Scots Hermits Excommunicated on Christmas Eve by Evil Bishop

Edit: this from a reader. If you’re not on board with James Martin, apparently, you’re out.

Which of the words don't you understand?

For those of you who are having difficulty sorting out the propaganda from the truth of what actually took place, get back to me and I'll try to explain it using crayons.

Pope Francis announces retrieval of indigenous statues

The Holy See Press Office has provided a transcription of Pope Francis’s remarks concerning several indigenous statues, stolen earlier this week and thrown into the Tiber River. The Holy Father spoke off-the-cuff following the liturgical prayer that opened the afternoon session of the 15th General Congregation of the Synod for the Amazon.

Pope Francis' words

Good afternoon. I want to say a word about the statues of the pachamama that were taken from the church of the Transpontina – which were there without idolatrous intentions – and were thrown into the Tiber.

First of all, this happened in Rome, and, as Bishop of the Diocese, I ask pardon of the persons who were offended by this act.

Then, I want to communicate to you that the statues which created such attention in the media, were retrieved from the Tiber. The statues were not damaged.

The Commander of the Carabinieri desires that you should be informed of this recovery before the news is made public. At the moment, the news is confidential, and the statues are being kept in the Italian Carabinieri Commander's office.

The Commander of the Carabinieri has expressed his desire to follow up on any indications that you would like to give concerning the manner of publication of the news, and any other initiative you may want to take in this regard: for example, the Commander said, “the exhibition of the statues during the Holy Mass for the closing of the Synod”. We’ll see.

I have delegated the Secretary of State to respond to this.

This is a bit of good news. Thank you. 

Topics

• Pope Francis
• #SinodoAmazonico
• synod

25 October 2019, 19:26

Jewish Infiltration of the Catholic Church

Do you want to know what really took place within the Catholic Church, how it happened, and who is responsible for the upheaval of Tradition? Facts are stubborn things. -Original Poster, Robert Semrad

Jewish Infiltration of the Catholic Church: Part 1

Diversity Macht Frei

March 12, 2016

In 1972, Pope Paul VI made an extraordinary remark that drew worldwide attention. He said that the “smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary of God”, meaning the Catholic church. I can’t help wonder whether, in uttering these words, he was making a regretful admission of guilt on his own part. Because it was under his auspices, in 1965, that the church issued a document called Nostra Aetate, which reversed most of the church’s key and time-honoured teachings on Jews. Overnight, the virile antisemitism of the old Catholic doctrine was replaced by a weak and neutered philosemitism. The Catholic church, one of the Jews’ traditional adversaries, had been taken out of the game. And it happened through infiltration.

BEGIN CITATION

…the church had never in its history looked upon the Jews in the ways specified in Nostra Aetate. A second pioneer in the Christian-Jewish dialogue, the American Paulist Father Thomas Stransky of Milwaukee, who helped draft Nostra Aetate as an advisor at Vatican II, makes the point more radically. The Declaration signaled a “180 degree turnabout,” he said in a speech of 2006, reversing all that the church had thought about Jews since its early days, a time when teachings about Christ’s divinity or the Trinity had yet to be formulated. From the third century at the latest, church authorities taught that the Jews’ destiny was to wander the earth suffering retribution from God for rejecting Christ, serving in their destitution as the most direct evidence that the church’s claims to God’s favor were correct. By acts of discrimination passed by councils through the centuries, the church then created conditions calculated to keep the Jews destitute. This situation was supposed to endure until the end of time when the Jews finally turned to Christ.

The teaching of Vatican II could not have been more different. Beyond saying that the promises— thus the Covenant— made by God with the Jews were still in force, the document asserted— quoting St. Paul’s letter to the Romans— that the Jews remained “most dear” to God. That is, they continued to enjoy God’s favor. This radical shift in teaching worried many, including Father Stransky, who wondered whether Catholics could suddenly assimilate ideas that contradicted everything they had been taught to believe. Yet in 1965, despite insistent urging from the personal theologian of Pope Paul VI, the drafters of Nostra Aetate refused to say that the church must conduct a mission to the Jews, or that the Jews must turn to Christ.

In the statement that the bishops overwhelmingly accepted and Paul VI promulgated as authoritative church teaching— teaching that cannot be rescinded by later popes— the drafters likewise ignored other sections of scripture suggesting that Jews were responsible for Christ’s death (Acts 3: 15) and lived under a curse (Matt. 27: 25), and that the covenant God had made with the Jews was obsolete (Heb. 8: 13). Instead, they shifted the church’s understanding of its relation to the Jews to three chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which contain the Apostle’s most mature reflections on the Jewish people.

…the pages that follow trace the Declaration’s origin from the intellectual milieu out of which this shift to Paul occurred, namely, groups of Catholic anti-Nazis operating in Central Europe in the 1930s. Among them was one of Nostra Aetate’s authors, the priest Johannes M. Oesterreicher, originally a Jew from Moravia, who served as theological consultant at the Vatican Council, but began his struggle against antisemitism in Vienna in 1933. Oesterreicher worked within tiny groups of Catholics who published and spoke out against Nazi ideology from cities just beyond Hitler’s reach, first in Austria and Switzerland, and then France until the German attack in 1940.

At that point, Oesterreicher joined a number of his comrades-in-arms— the philosophers Jacques Maritain and Dietrich von Hildebrand, the political scientist Waldemar Gurian— in exile in the United States. Other collaborators stayed behind in Europe. Oesterreicher’s intellectual sparring partner for three decades, the German theologian Karl Thieme, took refuge near Basel, Switzerland, in 1934, and remained there through the dark war years, continuing to think and write about Christian-Jewish relations.

The theologian Annie Kraus, a Jew who became Catholic in 1942 and inspired Oesterreicher and Hildebrand with pathbreaking thought on antisemitism written in 1933, hid from the Gestapo first in Berlin, then Southern Germany. Others were not so lucky. The priest who baptized Kraus and Oesterreicher, peace activist Max Metzger, was tried and executed for treason in Berlin in 1944. A year earlier the Gestapo arrested Ferdinand Frodl, a Jesuit who wrote about racism for Dietrich von Hildebrand.

…Why the activists surrounding Johannes Oesterreicher got involved in fighting Nazi racial antisemitism is a question of personal biography that we ultimately cannot answer. Yet one fact stands out in their histories: they were converts. This trend did not begin in 1933. From the 1840s until 1965, virtually every activist and thinker who worked for Catholic-Jewish reconciliation was not originally Catholic. Most were born Jewish. Without converts the Catholic Church would not have found a new language to speak to the Jews after the Holocaust.

As such, the story of Nostra Aetate is an object lesson on the sources but also the limits of solidarity. Christians are called upon to love all humans regardless of national or ethnic background, but when it came to the Jews, it was the Christians whose family members were Jews who keenly felt the contempt contained in traditional Catholic teaching. A group called Amici Israel, which emerged in the 1920s at the initiative of the Dutch convert Franziska van Leer, demanded an end to liturgical references to Jews as perfidious and a halt to efforts to “convert” the Jews.

After the war, a new generation of converts joined Oesterreicher (now known as John) and Karl Thieme in their efforts to undo the anti-Judaism on which antisemitism thrived. In Freiburg, Germany, the concentration camp survivor Gertrud Luckner published the Freiburger Rundbrief and enlisted Thieme as her theological advisor. There Thieme developed ideas later taken into the documents of Vatican II. In Paris, Father Paul Démann, a converted Hungarian Jew, began publishing the review Cahiers Sioniens, and, with the help of fellow converts Geza Vermes and Renée Bloch, refuted the anti-Judaism in Catholic school catechisms, especially the idea that Jews lived under a curse. Three years later Miriam Rookmaaker van Leer, likewise a convert (from Protestantism), founded the Dutch Catholic Council for Israel (Katholieke Raad voor Israel), and engaged the priest Anton Ramselaar as her theological advisor. Ramselaar had known the founders of the Amici Israel initiative of the 1920s.

In 1958, Ramselaar, at the suggestion of Ottilie Schwarz (a convert from Vienna) convened an international symposium in Apeldoorn, Holland which brought together the leading Catholic thinkers from France (Paul Démann), Germany (Karl Thieme, Gertrud Luckner), Israel (Abbot Leo Rudloff, Father Jean-Roger Hené), the United Kingdom (Irene Marinoff), and the United States (John Oesterreicher). Besides Ramselaar, all were converts. At its third meeting, in 1960, this group produced theses that were passed onto the new Pope John XXIII— along with recommendations of John Oesterreicher’s Institute for Judeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey. Oesterreicher founded this institute in 1953 with help from the eminent Chinese legal scholar John C. H. Wu, professor at Seton Hall and a convert to Catholicism. 8 In 1961, Oesterreicher went on to the Second Vatican Council. At one critical moment in October 1964, the priests Gregory Baum and Bruno Hussar joined Oesterreicher to draft the statement that would become the Vatican Council’s decree on the Jews. Like Oesterreicher, Baum and Hussar were converts of Jewish background.

Edit: I revised this to remove all of the code that appeared from the original poster's word processor. -Tancred

The Sovereignty of the People of God

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, during his trip to Mozambique, Pope Francis met privately with a group of 24 Jesuits, 20 from Mozambique, three from Zimbabwe and one from Portugal. Among them was the provincial, Fr. Chiedza Chimhanda. The meeting took place in the nunciature at about 6:15 p.m. at the end of a full day of events. The Jesuit Province of Zimbabwe-Mozambique was established at the end of December 2014. It currently has 163 members, 90 of whom are young people in formation.^[1] On his arrival, the Jesuits applauded the pope. He asked those present to form a circle with chairs. The conversation lasted a good hour. The provincial gave a word of welcome, then the pope invited the Jesuits to ask questions to start the conversation.

(Antonio Spadaro, SJ)

Fr. Paul Mayeresa, who works in Beira in the educational apostolate, asked for the pope’s thoughts on the apostolic preferences of the Society^[2] and for advice on how to live them in Mozambique. The pope replied:

It is not easy to rebuild a divided society. You live in a country that has experienced civil strife, with Mozambicans fighting one another. I think, for example, that the apostolic preference regarding the Spiritual Exercises can help a lot in this context. They can be given to people engaged in different sectors of society and thus make them more able to carry out their task of uniting and reconciling. The experience of spiritual discernment can guide action.

It is appropriate to accompany all parties, especially where there is a need for unity and reconciliation in society and in the nation. We know that sometimes the best is the enemy of the good, and at a time of reconciliation bitter pills must be swallowed. In this process you have to teach yourself to be patient. It takes the patience of discernment to reach what is essential and put aside the accidental. It takes a lot of patience sometimes! Of course, it is also necessary to share our wisdom, that is the social doctrine of the Church. But be careful: Jesuits must not divide. There is a need for reconciliation in the society of Mozambique: unite, unite, unite, unite, unite, have patience, wait. Never take a step to divide. We are men of the whole, not of the part.

You work in the educational apostolate, and you are among the young. Your work is important and demanding. Young people have good will, but they can be easy prey to deception as well as impatient. It is necessary to be close to the young people, to give them space so that they can discern what is happening in their hearts. Formation considers ideas and feelings together. To act well you always have to consider your ideas and feelings. For example, we must help the youngest to recognize when they live in resignation, and therefore in stagnation, and also to recognize when they live a healthy restlessness. In short, we need spiritual discernment, of accompaniment for the good of society.

Next came a question from Bendito Ngozzo, chaplain of the Santo Inácio Loyola High School: “Some Protestant sects use the promise of wealth and prosperity to make proselytes. The poor become fascinated and hope to become rich by adhering to these sects that use the name of the Gospel. That’s how they leave the Church. What recommendation can you give us so that our evangelization is not proselytism?”

What you say is very important. To start with, we must distinguish carefully between the different groups who are identified as “Protestants.” There are many with whom we can work very well, and who care about serious, open and positive ecumenism. But there are others who only try to proselytize and use a theological vision of prosperity. You were very specific in your question.

Two important articles in Civiltà Cattolica have been published in this regard. I recommend them to you. They were written by Father Spadaro and the Argentinean Presbyterian pastor, Marcelo Figueroa. The first article spoke of the “ecumenism of hatred.” The second was on the “theology of prosperity.”^[3] Reading them you will see that there are sects that cannot really be defined as Christian. They preach Christ, yes, but their message is not Christian. It has nothing to do with the preaching of a Lutheran or any other serious evangelical Christianity. These so-called “evangelicals” preach prosperity. They promise a Gospel that does not know poverty, but simply seeks to make proselytes. This is exactly what Jesus condemns in the Pharisees of his time. I’ve said it many times: proselytism is not Christian.

Today I felt a certain bitterness after a meeting with young people. A woman approached me with a young man and a young woman. I was told they were part of a slightly fundamentalist movement. She said to me in perfect Spanish: “Your Holiness, I am from South Africa. This boy was a Hindu and converted to Catholicism. This girl was Anglican and converted to Catholicism.” But she told me in a triumphant way, as though she was showing off a hunting trophy. I felt uncomfortable and said to her, “Madam, evangelization yes, proselytism no.”

What I mean is that evangelization is free! Proselytism, on the other hand, makes you lose your freedom. Proselytism is incapable of creating a religious path in freedom. It always sees people being subjugated in one way or another. In evangelization the protagonist is God, in proselytism it is the I.

Of course, there are many forms of proselytism. The one practiced by soccer teams, acquiring fans, is all right, obviously! And then it is clear that there are those forms of proselytism for commerce and business, for political parties. Proselytism is widespread, we know that. But it doesn’t have to be the case with us. We must evangelize, which is very different from proselytizing.

St. Francis of Assisi told his friars: “Go out to the world, evangelize. And, if necessary, use words, too.” Evangelization is essentially witness. Proselytizing is convincing, but it is all about membership and takes your freedom away. I believe that this distinction can be of great help. Benedict XVI in Aparecida said something wonderful, that the Church does not grow by proselytism, it grows by attraction, the attraction of witness. The sects, on the other hand, making proselytes, separate people, promising them many advantages and then leaving them to themselves.^[4]

Among you there are certainly theologians, sociologists and philosophers: I ask you to study and deepen the difference between proselytism and evangelization. Read well Evangelii Nuntiandi of Paul VI. There it is clear that the vocation of the Church is to evangelize. Indeed, the very identity of the Church involves evangelizing. Unfortunately, however, not only in the sects, but also within the Catholic Church there are fundamentalist groups. They emphasize proselytism more than evangelization.

Another typical thing about proselytizing is that it does not distinguish between the internal and external forums. And this is the sin into which many religious groups fall today. That is why I asked the Apostolic Penitentiary to make a statement on the internal forum, and that statement is really very good.^[5]

Evangelizers never violate the conscience: they announce, sow and help to grow. They help. Whoever proselytizes, on the other hand, violates people’s conscience: this does not make them free, it makes them dependent. Evangelization gives you a filial dependence, that is, it makes you free and able to grow. Proselytizing gives you a servile dependence at the level of the conscience and the society. The dependence of the evangelized person, the “filial” dependence, is the memory of the grace that God has given you. The proselyte instead depends not as a child, but as a slave, who in the end does not know what to do unless he or she is told.

Once again I recommend these two articles in Civiltà Cattolica: read them and study them because they address much of what I am telling you. Here I tried to communicate to you the main message.

Fr. Leonardo Alexandria Simao, a scholastic in formation in Beira, speaks next and tells about his work with young people. The pope tells him that it is an important work and that “his ask is to communicate the Gospel and to ensure that young people are internally free.” Then the Jesuit asks him if and how his experience of God has changed since he was elected pope. Francis takes a short time to reflect and then responds…

I can’t tell you, actually. I mean, I guess my experience of God hasn’t fundamentally changed. I remain the same as before. Yes, I feel a sense of greater responsibility, no doubt. My prayer of intercession has become much wider than before. But even beforehand I lived the prayer of intercession and felt pastoral responsibility. I keep walking, but there’s not really been any radical change. I speak to the Lord as before. I feel God gives me the grace I need for the present time. But the Lord gave it to me before. And I commit the same sins as before. My election as pope did not convert me suddenly, so as to make me less sinful than before. I am and I remain a sinner. That’s why I confess every two weeks.

I have never been asked this question before, and I thank you for asking me because it makes me think about my spiritual life. I understand, as I told you, that my relationship with the Lord has not changed, apart from a greater sense of responsibility and a prayer of intercession that has spread to the world and to the whole Church. But the temptations are the same and so are the sins. The mere fact that I now dress all in white has not made me any less sinful or holier than before.

It comforts me a lot to know that Peter, the last time he appears in the Gospels, is still as insecure as he was before. At the Sea of Galilee, Jesus asked him if he loved him more than others and asked him to tend to his sheep, and then confirmed him. But Peter remains the same person he was: stubborn, impetuous. Paul will have to confront and fight with his stubbornness about the Christians who came from paganism and not from Judaism. At the beginning Peter in Antioch lived the freedom that God gave him and sat at table with the pagans and ate with them quietly, putting aside the Jewish food rules. But then some came there from Jerusalem, and Peter, out of fear, withdrew from the table of the pagans and ate only with the circumcised.^[6] In short: from freedom he passed again to the slavery of fear. There he is, Peter the hypocrite, the man of compromise! Reading about Peter’s hypocrisy comforts me so much and warns me. Above all, this helps me to understand that there is no magic in being elected pope. The conclave doesn’t work by magic.

Fr. Joachim Biriate, the provincial’s socius, asks a question: “How can we avoid falling into clericalism during formation for priestly ministry?”

Clericalism is a real perversion in the Church. The shepherd has the ability to go in front of the flock to show the way, stay in the middle of the flock to see what happens within, and also be at the rear of the flock to make sure that no one is left behind. Clericalism, on the other hand, demands that the shepherd always stays ahead, sets a course, and punishes with excommunication those who stray from the flock. In short, the very opposite of what Jesus did. Clericalism condemns, separates, beats and despises the people of God.

I once went to confess in a sanctuary in northern Argentina. After Mass, I left in the company of another priest. A woman approached him with pictures and rosaries, asking him to bless those objects. My friend explained to her: “You have been to Mass and at the end of Mass you already received the blessing; therefore, everything has already been blessed.” But the woman kept asking for his blessing. And the priest continued with his theological explanation: “Is Mass the sacrifice of Christ?” And the woman said “Yes!” “Is itthe sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ?” And the woman said “Yes!” “And you believe that Christ with his blood saved us all?” And the woman said “Yes!” At that very moment the priest saw a friend of his and was distracted. And the woman immediately turned to me, asking, “Father, will you give me the blessing?” The poor people should not have to beg in this way for a blessing! Clericalism does not take into account the people of God.

In Latin America there is much popular piety, and it is very rich. One of the explanations given for the phenomenon is that this happened because the priests were not interested, and therefore could not clericalize it. Popular piety has aspects needing correction, yes, but it expresses the sovereignty of the holy people of God, without clericalism. Clericalism confuses priestly “service” with priestly “power.” Clericalism is rise and rule. It’s called “climbing” in Italian.

The ministry understood not as service but as “promotion” to the altar is the fruit of a clerical mentality. I can think of an extreme example. Deacon means “servant.” But in some cases clericalism paradoxically affects precisely the “servants,” the deacons. When they forget that they are the custodians of service, then the desire to clericalize and be “promoted” to the altar emerges.

Clericalism has a direct consequence in rigidity. Have you never seen young priests all stiff in black cassocks and hats in the shape of the planet Saturn on their heads? Behind all the rigid clericalism there are serious problems. I had to intervene recently in three dioceses with problems that expressed themselves in these forms of rigidity that concealed moral problems and imbalances.

One dimension of clericalism is the exclusive moral fixation on the sixth commandment. Once a Jesuit, a great Jesuit, told me to be careful in giving absolution, because the most serious sins are those that are more angelical: pride, arrogance, dominion… And the least serious are those that are less angelical, such as greed and lust. We focus on sex and then we do not give weight to social injustice, slander, gossip and lies. The Church today needs a profound conversion in this area.

On the other hand, great shepherds give people a lot of freedom. The good shepherd knows how to lead his flock without enslaving it to rules that deaden people. Clericalism, on the other hand, leads to hypocrisy, even in religious life.

I often tell the story of a Jesuit in formation. His mother was seriously ill and he knew that she would not live much longer. He lived in another city in the same country, and so he asked his provincial to be moved closer to his mother so as to be able to spend more time with her. The provincial said that he would think about it before God and would answer him before leaving early in the morning the next day. The young Jesuit stayed in the chapel that night for a long time, praying that the Lord would grant him grace. But the provincial, since he had to leave early, did not really think much about it and wrote all the answers to the petitions he had received and gave them to the minister of the community^[7] to hand them over the following day. Among them was the answer to this young man. The minister, since it was late and he thought that everyone was sleeping, put the letters at the doors of those concerned. The young man, who returned to his room from the chapel late at night, saw the letter from the provincial and opened it. He realized it was dated the next day. It said, “After reflecting, praying, celebrating Mass and making long discernment before the Lord, I think you should stay in this place.” This is clericalism, it is the hypocrisy to which clericalism leads. The young Jesuit did not lose his vocation, but he never forgot that hypocrisy. Clericalism is essentially hypocritical.

Fr. Afonso Mucane, parish priest of the parish of Sant’Ignazio, in the diocese of Tete, asked for some thoughts on the Apostolate of Prayer, which is now called the Pope’s Worldwide Prayer Network and has just celebrated its 175th anniversary.^[8]

I think we should teach people the prayer of intercession, which is a prayer of courage, of parrhesia. Think of Abraham’s intercession over Sodom and Gomorrah. Think of Moses’ intercession for his people. We must help the people to exercise intercession more often. And we ourselves need to pray more. The Pope’s Worldwide Network of Prayer, directed by Fr. Fornos, is doing this very well. It is important that people pray for the pope and his intentions. The pope is tempted, he is very besieged: only the prayer of his people can free him, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. When Peter was imprisoned, the Church prayed incessantly for him. If the Church prays for the pope, this is a grace. I really do feel the need to beg for in prayer all the time. The prayer of the people is sustaining.

The last question is from a scholastic, Ermano Lucas, who works at the secondary school “Sant’Ignazio.” His question is about rampant xenophobia.

Xenophobia and aporophobia^[9] today are part of a populist mentality that leaves no sovereignty to the people. Xenophobia destroys the unity of a people, even that of the people of God. And the people are all of us: those who were born in the same country, no matter whether they have their roots in another place or are of different ethnic groups. Today we are tempted by a form of sterilized sociology, where you consider a country as if it were an operating theater, where everything is sterilized: my race, my family, my culture… as if there were the fear of dirtying it, staining it, infecting it. There are those who want to stop this very important process of mingling cultures, which gives life to people. Mixing makes you grow, it gives you new life. It develops racial mixing, change and gives originality. The mixing of identities is what we have experienced, for example, in Latin America. There we have everything: Spanish and Indian, the missionary and the conqueror, the Spanish lineage, people’s mixed heritage.^[10]

Building walls means condemning yourself to death. We can’t live asphyxiated by a culture as clean and pure as an operating theater, aseptic and not microbial.

The meeting between Pope Francis and the Jesuits ended with thanksgiving, a shared prayer and a group photo.

* * *

On September 8, during his visit to Madagascar, at the end of the meeting with priests, religious and seminarians on the sports field of the Jesuits’ Saint-Michel College,^[11] Pope Francis met 200 of the 260 Jesuits of the Malagasy province, led by the provincial, Fr. Fulgence Ratsimbazafy. The meeting took place in the College Chapel and lasted about 40 minutes.^[12]

The pope’s entrance was accompanied by the singing of the “Veni Creator” in a cordial and appropriately solemn atmosphere, a solemnity that the pope immediately wanted to dampen, saying that he would not make speeches and that he did not want to listen to them. Instead, he asked that those gathered “speak like brothers,” and to have a completely spontaneous interview with questions and answers. The meeting alternated between a series of rapid responses^[13] and three broader responses.

Fr. Joseph Emmanuel Randriamamonjy, who works in the apostolate of the Spiritual Exercises, takes the microphone and asks a question in Italian: “What is your impression of Madagascar? What struck you most?”

One thing that struck me very much and that seems to me to be the real focus of the visit was the people, the Madagascan people. I have seen a people capable of withstanding poverty, suffering, and exploitation. I was struck by their ability to express joy, even when lacking the necessities of life. This is a real grace. It also says a great deal to us consecrated persons and calls into question our needs, which are refined and sometimes the typical needs of the elite. I have seen a people that seeks what is essential to survive, and precisely for this reason it is fruitful. Do not lose sight of the roots that make your people joyful even in suffering! When you are tempted to become a little acidic and dissatisfied, concentrate well on the spirit of your people and its fruitfulness.

Fr. Noel Cyprien, coordinator of the social and ecological apostolate of the province, spoke: “You are from Latin America. Today you’re in Madagascar. Do you see any relationship between our different peoples?”

I would say that our peoples must be careful not to fall into an ideological colonization that takes away our identity. Our peoples still have the ability to express themselves in a popular way without falling into populism. It is important to preserve the identity of one’s own people, an identity that comes from the spontaneous expression of the people. But we must defend ourselves against an identity that is ideological. The experience of the people goes far beyond ideologies, which are abstract and fit for a museum or laboratory. Ideology makes us lose our identity. The identity of a people cannot be expressed in concepts, but in stories. The people are sovereign in their expressions of art, culture and wisdom. St. Ignatius understood that well. If you recall, in our Constitutions there is a kind of refrain that takes up the choices and the way of acting that always depends on context, on the reality “according to places, times and people.”

The criterion of action is never abstract, but has as its reference a certain place, a given time, precise people. The inner vision does not impose itself on history, trying to organize it, but dialogues with reality, fits into history, and takes place over time. This ensures that discernment guides action, always respecting the variety of cultures and peoples, and the interiority of individuals.

It is for this reason that the Society of Jesus has been able to have figures such as Saint Francis Xavier, Matteo Ricci, De Nobili and Valignano. Our missions in South America have been creative with the people, and have not reduced them to a theoretical scheme. The rule of action in missions has always taken into account the concreteness of places, times and people. The rule is this discernment.

Fr. Joseph Rabenirina, director of the publishing house Ambozonyany, asks: “I heard from my parents and grandparents that the French missionaries used to give as penance for sins that of planting trees. What do you think?”

That sounds like a very creative pastoral initiative to me. From what you tell me it was a social and environmental penance, which is attentive to building up society. Today, when I went to the “City of Friendship,” Fr. Pedro showed me some pine trees. He told me he planted them himself 20 years ago. This is really very nice.

Merry Christmas: Barnhardt Names Them!

Edit: even the worst most cringey Catholic e-celebs can see the light.  At some point, you realize who it is that's putting you in the cross-hairs and who you can't criticize, not even constructively.  Like Scrooge, even Barnhardt can see the light!

[Barnhardt.biz] I have written on Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” before, but it has been several years, and I think a recapitulation is in order given current events.

The ARSH 1951 film “Scrooge” starring Alastair Sim is the definitive film version of “A Christmas Carol”.  It is traditional viewing for me on Christmas Eve night, and has been since childhood.  For those of you with any ties to the Kansas City area, the old independent Channel 41 would show “Scrooge” at 10:00pm on Christmas Eve annually, followed by either Luciano Pavarotti’s ARSH 1980 Christmas concert, or (sigh) the non-Christian Mormon choir singing Christmas Carols.

But “A Christmas Carol” took on a whole new life and depth of meaning for me when, after my in-depth study of Diabolical Narcissism several years ago, I realized that the reason why “A Christmas Carol” is such a compelling story, is because it depicts a full-blown, all-out miracle.  The “transformation” of Ebeneezer Scrooge is nothing less than the supernatural healing of a full-blown Diabolical Narcissist psychopath.

The Scrooge character is a classic DN.  He is a cerebral narcissist – highly successful in his profession, a miser, caring for nothing but “his work” – which just happens to be usury (Usury? In London? Nooo….), sitting alone in his room every night, lovelessly single, devoid of human empathy, haughty, critical and disdainful of everyone and everything, looking down on and actively resentful of normal, loving people – embodied by his clark, whom he psychologically abuses, Bob Cratchit, and his family. Love, joy, gratitude and generosity disgust and enrage Scrooge. He hates occasions of happiness, and actively seeks to disrupt and destroy them, especially holidays.  The people around him walk on eggshells to his face – but either pity or dislike him behind his back.  In the “Ghost of Christmas Future” act, Scrooge is genuinely surprised to discover that almost everyone is glad that he is dead – the exception being Bob Cratchit himself, the most direct recipient of Scrooge’s abuse.  Bob Cratchit is thus a metaphor for Christ.

Not only does “A Christmas Carol” firmly establish in its opening act the total lovelessness of Scrooge, the total self-purgation of all charity from his soul, but it even shows HOW IT HAPPENED, and the exact moment when Scrooge made the conscious choice to expel all love from his soul and to never love again.

That moment happens when young Scrooge’s beloved sister, Fan, dies in childbirth.  Ebeneezer Scrooge’s mother, it is revealed, also died in childbirth, and Scrooge’s father blamed him for her death, and “never forgave him”, abusing him, and them sending him away.  As is so common, Scrooge, already wounded, repeated the very error of his father and blamed Fan’s newborn infant son for her death.  Even worse, Scrooge, whether implicitly or explicitly, also declared war on God – Love Himself – by rejecting love and consciously emptying himself of it.  The very moment of this decision is shown at the 32:54 timestamp.

Immediately, Scrooge descends into psychopathic usury, and, as we have discussed, even descends into the that horrific sexual perversion – ASEXUALITY, by dumping his fiancée and living a life of LOVELESS, MISERABLE, ELITIST SOLITUDE.  Even his only “friend”, Jacob Marley, he held in indifference and even contempt.

The other point here which is TOTALLY lost on the modern world is the fact that EBENEEZER is quite possibly the most HEBREW name ever, and that EVERYONE understood when Dickens wrote the book that Scrooge was one of the many JEWISH USURERS in London.  So, this story isn’t merely about the healing of the heart of a miserable old narcissist, A Christmas Carol is the story of the miraculous conversion to Christianity of a JEW.

The story closes with the words, “And it was always said that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.”

That, friends, means that Ebeneezer Scrooge, an ethnic Jew and atheist (as almost all ethnic Jews today are), received baptism and became a believing Christian.  It is left to the reader to understand that the Cratchit Family were his “sponsors” in this.  It is also obliquely implied at the beginning of the story that Scrooge’s nephew, Fred, married a Christian girl – “it was the making of me”, and thus invites Scrooge to their home for Christmas dinner.

So, if you can spare the time this year, do sit down and watch this, and see if the “Christmas morning” scene wherein Scrooge is miraculously healed of his Diabolical Narcissism, and radiates genuine love and joy, doesn’t pack a bit more of a punch.  Because for a Diabolical Narcissist psychopath to be thus healed is a greater miracle than levitation, bilocation, or most any other physical miracle.

A Merry Christmas to one and all!  God bless you, [us] everyone!

AMDG

Pope Rejects the Great Commission

Edit: meanwhile, he becomes more irrelevant by attacking the people who believe what the Church has always taught.

AMDG

Hodie scietis

Hodie scietis,
quia veniet Dominus,
et salvabit nos:
et mane videbitis gloriam eius.
Domini est terra,
et plenitudo eius:
orbis terrarum,
et universi,
qui habitant in eo.
Goria Patri
et Filio
et Spiritui Sancto,
sicut erat in principio
et nunc et semper
et in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.

Katholisches...

AMDG