In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France at the hands of faithful Muslims (otherwise known as terrorists), people the world over have been taking up the “JE SUIS CHARLIE” placard as if doing so represents a service to “Peace on Earth;” drawing a line in the sand that says:
It’s either freedom of expression or terrorism, and this world ain’t big enough for both.
Though others are perhaps too afraid, too ignorant, or degenerate to say the same thing aloud, my take is a little different:
While the murder of the Charlie Hebdo staff members is a condemnable act in itself and a direct fruit of Islam, the single most violent religion any false prophet ever conjured up in his wicked little brain (albeit with Satan’s help), there can be no question whatsoever that this world is far better off without the garbage these now deceased individuals produced.
Sayonara, Charlie. Your ‘talents’ won’t be missed; at least not by anyone with a modicum of decency.
I just regret that those who survived the attack are as yet still intent on cranking up the presses; an act not of heroism as some would have it, but rather a sure sign of depraved intransigence. I would have much preferred to see them scurry off into the sunset never to have their craft put on display anywhere ever again.
For me, this view of the Charlie Hebdo attack is just no-brainer Catholic common sense.
By contrast, however, the entire affair is creating a serious conundrum for so-called “conservative” Catholics, especially here in God-Bless-America.
As staunch advocates for “freedom of speech,” their libertine ideology compels many of them to look at Charlie Hebdo while holding their collective noses and chanting in unison, “I may not condone what they are saying, but I defend their right to say it!”
Joshua Bowman of CatholicVote.org, for instance, cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an ideal, proclaiming, “Even though Charlie Hebdo published little more than puerile smut, they have the right to be wrong so that others can have the freedom to be right.”
William Donohue of the Catholic League also cited the Constitution as an ideal, but offered a more nuanced view of the situation, saying:
The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom. Quite the opposite: their obscene portrayal of religious figures—so shocking that not a single TV station or mainstream newspaper would show them—represents an abuse of freedom.
Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end. For Americans, the end is nicely spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the goal is to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary. Moreover, the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society.
Let’s forget about legalities. As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so. Can we please have this conversation, along with what to do about Muslim barbarians who kill because they are offended?
While Donohue did well to distinguish between “legal rights” (man-made civil rights) and “moral rights” (those that have their founding in God), his attempt to articulate certain limits to free speech relative to the Charlie Hebdo case leads to a number of incredibly important questions:
To whom and from whom comes the authority to determine what is “so shocking” that it is unworthy of publication, and how is that determination made?
According to Joshua Bowman’s way of thinking, it would seem that the individual writer, cartoonist or publisher alone has that right, while Bill Donohue’s approach appears to suggest that “we the people” get to make that call by applying a largely undefined subjective standard via some unidentified mechanism.
While the Preamble to the Constitution does indeed cite “justice, tranquility, and the blessings of liberty” as the ends toward which it is ordered, who has the authority to define these concepts in such way as to guide the actions of individual citizens and States in service to their attainment?
For Bowman’s part, it would seem that the very suggestion of regulating free speech is anathema, and so it is left for each man to define “justice, tranquility and liberty” for himself as he exercises freedom of speech in its pursuit.
Donahue, on the other hand, appears to believe in a form of self-regulation wherein it is enough for reasonable men to simply undertake a “fair-minded reading” of the Constitution in order to gain a clear understanding of the duties incumbent upon the those who would exercise their right of free speech in search of “justice, tranquility and liberty.”
In the end, the views of both Joshua Bowman and William Donohue, in spite of the names of their respective organizations, lack a fully Catholic view of the situation, and the reason is simple:
As good “conservatives,” each one is unduly infected with the conciliar disease that causes one to behave as if the separation of Church and State is a dogma of the Catholic faith as opposed to the “most pernicious error” it truly is. (cf Vehemeter Nos, Pope St. Pius X)
In other words, while the Second Vatican Council largely adopted the U.S. Constitutional model of freedom of religion (and by extension, its closely related cousin, freedom of speech), that’s not the Faith of the Church.
Even so, every pope who has reigned ever since (and every Catholic worthy of the “conservative” label) has essentially taken as his own the Americanist view that the State is guided not so much by the Law of God as entrusted to, and made known by, the Catholic Church alone, but rather “from the bottom up, by the layman acting under the guidance of his Christian conscience” (John Courtney Murray – Memorandum to Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, 1950).
As such, it is no surprise that missing from the commentary of both Bowman and Donohue (to say nothing of the pluralistic reflections offered by Pope Francis) is any hint of the Catholic Church’s unique, God-given, role in defining the rights and duties of both individuals and States.
From a truly Catholic point of view, the Charlie Hebdo “satirists” had no right, properly speaking, to publicly disseminate much of the filth that came to define their rancid publication.
The limiting factor to so-called “free speech” in this case, however, has little to do with such subjective determinations as relative offensiveness to “people of [generic] faith;” rather, it has to do with the objective truth that no one has the right from God to denigrate Him, nor to mock Jesus Christ who is the fullness of Divine Revelation, nor to publish and distribute that which draws others away from the one true faith established by Him, etc.
No such “right of expression” ever exists regardless of what the civil law in a given land might state. This would be the case even if there wasn’t one solitary Catholic alive to take offense.
As for the rights of the State:
- God, from whom all authority comes, most certainly does grant to the State the right, and at times even the duty, to suppress the works of vile blasphemers like Charlie Hebdo.
By contrast, the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, a self-identified Catholic, recently put conservative disorientation on display as he lectured the media:
Australian media organizations don’t normally hold back when, for argument’s sake, they are criticizing Christianity. Catholicism comes in for a particular dose of scorn … it’s important that we don’t engage in self-censorship as a result of this kind of attack.
He seems to be saying, in other words, go ahead, criticize all religions with equal vigor because, after all, we mustn’t treat one as if it is any different than the other!
Lost in such men is an authentic Catholic worldview; one that necessarily accounts for the simple fact that one religion really is different than all of the rest in that it alone is true.
- God also grants to the State the right to tolerate such activities as those that might denigrate the one true faith, if, as a matter of prudential judgment, the legitimate civil authority determines that doing so would prevent a greater evil than suppression would invite; therefore rendering a greater service to the common good.
There is a world of difference between the State that tolerates offenses against the truth according to the judgment described above, and those that would make of such things a “civil right.”
Likewise, is there a chasm between the mind of the Church properly understood and those Catholics who seem to imagine that the State does well to treat all forms of “free speech” as sacrosanct, or perhaps subject to limit according only to some man-made standard of offensiveness based on feelings.
- God does not grant to the State the authority to make a “civil right” of that which opposes the one true faith, any more than He grants it the authority to make a civil right of that which contradicts the Divine Law.
Most Catholics readily accept that heads of State who enact laws promoting such “civil rights” as access to abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex “marriage,” are guilty of abusing their authority, and yet many a “conservative” simply gives a pass to those who would make a “civil right” of the freedom to mock Our Lord. Some would even encourage as much!
So, with all of this said, how are we to view those unflattering Charlie Hebdo depictions of Muhammad or other figures revered by the many false religions of the world?
While there can indeed be sinful intent in their publication, they are different in kind than those images mocking Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Catholic Church, etc.
The latter is always an offense against the God who is Truth and objectively so; the former, by contrast, is largely an offense against men and public order, and this often in a subjective sense.
In the exercise of its God given authority, the State does indeed have the right to suppress such subjectively offensive activities as those things published by Charlie Hebdo against the false religions.
Importantly, however, this right stems from the State’s duty to promote the common good; in this case, by regulating that which threatens to invite civil unrest.
That said, the State does not have the right to place the false religions on an equal footing with the one true religion, and it never has the right to suppress the activities of the latter, the Catholic Church, which is always and everywhere eminently free.
One will notice that an authentic Catholic view of the State places a substantial burden upon those who exercise civil authority. While much is left to their discretion and prudential judgment in the ordering of temporal affairs, however, the Church does not simply abandon the State and its rulers to find their own way.
Rather, it is recognized that rulers of State (both Catholic and non-Catholic alike) desperately need the guidance of Holy Mother Church, which is nothing less than the wisdom of God, in order to govern well in service to the common good.
As it is today, those who exercise civil authority in the world have largely been left orphaned as our churchmen have been all-too-content, for more than half a century, to engage in an earthbound brand of religious diplomacy that scarcely resembles the mission that Christ gave to His Church.
If the Charlie Hebdo massacre contains a lesson, it is not to be found in the overly-simplistic false dichotomy that would have one choose between Islamic terrorism and free speech; rather, it is simply in recognizing this:
When the Holy Catholic Church established by Christ the King to guide the affairs of individuals, families and States (Catholic or not) in His name ceases to do so according to the immutable truths entrusted to her; behaving instead as a mere mediator among men and but one religion among many, we can well expect those who govern to flounder and fail in the face of every crisis, just as they are in the present moment.
Thank you Louie. Thank you for saying in public what we have been saying in this household.
We are sliding into darkness. The next Dark Ages will be truly dark as endarkened by that angel of ‘light’ Lucifer.
I’m fairly blown away by these events and the lousy, cowardly response especially from our Shepherds. Yes, there is a stink, and it’s sulphur and brimstone.
Text book explanation of the traditional doctrine, Louie.
And exactly why my previous proposal should be taken up by the Holy Father. Appoint Cardinal “Catholic teaching cannot change” Burke with one simple mandate.
In light of Vatican II, could a Catholic State be like the Islamic State and execute someone for heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, etc.?
Let’s get the cards on the table.
All of our precious Freedoms must have boundaries. We must be free to do the things we “ought” to do, not the things we want to do at any cost. I recommend everyone to read Bishop Sheen’s “Plea for Intolerance”. “America (and the world),” says Sheen, ” is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.” We are suffering from “the passion of novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.” Hebdo and company were equal opportunity offenders—possibly because they believed in nothing. Lord, have mercy!
It is entirely sickening to see an entirely clueless West go up against an entirely erroneous Islam with its hypocrisy on open display.
Everyone wants to make this situation out to be simpler than it is. Either that being violent extremism Islam is at fault, or that politically incorrect Islamaphobia is at fault. The fact is that what occurred isn’t a simple event. Quite far from it. Both sides are to blame. And this is largely nothing more than two despicable sides firing at each other. Am I to sympathize with one side in a gang war between the Mafia and the Triad?
On the first side, it is entirely true, that the Muslim extremists are guilty of murder, and that Islam at its root helps to create people like this.
On the other side, it is also entirely true, that a trashy newspaper was asking for it, and thought that their deity pagan god ‘Freeya Speechia’ would protect them. It’s one thing for a newspaper to attempt to make a reasoned, well-spoken argument criticizing a religion. It’s another to openly provoke the emotions and sensibilities of a group of obviously trigger-happy fanatics. Charlie Hedbo made an obvious over-emotional cartoon hoping to evoke an emotional response and that’s precisely what they got. It’s too bad they had to die. I would never have wished it upon them. And I pray for their souls. But they won’t be missed, and I don’t feel the least bit sorry.
Not to mention that the nation of France as a whole doesn’t deserve much sympathy.
These gunmen and woman came from Syria. They are part of the whole carnival of Muslim Brotherhood groups that form ISIS currently creating great unrest everywhere. Now, which country supported and sent money and arms to Syrian rebels? It starts with an ‘F’ and rhymes with ‘dance.’
Which country is having a population demographic bomb only held up by open immigration of Muslims to make up the numbers of its aborting & contracepting who are catered greatly to by Secular Leftist Groups who welcome and praise them so that they will get more votes in order to further Muslim aims?
When French-backed and armed Muslim militants go around forming terror cells and massacring innocent Muslims and Christians by the scores in the millions, am I supposed to be sorry for the blow-back when a mere statistical 12 turn up dead in France through retaliation of pent-up Muslim rage?
France and European leaders can march in the streets all they want for peace, but they are traitorous dopes with far more blood on their hands than any of these gun men. The difference is they kill and murder and undermine their own nations and those of others from a fancy office according to the dictates of a geopolitical chessboard. It’s left to other people to get caught in the crossfire of their doings.
And the goddess ‘Freeya Speechia’ is a fickle god who is very selective in her allowance of what constitutes Free Speech. Just ask anybody critical of Homosexuality or abortion. Hell, we even imprison people for questioning the Holocaust, so apparently there are exceptions to the rule! So now that the illusion of ‘Free Speech’ is found not so wanting and even contradictory in practice, the million dollar question becomes… “Who calls the shots?” Islam? Secularism? Or…
This is why I don’t stand up for erroneous props of Secularism, or Free Speech. True we do benefit from them to an extent. But it won’t hold. It’s an armistice that is temporary, only really appreciable in a non-multicultural environment where the majority of people hold to certain principles and don’t disagree on very fundamental things. The modernist revolution is dead. It’s children are being eaten.
France should know! After all, this is that oh-so-celebrated nation that brought to us the French Revolution and the TERROR! Perhaps the March against Terror can take a course through the Bastille. There was no free speech for the religious and clergy then! What an amazing irony it will be when the ‘enlightened’ Muslims create a new revolution of their own!
The Kings of France are on watch! Our Lady of Fatima awaits!
Je Suis Catholique!
Ganganelli: “In light of Vatican II, could a Catholic State be like the Islamic State and execute someone for heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, etc.?”
Yes it has and it could.
The funny thing about the Vatican II documents is that nobody can really tell who it’s audience is. Is it for Catholics? Are certain portions not for Catholics and just general exhortations to the secular world and other religions? I have actually seen this argued. Such confusion should be scrapped and I’d rather they started over. But given the current hierarchy is only more confused, I’d in fact argue that it was better that Vatican II occurred in 1960, rather than today where we could’ve likely gotten something even worse. God in His wisdom has timed all things to be just right enough for us to get the point.
“Even so, every pope who has reigned ever since [Vatican II]…has essentially taken as his own the Americanist view”
Younger readers may question how it is that a layman can know the mind of the Church better than the man claiming to be pope.
A rational solution to this problem, I believe, is that every person has the right to require that a papal claimant prove that he has authority from God. That is, he should prove it to the Catholic in the same way that he would to the non-Catholic. If he fails to do so, perhaps because he rejects “proselytism” as “solemn nonsense”, then his authority should be treated as unproved.
There is no moral freedom to do objective evil. There is a moral duty not to commit blasphemy, a most egregious mortal sin and direct attack against God. As for obscenity and indecency, expressing sexual depravity – these when done in public are a crime against the common good. It is clear the general cessation of enforcement of the blasphemy, obscenity and indecency laws has facilitated an exponential growth in the evil of blasphemy and pornography, ruining individual souls and society, and abusing the innocents, particularly children.
I was appalled that Fr Ray Blake republished a couple of the most depraved blasphemous pictures of the front covers of the vile publication. One can explain the fact of blasphemy and obscenity without repeating it, which is seriously wrong. Besides the pictures being intrinsically offensive to Our Lord and Saviour, they are not fit for human viewing, and could do serious damage to souls, particularly the most innocent.
The One True Faith is not a gnostic or arbitrary religion. Every Catholic of the age of reason (on average, by the age of seven) knows the fundamentals of the moral law and the Faith. If the pope opposes the Deposit of Faith or the objective moral law, he is in objective error. If he does this continually . . .
Every Catholic of reason ought to know the Faith and the moral law. However, many Catholics have been taught lies and gravely misled by those who have a duty to teach them.
Sometimes we read what you post, and wish you were working from the Vatican, for a Pope who thinks with the mind of the Church like you do.
Someone like Pius XI who said in Quas Primas:
-“Not only is Christ to be adored by angels and men, but to him as man, angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire..”
-“These manifold evils in the world are due to the fact that the majority of men thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives.. private affairs.. politics. -“As long as individuals and states refuse to submit to the rule of our Savior, there will be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations.
-“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty.”
Thanks for leading us where we need to be -kneeling before our King.
I was shocked as well, at their exhibition on Fr. Blake’s website. I had moments earlier, on another website, seen a link to them but chose not to view them after reading a description. Then to encounter them in their horror was jolting. I was pleased that so many commenters took him to task.
Intriguing ideas, but who decides if he passes the test? We looked back at history and found this:
“There was no fixed process for papal selection before 1059. Popes, were often appointed by their predecessors or secular rulers. An election with the meaningful participation of the laity was the exception to the rule, especially as the popes’ claims to temporal power solidified into the Papal States. The practice of appointment give rise to the jus exclusivae, a veto right exercised by Catholic monarchies into the twentieth century.
“The lack of an institutionalized process for papal succession was prone to schism, and many papal claimants before 1059 are currently regarded by the Church as antipopes, although most aren’t. The frequent requirement of secular approval of elected popes lengthened periods of sede vacante and weakened the papacy. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II succeeded in limiting future papal electors to the cardinals with the Papal bull ” In Nomine Domini” creating standardized papal elections that would eventually evolve into the papal conclave.”
Dear Lynda and LeGrand D.,
We noticed Father left this message in his comment section-responding to all those asking him to remove the blasphemous cartoons-especially the last one:
“As disgusting as these images are, I will not remove them, in part because many people assume Hebddo is a satirical magazine rather than one which sets out to offend and blaspheme.” “Whilst we must have every sympathy for the staff members killed, and must pray for them, I have no sympathy for their magazine, it should be seen for what it is.”
For what it’s worth, we think it would be less harmful and shocking if he simply described it as depicting blasphemous sodomy and left a link for anyone who wished to then view it. Not exactly the same impact, but near enough to get the job done, since convincing people it’s wrong to allow it, is what he’s after.
In the good old days when Faith and Salvation were the most important things for both state and citizen, heretics could be killed by the state at the direction of the Church – because they disrupted the proper order for both citizen and the state.
Now when we are forced to pocket religion, of course there is no perceived danger to anyone when heretics or atheists blather all over the place – either urging people to give up their particular faith, or to have no faith.
Burn ’em at the stake!
Well said. But if there are things we ‘ought’ to do there must be some sort of punishment when we don’t do them. Leaving this sort of thing to consensus is not working very well. The Authority of the Church, given to Her from God Almighty is laughed at – hence no brakes on even the most depraved behaviour. Ugly world.
So Father Blake is furthering the scandal? Nice coming from a priest. He’s lost any credibility he had. What a despicable thing to do to his Lord – spread the filth around even more – he really should be ashamed.
I believe Fr. Blake did the right thing. Love of the Trinity demands that you impress on mature blog readers the depravity and nihilism of the elites.
This is a similar argument as that surrounding depicting aborted foetuses in the anti abortion battle. You must know what you are dealing with as repugnant as it is. Father Blake is a holy man and a warrior for Christ. Am I getting a whiff of the Church of Nice set here?
I’m bemused as to the category of “readership” CH aims at. The filth they purvey is more graffitti than anything else. Snickering middle school boys, perhaps? So much for the lauded French sophistication.
Want to think that over a bit more?
The state (Obama), the Church (Francis)
Burning heretics (promethean, neo-pelagian anti-sodomite proselytizers)
Ready for more that white martyrdom?
And what’s with the 3 million French people in the streets holding signs saying “I am” CH, knowing he chose to use his talents to blaspheme the God who made him? Maybe they’re eager to see Dom Bosco’s prophecy of the burning of Paris come true. We hope most were just voicing outrage at murderous terror attacks, and not really defending the output of the victims’ magazine…
I’ll take the charitable view that many probably don’t know what CH actually published. When this thing first hit, I recall the news constantly referring to it as a satirical magazine, and I formed a mental picture of MAD magazine or the like. I pity the policemen who died protecting this sewage.
Another lesson the Charlie Hebdo massacre contains is this: If lukewarm, worldly and compromised Catholics refuse to do the dirty work* of reflecting eternal, divine and natural law in our civil laws, political forums and law courts, then don’t be surprised that Divine Providence in its Wisdom will permit Muslims to do, and continue to do in greater frequency and degrees, the dirty work for us.
*(And by ‘dirty work’ I don’t herein mean, necessarily or restrictively, sinful acts or deeds.)
There may be a much stronger argument for showing people what abortion does, despite the upset. Those who see those pictures, have a better chance of helping to stop it. It’s everywhere, (not that blasphemy is more acceptable but ) it’s murder of the innocent, that’s been designated “legal” in almost every country on earth, it’s ongoing continuously, and its supported by some of the richest organizations in the world, so everyone who can fight it is needed.
( anyone not current on the stats, can check this continuous counter for an eye-opener) well over 3 billion and counting…
We checked into “Charlie Hebdo, and reports say: ” is not broadly popular: its weekly circulation was around 50,000, compared to about 500,000 for Le Canard Enchaîné, its better-known rival in the satirical press, and it often struggled financially. In November, it asked for donations in order to keep its doors open. So it was headed out of business on its own.
– It also was not an institution responsive to protests from other groups or countries or religions, obviously, and took particular pride in that fact:
“Its editor, described the newspaper’s positions in 2012 as left-wing, secular, and atheist. and .they upheld another French institution: the absolute separation of church and state. “”We’re a newspaper against religions as soon as they enter into the political and public realm,”
“You’re not meant to identify yourself through a religion, in any case not in a secular state.”
So it’s not a question of Father’s sincerity as a priest or his character, as it is one of this particular judgment as to whether the positives outweigh the negatives in posting the pictures. He say he thinks they do.
Maybe those who question that, should be allowed to do so, without being designated as going over to the Church of nice? 🙂 🙂
Amen. That is a lesson taught many time over in Scripture, that modern worldly people utterly reject, to the detriment of us all.
(didn’t mean to exaggerate, just misread the total
It’s 1 Billion 300 million + and counting – aborted babies
Have we forgotten just Who God is? Showing horrors, like aborted babies, here on earth can be educational, I agree.
But God is Holiness. He is Truth. He is Beauty. He is Justice. He is Mercy. He is Being.
There is absolutely no way it would ever be justified in showing these cartoons and spreading this truly terrible injustice to Him.
We are being side-tracked yet again from the true picture: God has been mocked. This is the ONLY issue. The so-called freedom to do this does not exist. The notion that showing this horror to the Faithful will somehow make them love God more, and feel really, really, really sorry, just does not cut it. Whatever Father Blake’s motives he is simply wrong-headed.
We must try to make reparation. Here’s a link to Father Ripperger’s talk on Reparation to God. Well worth a listen. http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Holiness/Reparation.mp3
Let us say many Glory Be’s all day and every day to make reparation to God for this blasphemy – and many Divine Praises, and Rosaries too.
The news reports that CH’s newest edition hit the newstands yesterday, and French throngs surged to buy it. European newspapers reportedly re-published the “cartoons” in solidarity. Yay.
And another Amen. We all realize, just by praying the Psalms, that God uses human agents, or natural agents, to punish us for our sins. The hapless Israelites were driven into exile many times as punishment for their sins, individual and corporate. Je Suis Israel!!!
How those evangelicals bring howls of derision on their heads when they speak the truth about God’s Justice, and His Mercy. His Justice because he must punish those who transgress His law, and His Mercy because those of us with eyes to see, can realize a wake-up call when we see it.
How many scourges from Islam, from the secular, evil, world, from nature, will it take before we give to God His due?
Reparation, reparation, reparation. The Angel’s Prayers taught to the Fatima children are a good starting point.
We agree. Last night our Rosary was included in our reparatory prayers.
Something that may be too easily overlooked here, is the fact that what is posted on the internet is also very different from a magazine lying around for a week or two that gets tossed on to a pile or recycled. Anyone can now view it for as long as the site stays up-and who expects to see such things on a Priest’s blog, so the natural guard is down for many from the start.
It seems to us, he’s just helped increase the circulation ad infinitum.
Some will make reparations. Most will be shocked and scandalized.
The only long-term positive we can envision, is a support of legislation against blasphemous imagery, that most decent people would support without ever having their brain invaded by that image. We use numbers to represent quantities to big to handle. We can use appropriate language to describe atrocities too despicable to spread. Let the authorities who have to rule on it, see the evidence up close when necessary. That’s our take on this issue.
Dear LGD and all,
We usually don’t try to interpret prophecies -especially ones that span generations like St. John Bosco’s do. But we look at them periodically when elements of them appear in the headlines, just to see what fits, knowing some day it all will, as his others have-in every detail..
St. John Bosco’s vision:
“War will come from the south, peace from the north.”
“The laws of France no longer recognize the Creator. The Creator will reveal Himself by visiting her three times with the scourge of His wrath. ”
1) The first time He will destroy her pride by defeat, pillage, and destruction of crops, cattle, and men.
2) On His second visit the great whore of Babylon, which the faithful grievingly call Europe’s brothel, shall lose her leader and fall prey to chaos.
“Paris! Paris! Instead of fortifying yourself with the Lord’s name, you surround yourself with houses of ill repute. You yourself shall destroy them; your idol, the Pantheon, will be razed to the ground, so that it may truthfully be said that ‘iniquity has lied to itself.’ Your enemies will plunge you into anguish, famine, terror, and the contempt for My law, says the Lord.
3) “On My third visit, you shall fall under the foreign yoke. From afar your enemies will see your palaces in flames, your home in ruins, soaked in the blood of your heroes who are no more.
“But behold, A GREAT WARRIOR from the north appears, a banner in his right hand, his arm bearing this inscription: ‘IRRESISTIBLE IS THE HAND OF THE LORD´. At that moment the VENERABLE OLD MAN OF ROME went forward to meet him, wielding a flaming torch. The banner then grew larger and its blackness became white as snow; in its center stood out the name of the ALMIGHTY in golden letters.
“The warrior and his followers bowed profoundly to the VENERABLE OLD MAN and joined hands with him.”
[ from The Biographical Memoirs of Saint John Bosco by Rev. Angelo Amadei, S. D. B., ed. Rev. Diego Borgatello, S. D. B., Volume X (1871-1874), Salesiana Publishers, New Rochelle, New York, 1977, pp. 49-59.]
This one always gives us hope, that whenever this tragedy happens in France, the Consecration may follow closely behind, and we’ll see the converted leader of Russia, come to the rescue of the Church, joining hands with the good Pope who brought about this great blessing,, or his immediate successor…..
Yes, and one more important thing: means and ends. The means Father Blake has (showing the horrors again) are not proper to the end (raising awareness of the horror, or whatever) because God is offended yet again.
Again Thomas Aquinas is forgotten. The end of ALL action must be the Glory of God. There is no other reason to do anything – and I do mean anything.
I know this horse is now dead but I must reiterate: there is no reason to commit the same error, even with a ‘better’ end in sight.
Interesting, thanks. So many messages from Heaven. So many opportunities to realize God’s Mercy in telling us what will befall us when we steal His Glory.
Yet another log on the fire for those shepherds who do not warn the sheep. Modern man is waaaaaaay too sophisticated to listen to prophets of old, and current.
Dear Barbara (and anyone else interested),
We’ve given this topic a lot of thought, and it seems what all these Divine warnings have in common, is a rather simple story of humans in sin, rejecting the Truth about themselves and their relationship to God, their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, that waiting, eternal happy family we all can have if we’re willing to accept the price- tag of giving up sin.. Deep down it’s what we all want most-security and happiness, and we can’t have it without God.
Without the light of truth, sin gets a good hold, and keeps spreading and corrupting whole societies, which leads to these terrible predicted chastisements we see all around us right now. Paradoxically, it can be very hopeful time, that makes people finally stop and think. And it’s a simple enough equation that even the dullest sinner can work it out, when he’s finally willing to tackle it. The conscience keeps nagging away, thanks to God’s Providence, and to additional Graces we help bring to one another by our prayers and sacrifices each day, or as often as we’re willing.
So if we- the Church militant, don’t shirk our other duty to speak the truth at every opportunity as best we can, regardless of the consequences, -to people who usually react badly to hearing it; then we keep a light going in this darkness, ready for the moment one of these miserable lost sheep become ready to swallow their pride and get rid of their unholy fear of facing reality. We can help them come home.
Scripture reminds us – “One plants and another waters”. That gives us hope that our “lost” family members will have someone to light their way at the right time, if it’s not God’s plan for us to be there. And likewise, we may be able to help some other grieving Catholic’s loved one, and bring their suffering to a joyful conclusion, like we hope happens to us some day, with a boat-load of relatives and friends gone astray..
St. Paul calls it “teaching God’s economy, which is in faith” (1 Tim. 1:4) The economy of salvation. Economy is from the Greek “oikonomia” to run a household, in this case, God’s spiritual one. So it’s all about coming and going home–to the place Jesus is preparing for us.
Sounds good. 🙂 🙂
I’m not convinced that the CH “event” was real and not yet another staged scenario played like Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon and others. The earthly “powers-that-be” seem to be ramping up their activities, most likely with assistance from the powers of the underworld.
Honestly, the shock value of the magazine covers as Fr. Blake published them, was intended to shake people from their foolish ‘God-given right to freedom of speech’ nonsense so gloriously enshrined by Westerners. Error has no rights. Error obviously has license. You may not like them being seen, but those covers were seen over and over again in newsagents throughout France and anywhere else they were sold (and purchased). Perhaps some of the ‘freedom of speech’ fans will reconsider, knowing what was being ‘debated’.
Please remember that France has a huge Catholic population that is fighting constantly for the rights of the Church, and is producing the heroes one would hope to see from the ‘eldest daughter of the Church’. Please check the blog GaliaWatch to verify this. (And I have not a shred of French blood…strictly northern European…)
Finally, thank you, Louie, for a calm, well-thought post enunciating the rights of Christ, as opposed to the rights of man. I think it’s the best I’ve read regarding the whole tragic incident.
Excellent commentary as always, Louie. I’ve passed this one around. Thanks.
No, Akita, you are in error. You are comparing things that are not comparable. Pictures of murdered babies are pictures depicting the factual truth of the egregious evil of slaughtering innocents. The pictures tell the awful truth of the evil done.
As for blasphemous or obscene pictures, they are blasphemous or obscene as pictures. Blasphemy and obscenity ought not to be republished. The only good reason to show such evil pictures to anyone would be to ascertain guilt for the purposes of conviction of the offence.
Even the French Jesuit publication, Les Etudes jumped on the bandwagon and published CH pictures attacking the Church. They were eventually removed after protest.
The thing that gives laws their inherent validity and authority is their conformity to God’s Law, or the Natural Moral Law knowable by reason. When a man-made law does not so conform, but rather breaches the Natural Law, it is invalid and has no moral authority. It is no longer a law but a contradiction of law.
Sherry1: I’m not convinced that the CH “event” was real and not yet another staged scenario played like Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon and others…”
Bingo! You got that right Sherry. This thing, like so many others, stinks to high heaven. We bein’ played.
Sadly, very few people seem to question the inconsistent propaganda put out by the controlled MSM by the state secret agencies, etc. As with so many previous event which could have been prevented, the perpetrators, or alleged perpetrators are people that the intelligence agencies have been closely involved with for years. They expect us to believe that they stopped all surveillance or contact a couple of years before the event – this was likely when they began to be more proactively handled (flying here and there for military training when they were supposed to be terrorist threat). We must seek out information from more independent sources. Those who study military history, know that the propaganda aspect is probably the most important – most wars begin with “false flag” type events, where a state that wants to go to war, bring in greater control measures (against the will of the people) seeks to
ensure that “good reasons” occur to justify their agenda.
Dear Sherry1, CraigV and Lynda,
One reason such theories are not given more credence or attention, is not as much due to any “trust” the general public has for the MainStreamMedia, and not even due to ignorance of verified cases in history; but more because of the near impossibility of providing credible evidence on which to base a solid conviction either way. Most talk of involvement of highly-trained military operatives under orders from individuals or groups who belong to organizations that normally operate in secret and control the money and global networks.
Even if we are victims of such staged events, since we can’t prove it, it would seem more beneficial to treat them as if they are “real” , keeping in mind we could be wrong, and go on exploring the issues they raise, morally, socially, politically, etc., trusting God to act in our best interest in what he allows to happen in our lives. (unless of course, you work for a security agence, etc)
A Catholic State within the vision of Vatican II is exactly what we are living in, Ganganelli; and if you possessed the perspicacity to apprehend this, you would not write such vacuous dribble.
The world to which you so ignorantly refer simply no longer exists. There is none, and certainly not you, who would fathom the tremendous destructive element which open heresy poses for the Body of Christ organized within the social structure of the state. And no one perceives that it will ever return as it was. Times change, and you desperately need to keep current.
This generation of Catholics has come too late into the play to think that ‘restoration’ means repetition. We are nearing the end of the entire divine drama, and although Our Lord may have seen the influential zenith in his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, do you forget Good Friday? And the Resurrection? Do you imagine Him in His glorious resurrected body hopping again on the ass’s colt and trying to ‘redo’ Palm Sunday?
We don’t go back. We go forward. And the restoration of the Church – which WILL occur – will change EVERYTHING.
And even you, should you and I live to see it, will have to “sentire cum ecclesia,” or else be jettisoned like so many others as an anachronistic