said. “They should have no room in the United Nations discourse as protection of human rights is concerned.”
Ms. Pillay responded that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various treaties protect everyone, not “everyone but LGBT.”
Several diplomats apparently anticipated this. Speaking for African nations, Ethiopia emphasized their commitment to respect universally recognized human rights and freedoms for all. But they are “concerned by the increasing trend” to “create new rights, concepts, and categories, and standards that are not recognized” in international agreements nor by all countries.
The courteous tone was a stark contrast to the harsh accusations of “hate” made against those who do not agree with LGBT advocates. The African group politely asked “for the full respect of national sovereignty and cultural values,” and for “the ability of all states to make choices in a democratic way for what is acceptable for them.”
Other countries confronted the language used to promote abortion. Poland outlined its initiatives improving areas of sexual and reproductive health, a notion defined by its law to respect pre-born babies’ right to life. In a subtle reference to heavy-handed tactics by pro-abortion governments, Poland said it does not “seek to influence decisions taken by other national governments” on these issues.
Several countries emphasized their positions apply across the board, to all UN work.
Poland “put on record” for this and all future meetings that it objects to any interpretation of sexual and reproductive rights or health services as including abortion on demand. These terms are not defined in any international agreement, it noted.
Anything in the UN’s overarching development agenda “should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health or rights or commodities,” stated Malta, a member of the European Union.
The Holy See's delegate, Archbishop Chullikatt, stated that abortion is neither safe for the baby nor mother, and added. “Without life, all other rights are meaningless.”
A QUESTION FOR EVOLUTIONISTS
How did life originate?
Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies (Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003) admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, (PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004) “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.
A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry?
For a longer and more scholarly essay on this question click HERE
For a video, click on the following picture:
Ms Francesca Chaouqui with her film-star looks, flowing hair and leather jacket provocatively unzipped.
A recent appointment of Pope Francis to a key Vatican eight-member commission set up last month to overhaul the Vatican's financial administration, is 27-year-old public relations consultant, Ms Francesca Chaouqui,. Born in Italy to a father of Moroccan origin, Ms Chaouqui is reportedly close to several Italian cardinals
A recent tweet of Francesca attacked Cardinal Bertone, accusing him of corruption. Another tweet claimed the Pope's predecessor, Benedict XVI, who stepped down in February, suffered
In 2010, Francesca posted a slideshow on YouTube including what appears to be a topless studio portrait with her boyfriend.
from leukaemia - despite official denials. A third said Paolo Gabriele, Benedict's former butler, did not leak papal files published in a bestselling book - although he was convicted of stealing them and leaking them.
Giulio Tremonti, a former Italian finance minister, announced last week he was suing Ms Chaouqui over another tweet that claimed he was gay. Cardinal Bertone denies corruption and is reportedly also considering a lawsuit.
Ms Chaouqui, meanwhile, has closed her Twitter account, and told the newspaper Corriere della Sera that she was not the only one to use it and claimed she had not written the tweet about Mr Tremonti.
The Pope's apparently intends to stand by Francesca. I bet that's got you all bursting with confidence in Pope Francis' judgement when it comes to the reform of the Curia. It can surely come as no surprise that Pope Francis is not over fond of traditionalists.
Pope Francis, the Bizarre
By Graham Moorhouse
As one who had a bad feeling the moment the election of Pope Francis was announced, but chose to keep quiet on the advice of wiser men, I can only add that nothing that has happened since has done anything to allay my initial concern. Given the state of the Church in Argentina in general, and in Buenos Aires in particular, the election of Pope Francis was rather like an international company appointing one of it's poorest performing regional managers as its new managing director - a sign one would have thought of institutionalised insanity.
For a self-professed "humble" man who makes a point of wearing his humility on his sleeve, Pope Francis does seem to have an awful lot of harsh and negative things to say about those members of the Church with whom he clearly doesn't have too much empathy - which seemingly pretty much includes most Catholics who lived between AD33 to circa 1968, as well as present day traditionalists.
First up was the silly comment, aimed as another swipe at traditionalists no doubt, disparaging reciting rote or memorised prayers. Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara have comprehensively nailed that nonsense.
Then we had the even sillier comment to the effect that traditionalists seek doctrinal certainty, as if that was something unholy or bad. The Penny Catechism defines faith as a supernatural gift of God, which enables us to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed, and further states that we must believe whatever God has revealed because God is the very truth, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. Are we in future to understand faith as a mindset that enables us to broadly accept without too much mental reservations whatever God may have revealed because God is usually pretty truthful and probably hasn't deceive us too often?
Yet another absurdity: apparently youth unemployment is now a more serious concern for the Church than the Holocaust of the Innocent that we call abortion,. This would seem an odd development given that youth unemployment is by definition temporary, whilst murder is, also by definition, permanent. I would imagine the dead, if they could speak, would rather appreciate the chance to have been unemployed; on the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the more of them we abort, the less unemployed youth there will be.
The Rite of the Ordinariate
By John Adams (adapted by Graham Moorhouse)
The Ordinariate Rite/Use is derived from the American Book of Common Prayer (1928), which was itself inspired in significant part by the old English Sarum Rite Missal.
The Sarum Rite is a variant of the Roman Rite and was widely used for the ordering of Christian public worship, including the Mass and the Divine Office, until the sixteenth century. It was established by Saint Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury in the 11th Century and was originally the local form used in the Cathedral and Diocese of Salisbury; it later became prevalent throughout southern England and then came to be used throughout most of England, Wales, Ireland and later Scotland. Although abandoned after the 16th century, it was a significant influence on Anglican liturgy as found in the Book of Common Prayer.
Thus the Ordinariate Rite it is based on and inspired by Tradition with Anglican Patrimony. Therefore it differs from the Usus Antiquior (the traditional Latin Mass) only by the inclusion of local characteristics, in just the same way as does the Ambrosian Use, the Western Orthodox Uses and the Mozarabic Use, etc. It includes the Eucharistic Prayers and Prayers of Consecration with which traditionalists are familiar.
It is enhanced by Cranmer's faultless English but has none of his heretical doctrines; unlike the preposterous, fabricated Novus Ordo, which denies Tradition, has none of Cranmer's English, but all of his Protestant doctrines. In short: traditionalists have good reason to rejoice and welcome the Ordinariate.
The Pro-Aborts Are Not Having it All Their Own Way 2
UN Rejects UNFPA’s Youth Declaration
By Rebecca Oas, PhD
NEW YORK, October 25 (C-FAM) It began with a bang, but ended with a whimper. Nearly a year after an expensive Global Youth Forum orchestrated by a controversial UN agency concluded in Bali, its final statement was dismissed by UN diplomats who refused to even “take note” of it.
The “Bali Declaration” recommended countries provide legal abortion and recognize the “sexual rights” of youth regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The UN has never agreed to this, and refused again when asked by youth representatives.
The three-day conference held last December was touted as an opportunity for young people to influence the global development agenda as the UN prepares for the twenty-year anniversary of the Cairo conference on population and development. The Bali Declaration was subsequently promoted as one of “a series of official UN recommendations.” However, the young people at the conference were not official representatives of their governments. They were selected by a committee featuring several pro-abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood and Astra Youth.
This past week, countries rejected Brazil’s proposal that a UN resolution on youth programs and policies mention the Bali Declaration.
This rejection is a resounding rebuke to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). As a key organizer of the Bali conference, it threw its weight and untold amounts of funds behind the strategy to arrange “youth delegates” to attend the conference and push abortion and sexual rights.
Seasoned UN observers speculate that the UN General Assembly is weary of arguing over these perennial controversies, and of UNFPA’s bare-knuckled approach of pushing abortion and sexual rights onto countries, rather serving its mission given by countries.
The glossy veneer of the Global Youth Forum showed cracks from the start. Shortly before the event, the projected number of youth participants was reduced to 900, of which 600 actually attended. According to reporters from Youth Policy, which provided the only continuous media coverage of the forum, less than half the attendees showed up for the main sessions.
After strongly encouraging “virtual delegates” to take part in the conference online, the forum’s organizers failed to provide translation services, despite the fact that the most anticipated session on “sexuality and family rights” featured multiple languages. The central theme was presented in Malay, the language of Malaysia. The young attendees received lengthy briefing papers hours before being asked to transform them into recommendations.
Youth Policy, a German-based group tracking youth activism, slammed the Bali conference as “tokenistic,” and criticized the “continuous attempts of the United Nations and its various offices and programmes to organise non-committal consultation processes.”
Adding insult to injury, the Indonesian government distanced itself from the Bali Declaration, despite hosting the event and having a representative on the forum’s steering committee. They were the first of many governments to do so.
Although the Bali Declaration failed to make an impact at the UN, it has refueled controversy around the Girl Scouts in the United States. Contrary to the Girl Scouts’ attempt to cast themselves as neutral on abortion, their international umbrella organization played an active role both on the Youth Forum’s steering committee and during the forum’s breakout discussions.
A priest approaches the confessional. He notices five scruffy little boys and one bedraggeled looking little girl in the queue.
The first little boy entered and confessed that he and his four friends have been throwing pebbles into the canal. The priest patiently explains that throwing pebbles into the canal is not sinful, unless they had been ordered not to do it. The little boy said that nobody ordered them not to do it. The priest gave him his blessing and sent him on his way. The next four boys entered in turn and a similar exchange ensued.
Finally the little girl entered. She confesses, "I've done an awful lot of swearing Father."
"And why have you been swearing" gently enquired the priest.
"My name is Pebbles and some boys kept throwing me into the canal," she explained.