Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Proselytism in Holy Land · Are There Catholic Censors Too? Probably ... · Is Jenna Moreci Confirming Mark Lipschitz? · New blog on the kid : Why am I Still on the Street
Priest: How to tell you have a bad shepherd
LifeSiteNews | 24th April 2018
- "Refraining from exposing them."
Jews and Catholics have different ways about that. Sure, both agree in neither rabbis nor priests actively recommending literature that is (really and according to the own tenets) bad.
But both also go further, in different ways.
Jews could make a compact of silence, a kind of omertà. Catholics on the other hand openly condemn books.
Galileo wrote at least two books that were on the index until Gregory XVI removed them from there. They were put on the index and it was publicised everywhere, Catholics must not read them. The index editions referred to precise (as the last index edition not including them still referred to precise) occasions on which they were condemned.
Jews make compacts like first not speaking of a thing, next if someone speaks (especially a younger person) tell them "you mustn't read that and also you mustn't speak about it".
I think a lot of "Catholic" priests these days have made a Jewish type compact of omertà about my blogs, Robert Barron being one of them. Not one single blogpost of mine has been explicitly condemned by any of them, like De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was placed on the index in 1616 - and yet some of them are very systematically treating all of the 7800 + blogposts as if they already were on the index.
They claim to be Catholic, but are playing a Jewish game.
- Speaking of the father of lies ...
Any Catholic could ask the priest "why is De revolutionibus orbium coelestium forbidden, what's wrong with it?"
And the priest could answer "it teaches Heliocentrism" (by the way, the ban on actually believing Heliocentrism has to the best of my knowledge, unlike the ban on reading Galileo, never been revoked by a reverse judgement).
And a layman having the permission to read books on the index could check for himself when approaching a poison closet - yes De revolutionibus orbium coelestium does in fact teach Heliocentrism. And he could also check that his priests were teaching Geocentrism.
If Galileo had gone in exile to Holland and had written to Rome, he would have gotten the answer : "Geocentrism is forbidden, if you meet one Galileo he was defending it in a trial about his book in 1616, wait, you are Galileo himself right? You were at the trial."
Very unlike the attitude to my positions. IF I go out of my way to approach Catholics in US over the internet, they will uniformly admit that Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are, if not on their view obliging, at least canonically licit positions. They may cite tactical reasons why one shouldn't be one (it could prevent Evolution believers and Heliocentrics from converting - as if their positions were uniformly set in stone), but they will not pretend it is forbidden. IF I approach Catholics, orally, when they are volunteering or hosting (for a priest* at St. Ambroise) at morning receptions for the homeless, where I go, they will sometimes say "aren't you afraid of braving the magisterium" as if I were doing so, or make themselves part of what seems to be an investigation - low key but still not too ambiguous to make the suspicion reasonable - about my mental health. IF I compare the invitations for Catholics to read my blog posts (like posting a link on Robert Barron's youtube channel or giving a url to Catholic volunteers), and I then look at the statistics, I get the very, very clear feeling that someone is doing gatekeeping, Jewish style, about them.
The following consists of comments under one of his youtubes, they were copied onto my blog post below, which quickly got 216 readers. Now it has 219:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On the note of "born pre-1918"
In other words, while I was not publically condemned, my work was treated as if on the index. The essence of Jewish gatekeeping as opposed to Catholic censorship.
* Priest if new rites of episcopal consecration and ordination are valid, which Pope Michael says they aren't.
- Language of the Catechism?
When it comes to its language on homosexuality, it is not harsh, it is ambiguous and at variance with previous teaching in at least one very probable interpretation.
You cannot refer to De horrendo scelere by Pius V saying certain cases of sodomites need to live lonely celibate lives, since the cases the bull deals with are such as had already obliged themselves to celibacy. He did not impose celibacy on laymen with homosexual temptations, even overwhelming such. Let alone on laymen who are simply suspected of being homosexuals. But that is what the catechism suggests, among others by defining "homosexuality" in a way not used by psychology (namely exclusively relationships, not simple redispositions) and then priests can apply that to people who psychologists claim to be "homosexual" in their sense of the word, namely simply by predisposition. AND the paragraphs that are two numbers apart support that.
New blog on the kid : Classic Question with Me : Can Homosexuals Marry?
- "when a shepherd opposes Jesus and His Church"
How do you determine which shepherds are guilty of this? Sociological majority within Catholic population?
1550 in England, Sweden, Denmark (these countries included Ireland, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Faroes, Greenland too) someone going by that criterium would have concluded Christ and His Church are Protestants.
Here is one example of someone considered a shepherd by many who may still have the Catholic Faith:
Pope: 'fundamentalist' Catholics do 'harm,' should be 'combatted'
LifeSiteNews | 2nd Dec. 2015