don’t have one!” They mocked.
don’t have one!” They mocked.
Unfortunately, I don’t really have the time to write about this appalling topic, but I just wanted to acknowledge the dire situation among the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. As I have said before, the sex scandals have occurred because evil men have infiltrated the Church, mainly homosexuals, Freemasons and communists. They entered the Church deliberately to destroy it. There is nothing within the Catholic Faith which leads people to rape anyone, much less children.
Perhaps the blog post which best sums up my feelings on this was this, by Mundabor.
As for me, I will not let up on these cretinous Churchmen, and will continue to give them a hard time on Twitter.
Since Pope Francis’s bombshell letter “Amoris Laetitia” this following blog post is probably rather superfluous, but since I couldn’t get anyone else to publish it at the time of writing a few years ago, I simply decided to put it on my blog. The mentality has simply changed for the worse, but I still think the piece has some value.
There is a grave problem of the collapse of marriage in the West, even among the Catholics who are considered to be very committed Catholics – those who have a strong faith in and love for both Christ and His Church. No marriage is safe, and unfortunately, if you think yours is the exception, you have no reason to believe that. This is true even if you and your spouse “don’t believe in” divorce.
It is simply not possible to discuss this topic without causing pain to someone somewhere, but, in order to obtain justice, it must be discussed.
Divorce is bad for children; its effects are well-known, but annulments add to the injury. Unfortunately, it is as though the topic of Annulment is a Sacred Cow, which cannot be questioned at all.
This is not good enough in a society where the divorce rate is so high as to make marriage itself a laughing stock, where so many children are suffering terribly and are effectively told to “suck it up” and where even committed Catholics are seeing too many of their own marriages and families destroyed.
In practice, although annulment is not divorce, it has become Catholic divorce. We know that in most cases, people can marry for a second time in the Catholic Church with just a bit of extra paperwork. This is currently how it is in practice.
There are a lot of Catholics who “remarry” outside the Church and some of these are very active in their parish. These people are living in a state of permanent adultery. I do not recognise such “marriages” in my own extended family.
There are at least three fundamental problems with declarations of nullity as they are being granted today in American diocesan tribunals:
One: Annulment does not make divorce suddenly good for children. Annulment does not take away the psychological damage to children. Parents need to put their children’s real needs ahead of their own romantic desires.
Two: It is sometimes alleged by people who have succeeded in their petition for an annulment, that the annulment process was “healing.” The skeptic in me wonders if the respondent and the children also found annulment to be “healing.” I don’t see a lot of healing. I hear a fair amount of carping about the “ex”-spouse.
Three: One of the most damaging things in this shocking crisis is that many Catholics are now suggesting that many or even most marriages in the Catholic Church are probably invalid. Cardinal Edward M. Egan, former judge of the Sacred Roman Rota, describes the situation as follows:
“There are, you see, in the real world no men (and neither are there any women), who know what marriage is, are not insane, can sufficiently consider the wisdom of marrying, marry freely, are capable of the marriage act and capable too of honoring their commitment to the permanence and exclusivity of marriage, but who are are somehow unable to relate to a spouse except in intercourse. Such beings can be imagined, like unicorns or mermaids, but they do not exist.” (Edward Egan, “The nullity of marriage for reason of incapacity to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage.” Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, Rome, 1984.)
Here is a hypothetical, but very realistic scenario. A man tells his wife one day, that he no longer loves her and wants a divorce. She is devastated. She knows he has been unhappy, but any attempts on her part to discover the problem and address it has failed. Nevertheless, she was not expecting this, since all marriages have their rough times. She goes to see her pastor for some help. He is initially helpful, but after the husband gets his quickie divorce and fake-marries another woman outside of the Church the pastor counsels the man to petition for an annulment. How would you feel, if you were this woman? If we are going to use feelings of the parties as emotional ammunition in our debate, why must it all be one-sided? Such petitioners as these are not the only ones with feelings. The pastor here was derelict in his duty. He should have confronted the man early on and sought reconciliation for the couple and then informed the man that to seek a new romance would be a mortal sin.
Incidentally, there are some parishes where the singles social group welcomes divorced and even separated people! What kind of fresh wickedness is this? The Church does not recognise civil divorce! Separated persons are still legally married and married in the eyes of the Church.
Finally, let me show, by means of a true story, how I view the whole crisis. I have a former friend, whom I am still very fond of, who allowed her heart to become very hard against her husband. She has never accused him of violence or any other activity which could warrant a separation. After many years of complaints against him for minor faults, she eventually left him, divorced and then petitioned for an annulment, which was granted. Now, at the time of their marriage, I cannot perceive that there was any impediment. It was a first marriage for both, they were both baptised Catholics and married in the Church. The only possible grounds would be a liberal interpretation of c.1095. This looks very bad to me. She has put her own feelings ahead of the real needs of their four children. Her husband is deeply unhappy about it.
I believe that apostasy and divorce are even greater evils in our day than the horrendous abortion rate and are a large cause of it. The Church in the USA and other English-speaking nations is making an evil situation far worse, by refusing to remain faithful in practice to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Given what Our Lord went through for the sake of His Bride, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of anyone who commits injustices against this Sacrament.
This little Twitter exchange today between myself and Hilary White prompted me to start writing some more about the problem of divorce, specifically as it affects Catholics.
Divorce has horrified me all my life, along with a few other things, such as contraception, and physical immodesty in women. When I was very young indeed – about 5 – I first learned that parents could voluntarily stop having more babies. I didn’t know how or why, but such a thing was horrifying to me. All of these things are an attack upon motherhood, and ever since I could remember (and my memory goes back to two years of age) I wanted to be a mother.
I won’t be all confessional here (as in confessing my sins) but I was neither a deeply religious child, nor always as pure of heart as I was in my earliest childhood. But even at my worst, the old hatred of immodesty, contraception, and divorce remained. Inserted here now is the obligatory sentence about not hating the *people* who do these things. Any comments received that imply I hate people etc will never see the light of day in my comment section. I am highly dictatorial on my blog.
Holy Mother Church teaches that marriage cannot be dissolved. This is true, even though it now seems that “the Church”, via Pope Francis and others, are obviously trying to assault all the Church’s own teachings all at once. That’s another story, but in brief, we must remember that Christ is the Head of His Church, and His Mother, and the Angels and Saints are her holy members. The cretinous men currently running the institutional Church on earth can’t alter anything officially, but they can do a lot of damage to souls – at which they are very skilled.
I’m happy to report that my own childhood was ridiculously happy, and my elders were basically sensible, competent, and sane people, but even they were not immune from the vicious heresies of our time, and which caused some of them grief in their middle age onward.
My elders, born between the years 1907 and 1947, had pretty mushy views on divorce. This was due to two main reasons. One of my elders was a non-practicing Anglican, so he was not formed by the Catholic view of Sacramental Marriage anyhow, but my Catholic elders had lived in a society which had had legal divorce since about the mid nineteenth century. Divorces were still not common, however. No-fault divorce did not arrive in Australia until 1975, after which this disgusting condition – like a hideous disease – spread more virulently. This fairly putrid article gives you a bit of an overview of divorce in Australian law.
It is always the hard cases that push the boundaries. (That’s why I’m sick of them). First, your extended family knows nobody with a divorce, and the next thing you know it’s one here and one there. In the end, two of my Nan’s eight siblings were divorced, and prior to that, one of my Anglican ancestors was sued for divorce after his second marriage fell apart. His first wife had died quite young – probably in childbirth. None of these divorcees ever “remarried.”
The younger generation of elders – my parents’ generation (born between 1938 and 1947) had divorces all over the place and often “remarriages” or shack ups. One of these occurred in the early 70s, the others in the late 80s. Broadening out into wider society: at this time there was a veritable explosion of divorces as the kids finished school and the no-fault time bomb went off. Speaking of the kids – what were we doing? Wearing pastel and losing our virginity, mostly. Our generation’s kids are mostly unbaptised, and many of us never bothered to marry at all. (I am one of the few to buck the trend). Some of our generation’s kids are IVF. These kids don’t even know if they’re boys or girls and will no doubt kill themselves at a greater rate than ever before. You get the idea.
Incidentally, one of the demons responsible for these divorces was almost certainly the “noonday devil” (Psalm 90:6, Douay-Rheims) which Fr Ripperger says is the demon of mid-life crisis.
I cannot think of a single situation which requires a legal divorce. Ironically, unlike marriage, divorce really IS “just a piece of paper.” It’s quite grimly funny, if you think about it.
But now where are we? Well, as I said in my tweet, things are so bad that even among traditional Catholics, people can be very cavalier about divorce. I know veil-wearing, homeschooling, Latin Mass-going-women, who chat amiably about annulments because some marriage or other is going through a rough patch, or someone was abandoned etc. I don’t want to pick on trads, because it’s getting really old (and I am a trad), but this situation I find genuinely alarming. I don’t have any statistics on this, however.
My argument is that if divorce is permitted in law at all, that this will erode the Faith of Catholics regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and that this is my best argument in favour of a Catholic Confessional State, and against the Secular State, which I consider to be an Abomination.
There are other problems too – such as Catholics marrying outside the Church. This also creates many family problems. The only immediate antidote to this is for parents to lay down the law with their children early on e.g. “If you marry outside the Church, I am not coming to the wedding and will consider your relationship to be mere concubinage.” I have already informed my children of this, and I will back it up with action, because that’s one important way to stop the rot: we need to Make Catholics Great Again.
Every Catholic MUST wrestle with this issue. You’ll all get a dodgy “wedding” invitation at some point. Are you going to contend with your spouse about not going, and not permitting your children to go? Are you going to withstand your engaged daughter’s manipulative hysterics about “ruining” her “wedding” when you tell her you won’t attend? Are you prepared to say to your children, siblings, parents and other wayward Catholic family members “Look! We were all brought up Catholic and I’m trying to be a good Catholic. WHY ARE YOU MAKING *MY* LIFE SO DIFFICULT?” Because that’s what is happening. In families throughout the entire Civilisation Formerly Known As Christendom, family members who are more hedonistic/selfish than their other family members are driving that wedge further and further towards insanity. All of us will have to find a hill to die on. And when you do stand up to these demonically oppressed people (people you love) they will be vicious. As I discovered, you have to learn not to care about their hysteria.
I think I will write a series about this topic, if it’s of interest.
What is integralism?
Dunno, and I care less, but it’s been a topic on #CatholicTwitter lately. As far as I can tell it’s what some people call that part of Church teaching (disputed by some) known as the Social Kingship of Christ.
The ins and outs of the degree of authority regarding this set of teachings is simply “above my pay grade” and I don’t have the time or energy to study further. I’m a home schooling housewife, not a theologian.
I have laboured here and there over about 12 years to understand this set of teachings – the Social Kingship of Christ – as well as I reasonably can, given my external limitations, so I’m slightly resentful about committed Catholics who seem to blow this off.
I wrote in a piece a while back, what I thought was a reasonable blog post, about the idea, which I think is true, and which I think I had explained pretty well, that the state is always confessional (update: a confessional state means having a particular religion as the religion of the state). Even when, for that historically very brief moment the state seemed to be neutral, it never really was. For example, it has been a long time that Catholics have suffered under wicked divorce laws.
Indeed, in any state which recognises civil divorce at all, abandoned Catholic spouses are denied justice, both in law, and socially. Such a state is NOT neutral. It is whatever it is – protestant, or some other weird hybrid thing. And in this state, Catholics are at a disadvantage, particularly with the divorce laws. These laws enable all manner of family strife – and legally impose or sanction it at the expense of the innocent – and actively destroy the religious beliefs of Catholics regarding marriage. Nor does it take very long – in one generation everything can change. How nice and neutral!
I’d be very happy never to discuss the topic, except that it does seem to me to be one of those things which some potential converts will have to at least navigate at some point. It could be a block to conversion, and wishing it away won’t do anything, so I have endeavoured to explain it to others as well as I can.
One of the reasons it seems to touch a nerve is that pragmatists seem to think we all have some kind of plan to actually abolish Sunday trading, for example, in spite of such a policy having (allegedly) only 1% of popular support.
No. I can’t answer for other integralists (if that’s what I am) but for me it’s important to know what a just society looks like – in order to evaluate current laws etc. Whether we can change *anything* is another matter. So far, we can’t even prevent millions of babies being slaughtered in the womb, so the disgrace of Sunday trading is not high on my own list of preferred reforms.
Anti-integralists believe we should do the best with the system we have. In fact, I agree with them there, because it’s not practical to do otherwise. But discussions about whether or not certain policies are a help or hindrance to virtue are extremely important, imo. And that’s the value of discussion the Social Kingship of Christ.
Secular society is not neutral, whatever else it is.
I need a drink
Just a brief post with some newer garden photos.
Top left: the wisteria is growing nicely. Will need a bigger stake soon. It is of course a vine, but it can be grown into a small tree with careful training.
Top middle: The day was overcast and it was towards dusk. Even so the grass is looking a very deep green, and I got rid of the clover successfully. In fact, I liked the clover, but I know the Evil HOA won’t like it.
The other photos are some of the flowers I grew from seed. Some didn’t survive the transplanting, but never mind. When my foot gets better I will take some photos of my propagated succulents. 😀
It’s probably about time I posted something here.
It’s the growing season, so I have been a bit active in the garden since February. (Note: “gardening” in Australian means “yard work” mostly relating to growing flowers and keeping lawns maintained etc, not narrowly as vegetable growing).
Not *very* active, mind you, but a bit. I would have done more, but my ankles are in bad shape. The worst of the two was operated on last Thursday and my doctor said (after having had a look inside) that it was a “train wreck”. LOL! No wonder I’d been complaining about it. He’s cleaned up the loose cartilage, which apparently doesn’t grow back, and repaired a torn ligament. In a few months from now I hope he’ll fix the other ankle. So, for now I’m hopping around and getting about in a wheelchair.
But enough of that! Back to the garden. I didn’t have the money to spend on lots of plants, so I grew some flowers from seeds, and have been propagating succulents. I did also buy a few plants – Asiatic lilies, azaleas, snapdragon, dianthus, dusty miller and lambs ear – because they were at the local store. I assumed they would grow here.
I live in a standard suburb, with an aggressive Home Owners’ Association, so we have to have everything all cookie cutter like. My main aim has been to keep them off our backs, by fixing obvious problems in the front garden (yard), particularly the lawn, which had been somewhat neglected due to a sprinkler problem last year in the summer. I do have a gardener who comes once a week to mow the lawn, which is great. My job has been to ensure various soil treatments have been applied, do some manual weeding in the lawn and beds, ensure proper watering and stuff like that. My younger boys have had fun helping me to grow flowers and veggies. They usually water the pot plants, which is very helpful now that I’m down for the count.
Anyway, here are some pics.
These are from back in March. I will post some more recent ones soon.
So that covers my ankles and the garden. Now what about Armageddon?
Mundabor recently wrote a post that I completely agree with. Yes, the situation in the Church is extremely bad, and really God will have to fix it. But He will do it with the help of men, and we must each do our part.
So, shall we just avoid the controversies surrounding Pope Francis and limit ourselves to praying the rosary and writing about edifying material? If you have followed this blog even only a couple of days, you know my answer.
There is an awful lot of material, online and in books, for those who want to deepen their knowledge of traditional Catholicism. This blog, and many others, have plenty of information on the matter for the one who is willing to search. Thank God, the Internet has put this information within the reach of pretty much everyone in the English speaking world.
Blogging is, however, a more immediate form of communication than a book; and it therefore allows a faster reaction when things go wrong. A war is raging, and Satan is clearly very influent in the Vatican. I for myself am not going to spend the time I have for blogging in further explanations about the Works of Mercy or the meaning of the word “charity”. Plenty of resources for that; actually even on this blog, but pretty much everywhere.
No, this is not the time to retreat to a kind of devotional blogging, or spiritual blogging retreat. This is the time to follow St Michael. The reduction of Catholic blogging to online Catholic fare without reference to the war that is raging is tantamount to giving Francis all the liberty he wants, and to wreck everything he wants, safe in the knowledge that Catholic bloggers will focus on the Joyous Mysteries, or on pious toughts on the day of the Ascension.
In times of war you need, first of all, warriors. Cooks may be useful, byt they don’t win wars. The Crusaders never stopped thinking whether it would have been better to stop the war and start spiritual exercises instead. They knew it was the time for war, and they acted accordingly.
Pray your rosary, my dear reader.
And then go on the Internet and blog, comment, retweet, “like”, do all you can to help in the war that is raging.
As for me, my Christian name means “Famous Warrior Maid”. So there’s that.
And this just in today, is very… interesting.
NEWCASTLE, Australia, May 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson is now the highest-ranked Catholic prelate to have been convicted of covering up sex abuse. The Australian archbishop, who is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, faces two years in prison.
He will be sentenced on June 19.
I’m particularly interested, because he was my Archbishop when we lived in Adelaide, from 2002 – 2007. So, let’s see. First of all, he is facing a two year sentence. And how much time does the average convicted rapist do, I wonder? He has been convicted of covering up a crime. He still denies that he was told anything by anyone. This may or may not be true, I’m just stating the facts as reported. Also, I have no respect at all for any prelate in the Church right now. Not one of them has opposed Francis’s wrecking of the Church in the way he should have, and many of them I suspect are actual criminals. No, my interest is largely based on the fact that the Australian Establishment is simply out to get Catholic clergy however they can. Look, I’ll begin to be impressed by these supposed efforts to convict clergy of failure to report crimes when they do the same to other churches, organisations, and especially state schools. Sorry, but I don’t believe these cynics care about victims of crime at all. No, what they really want is to persecute the Church and specifically in Australia, they want to destroy the Seal of the Confessional. They have been after our Sacrament for years.
According to the Associated Press, one of the altar boys allegedly told Wilson about it in the confessional. Priests risk excommunication for revealing anything said to them in the confessional.
The Catholic Church teaches that the seal of confession is an essential part of that sacrament, so that people can freely confess their sins and be forgiven. The seal of confession has become an issue in some parts of the world, including Australia, where some want Catholic priests to reveal things heard in Confession if related to sex abuse.
“Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs (CCC 1467). “This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the ‘sacramental seal,’ because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains ‘sealed’ by the sacrament.”
Don’t be fooled, the public broadcaster, the ABC, in particular, only wants to see the Catholic Church persecuted on account of its (now very weak) resistance to All Things Progressive. If it even remotely cared about victims of sex abuse, it would go after all the people who have been committing such crimes and covering them up.
As for the alleged “cover up” of crimes by Archbishop Wilson, even if he had not denied having done so, what exactly do we expect of people in authority when such accusations are brought to them? Presumption of innocence means that the accused has certain rights and we are not at liberty to overrule them. It’s not a matter of believing or not believing the alleged victim, but it is a matter of establishing that a crime has been committed. I don’t even know what people in authority should do in such situations. Do you?