This time around we cast our net widely across the Canadian Catholic waters to see if we can catch us some monster fishes of whatever species. Forget me now or believe me tomorrow, the reader should nonetheless be advised that there exists an immense number of unsavoury things down there in the deep, dark ocean. The pickings are aplenty. Thus we commence our analysis… I. ITEM THE FIRST / THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING BLOG POST. Something strange happened on my return to the Salt + Light website. On February 5th the S+L blog posted a short article by Pedro Guevara Mann, entitled “Supporting the Komen Foundation?” Your host scanned it briefly but elected to return later so as to fully absorb the piece. It was on the controversy regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its turnabout decision to cease funding of Planned Parenthood. Strangely, an attempted visit two days later failed, the post evaporated into the ether. “Where is it?”, “Heavens to Betsy, what’s going on?”, were two questions TH2 elicited aloud. Intrigued, a search was then commenced with the increasingly Orwellian Google search engine. It yielded a single hyperlink, but only to a 404 error at the S+L site. See here (note the http address). A tweet advised on the post, though the shortened url, too, links to the 404 page. Another search was attempted on February 13 – and the article is indeed posted, not at the S+L site (404 still in effect), but at the CatholicTV website (originally, at 8 pm on February 5th), based in Watertown, MA. See here. The CatholicTV site also supplies the dead hyperlink with an “Additional information” label at the base of the post (screenshots were acquired). II. Upon discovery of this most bewildering phenomenon, TH2 scratched his head and wondered a great wonder: Does Toronto know that the Americans posted the article? Apparently, there’s nothing wrong with the piece, standard S+L fare in the sense of it being middle-of-the-road in viewpoint. To give him credit, however, Mr. Guevara Mann rightly highlighted the “well-documented and researched connection between abortion and breast cancer”, the latter of which is the focus of the Komen Foundation. Moreover, he posed an extremely relevant question that all Catholics must deliberate upon before donating to charities: “How can I, in good conscience support the work of the Komen Foundation if I know that they are in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood?” The post ended by asking readers for input. Good stuff. Still, the mystery remains: Why did Guevara Mann’s blog post do a Jimmy Hoffa? Could it be that, upon realization of the post content, powers aloft instructed that it be removed due to a prickly issue that some persons would rather not be publicly recognized? “But TH2, you scandalous vulgarian, that is an unsubstantiated allegation, vaguely worded, devoid of evidence, insinuating that something ulterior is operative”, a reader might justifiably argue. In my defence, the following information is provided for your consideration: the CEO/Director of Venterra Realty is on the Board of Directors of the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation. There is also this graphical extract with an exclamation point: 
Click that image and it will take you a site describing Venterra Realty’s October 2011 participation in a “Race for a Cure” in Houston, TX. Further evidence of the Venterra-Komen connection can be found here and here (n.b. Venterra’s support of the Komen Foundation was first pointed out to me by my American friend Allen, who runs the excellent blog Is Anybody There?). III. So, then, what’s going on down there in the peanut gallery? Why did the blog post disappear? Correlation or causation? A very good friend of the Salt + Light Catholic Media Foundation, a certain John Allen, Jr. at the National Catholic Reporter, once wrote something that, methinks, applies to this situation: There is “nothing wrong with asking where a group that takes positions on public policy gets its money, and how that funding might influence its judgments”.[1] Indeed, sir. Here, Mr. Guevara Mann’s important question in the now-missing S+L blog post necessitates reiteration: “How can I, in good conscience support the work of the Komen Foundation if I know that they are in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood?”. Let’s rephrase that just a smidgen: How can Venterra Realty, in good conscience support the work of both the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation and the Komen Foundation if it knows that the latter is in turn, funding the work of Planned Parenthood? That’s right, Catholic peoples – my spidey sense is tingling. IV. ITEM THE SECOND / HERMENEUTIC OF DISCONTINUITY. Carrying on with the fantastical world of blog posts at Canada’s “Catholic Channel of Hope”, there’s a recent commentary on Vatican II wherein we read [TH2 emphasis]:
It is important for Catholics today to hear this [sic] affirmation of the Second Vatican Council. It certainly was a great grace to the Church in the 1960′s considering, not only the many social and cultural shifts which had taken place globally since Vatican I (1869-70), but also the breaking of a long-standing mentality of authoritarianism within the Church itself. The result of the Council was a great paradigm shift in the Church’s relationship to the world and its peoples, emphasizing dialogue and communion. Today it may be worth asking why those documents, which are so revolutionary in nature and filled with the Spirit, have not been consistently and zealously implemented at every level of the Church over the past half century.[2]
Whether it was a “great grace” is certainly open to question. Shucks, I don’t know – dizzying declines in church attendance, Jim and Tammy Faye Masses, anodyne homilies from the pulpit, scores of pro-abort/contracepting Catholics, polyester pantsuit nuns going on endlessly about the Enneagram and “saving the climate”, cornball catechesis for the kids, Star Wars inspired church architecture, the domination of Catholic MSM by liberals, heresy taught at universities, Catholic school policy succumbing to sodomite imperatives. From one perspective, I guess, all this lovely stuff can be deemed as “a great paradigm shift”. Certainly, a “revolutionary” aspect is involved. But it is my understanding that V2 was a pastoral council, not dogmatic. Unless you’ve been mesmerized by the kaleidoscopic outfits of this woman…
…(hello Joe), or if you think yourself too sexy for Milan, New York and Japan – like this tush-shaking male model…
…(hello again, Joe) the evidence if plain that there’s been a hefty number of dogmatic breaches since Joanie, Hans and the suit-wearing remainder administered their hallucinogens those decades ago. V. Then there’s the old “mentality of authoritarianism” trick. Gosh, seemed to work swimmingly for nearly two millennia. Some examples of its detrimental effects would have been helpful. References? Documentation? And what exactly is meant by “authoritarianism”? That word, never precisely defined, is passed around like a monster spliff at a Cheech & Chong doobie festival. The reader may recollect that anti-authoritarianism was a chief motivating principle behind the 1960s Counterculture Revolution. Then, for a finale, there’s this howler: the V2 “documents… have not been consistently and zealously implemented”. Seriously? Ever heard of Gaudium et Spes? Hellllooooo, McFly. Goodness gracious, where’s Fulton Sheen when you need him? That’s right, Salt+Light, just keep on truckin with the smiley face routine. You know, the post-Vatican II Church is “vibrant”, puppy dogs, bunny rabbits, butterflies, moonbeams, sunflowers, cotton candy, lollipops and…
Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she’s gone.Lucy in the sky with diamonds….
How true, innocence and ignorance walk hand-in-hand. TH2, too, harkens back to his salad days, with a mixture of fondness and unhappiness, but mostly unhappiness. VI. ITEM THE THIRD / UNSCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING. Let me put forward this scenario: Say you’re on the editorial board of Canada’s most prestigious Catholic newspaper. Moreover, let us say that the gang is sitting around a table in the boardroom, discussing which topic in the news warrants editorializing in this week’s issue. Say the subject of “when life begins” (moment of conception) is proposed, in reference to an MP who recently introduced a motion in Parliament, having the intention of starting a debate on this question. The Canadian Criminal Code states at a person is not human until after “complete birth”, thus the child in utero has no legal rights according to this code. Furthermore, let us say that this politician desires the issue to be debated exclusively within the domain of scientific research/data. Well, in fact, such is the case, the politician’s name is Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP, and the Catholic Register did publish an editorial for this story on February 7th. To supposedly give the column some historical context, a few sentences were devoted to the relationship between the Catholic Church and science. VII. Now one would reasonably assume that, to qualify as a member of the editorial board for an eminent Catholic newspaper, at least a modicum of knowledge of Church history would be one prerequisite for the appointment. We’re not talking a doctoral degree in medieval history, just the basics without the Whig spin. A fair assumption? Yes? Then please explain this:
There was a time, of course, when the Church believed some questions were better left unasked. But the days have long passed since the likes of Galileo or Darwin were considered threats. Today, the Church embraces science, particularly when it can advance the common good of mankind… like the Church in the Middle Ages, Parliament wants no part of a scientific and medical investigation that could raise questions about entrenched beliefs.[3]
Listen, I realize Popular Mechanics is a fun magazine for finding facts and figures n’stuff, though I fail to understand how this farcical drivel can be formally presented in a Catholic periodical without embarrassment, assuming no malcontentedness. Firstly, the whole Galileo affair related more to matters theological rather than scientific. But just go ahead and feed the ravenous secular MSM more fodder to body slam the medieval Church. Secondly, the Church never had a problem with the Theory of Evolution within the framework of biological/material change and adaptation. Still, like any scientific theory (which it is, still), it’s open to modification, improvement, even refutation. In 1868 Cardinal Newman observed: “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill”. Any theological qualms with it belong to the Protestant Creationists, biblical literalists or whomever Concordist. Unfortunately, the falsifiable hypothesis called “Intelligent Design” – a kind of “scientific” form of Creationism – has muddied the waters of this debate, suckering in not a few conservative Christians, including Catholics, even the meddlesome Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna.[4] Where the Church does draw the line is when Darwinistic materialism is used to explicate the immaterial mind or soul of man, as that interrelates to the whole Freewill versus Determinism argument. Rather, the Church regards man’s total material/immaterial being (essentially, ultimately) as elevated above a this-world materiality, as a “discontinuity, an ontological leap”[5], to use an interesting descriptor by Pope John Paul II. VIII. What is mind boggling in the quotation is the debonair use “of course” in relation to scientific questions the Church allegedly “left unasked”, and the nonchalant manner by which it is claimed the medieval Church wanted “no part of a scientific and medical investigation” – as if these are verified historical actualities. One expects to read such uninformed, slanted, Whiggish remarks in Maclean’s, or THIS Magazine for that matter. What a contrast that remark is to another speaking of “the extreme liberality of the Catholic church during the close of the Middle Ages towards the meditations of the philosopher and the experiments of the physicists”.[6] That was written by Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), world renown mathematician, physicist, philosopher/historian of science. He was also a very devout Catholic. What Duhem demonstrated, to the consternation of the secular intelligentsia, was that only the monotheistic/orthodox Catholic worldview of the Medieval Schoolmen, who promoted a – yes! – rational, non-theological approach to the physical world, could foster the true genesis of science, allowing it to advance in succeeding centuries, to the modern day. In other words, science could only have originated and progressed within a traditional Catholic cultural matrix. Granted, most of Duhem’s works are in French, with few English translations. But then there was the internationally known Hungarian priest-theologian-physicist-polymath-polyglot Fr. Stanley Jaki (1924-2009). He spent a good part of his intellectual life corroborating, and expanding upon, Duhem’s findings. If one explores books and articles on the history of science prior to AD 1500 (i.e. before the Protestant Reformation), eventually, inevitably the names Duhem and Jaki are encountered. IX. Just a few examples of medieval science in action: Adelard of Bath (fl. 1130): his “insistence that natural causes could be studied without impinging on theology, and that it was essential to assemble and correlate facts as part of one’s reasoning process was new to many of his contemporaries… he was the key contributor to the conceptual revolution which initiated scientific methods”[7]; Gerard of Brussels (ca. 10th/11th century): kinematics; Jordanus de Nemore (fl. 1170-1237): theory of motion, algebra, geometry; Friar Roger Bacon (ca. 1214-1294): commentaries on telescopes, flying machines, horseless carriages, suspension bridges, submarines, self-propelled boats; Dietrich of Frieberg (ca. 1250-1310): magnifying lenses to improve eyesight, colour spectrum, rainbows; Jean Buridan (ca. 1300-1358) theory of impetus, inertia; Blasius of Parma (ca. 1345-1416): hydrostatics (see my essay on the origins of science here for more information on this fascinating subject). X. But the king of medieval scientists was the Bishop of Lisieux, France, namely Nicole Oresme (ca. 1323-1382). That he was “one of the most significant authors of mathematical and physical works during the Middle Ages is now beyond dispute”.[8] Oresme’s research anticipated three major scientific advancements: the Earth’s diurnal rotation (prefiguring Copernicus); a coordinate system to graphically represent mathematical functions (prefiguring Descartes); the law of freefalling bodies (prefiguring Galileo). Said Fr. Jaki: “if one is to trace the antecedent of Newton’s definitions of motion, momentum, and inertia, the line of investigation leads inevitably to Oresme’s inquiring mind, guided by a firm profession of faith”.[9] So, not only did it “embrace science” during the Middle Ages, contrary to the CR editorial’s assertion otherwise, the Roman Catholic Church fostered its origination, thus allowing it to develop into a self-sustaining enterprise in later centuries. Accordingly, Jesus Christ is not only the Saviour of Humanity, He is also – as Fr. Jaki entitled a book – “The Saviour of Science”.[10] Dear Catholic Register, is the abovementioned a big 10-4? Do I hear a Roger Dodger? Allllrighteeee, then… XI. ITEM THE FOURTH / SKY WORSHIPPING NUNS WITH BISHROPIC SUPPORT. In his never-ending quest to promote every fashionable left wing grievance spanning from the Transantarctic Mountains to the Bering Strait, CR associate editor Michael Swan gives voice to the poor habitless Sisters of St. Joseph, with an article entitled: “Bishops’ silence on climate change baffles nuns”.[11] Here, meet a sister and be baffled. For more entertainment, learn about the enthralling goings-on at the “Office for Systematic Justice” and the “Ecology Committee“: “We have a vision that sees Jesus’ prayer ‘that all may be one’ accomplished in the fiber of all species, including humans and in Earth herself”. Good grief. Now, normally, one expects nuns to be mostly engaged with prayer and the care of souls. Not these latter day cupcakes. The Gaian gals, reportedly, are in a kerfuffle over the climate. They’re upset that the CCCB declined to sign the “Canadian Interfaith Call for Leadership and Action on Climate Change”. Ever heard of that? Neither has most everyone else north of the 49th parallel. Considering that the climate has perpetually changed for billions of years, that the anthropogenic-induced “global warming” theory is in its death throes (remember the University of East Anglia emails?), it’s difficult to understand why the sistas are in a tizzy. Firstly, temperatures for this winter season in North America have so far been anomalously warm, i.e. the climate has effectively changed, a kind of miniature “global warming” if you will. Yet I’ve neither heard or read any news reports of any pan-continental environmental calamity actuating shifts in the North American Continental Plate. Secondly, the bishops may have refused to sign the aforementioned declaration, but being the super troopers they are, les garçons du nord are preparing a “reflection paper”. According to Star Chamber spinmeister René Laprise, it’s going to examine the “theological and ethical principles to assist Catholics in responding to the questions and challenges of climate change”.[12] See, girls, there’s really no need to be baffled because, in reality, the bishops, like you, are just as eager to bow down before, and submit to, the sky gods. All hail Aeris maximus! XII. One shepherd who appears to be quite excited about getting in on the climate action is Whitehorse’s Bishop Gary Gordon. It’s a “pastoral priority”, reportedly. “Let’s look at this in terms of what each individual person is doing in terms of their own conversion – lessening their consumption, sustainable living”.[13] His Grace even arranged for the construction of a residence with a reduced energy “footprint”. What a laudable action! Glorious! Logically, one assumes that such a respectful gesture toward Mother Earth would even excite radical environmentalist David Suzuki. Like Suzuki, +Gary originates from the nature-worshipping West Coast (in Vancouver, BC), so his dream for a “carbon-neutral diocese” isn’t that much of a shock. However, you have to wonder if +Gordon’s assignment of climate change as a “pastoral priority” is indicative of a shepherd with convoluted priorities. It is my understanding that a bishop’s principal responsibility is to wield his authority to save souls, not “save the climate”. Salus animarum lex suprema est. Yes or no? Perhaps some exploratory data analysis will demonstrate what I am getting at…
XIII. Figure 1 shows the number of Catholics in the Diocese of Whitehorse from 1950 to 2010. From 1950, the trend line shows a steady, then marked, increase in the Catholic population, peaking at 14,135 in 1999. The trend line plummets afterward. By 2010 the number was 9300, corresponding to a 34% reduction in just over 10 years (the WH diocese website gives the current Catholic population as even lower, at 7500). Between 1999 and 2010 the percentage of the total Whitehorse Catholic population declined from 32% to 21%. This blogger has been unable to find specific data on what proportion of these Catholics even attend regular Sunday Mass, but it would not be unreasonable to posit that the percentage is comparable to the 2005-2008 national average of 29%.[14] Figure 2 displays trends for three parameters. The black curve denotes the number of parishes in the WH diocese. We can clearly see the precipitous decrease in parish numbers following Vatican II, 42 in 1966, nose-diving to just 2 between 1976 and 1980. Circa 2000, numbers ranged from 24 to 26, showing recovery, but declined again to 19 by 2010 (the WH diocese website says that the current number of parishes is 23, including missions). Figure 2 also shows a steady decline in the number of priests (blue line) and female religious (red line) since Vatican II. XIV. VIS reports that +Gordon was appointed bishop of Whitehorse in 2006. Accordingly, let’s now focus on some numbers in the years just prior and after the appointment to check for effects, if any. The total territorial population of Whitehorse increased from 36,395 to 42,150 between 2000 and 2010. During that time range the number of Catholics within this territory decreased from 11,287 to 9,300 (i.e. 9% reduction in the Catholic population); the total number of priests declined from 13 to 11; the total number of female religious went from 7 to 4; and the number of parishes (excluding missions) diminished from 24 to 19 (source). TH2′s conclusion on effects post-2006? The declination continues unabated. So, then, in the context of a bishop being the shepherd and the spiritual authority of a diocese whose main priority must be to bring souls to the Lord of History, what these depressing statistical trends suggest is that someone needs to forget about fashionable secular causes and get his ass in gear. XV. ITEM THE FIFTH / CATHOLIC SCHOOL SEXUALIZING PRE-TEENS? If you want to get a sort of insider’s view of how a post-V2, moribund Catholicism operates and disheartens at the local level, to witness how the heretical/apostatic-induced chipping away of Catholicism affects the lives of Canadians on a personal level, one of the best places to go and learn about this mournful situation is the Letters to the Editor section at Catholic Insight. This section is only available in the magazine’s print edition. Still, as an aside, it would be worth your while to subscribe and thus support Editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk and his tireless team. One letter recently catching my attention was from a gentleman whose daughter attends the École secondaire catholique Renaissance in Aurora, Ontario (just north of Toronto). His daughter, in the 7th-grade, informed him that she was taking a sex education course under the school’s “Health program”. The parents requested a copy of the course and found it to be “full of pornographic expressions that teach fornication and sexual sins”.[15] On October 15, 2011 the father met with two school officials, namely M. Yves Lévesque, President of the South-Central Catholic District School Board, and Fr. Jean Al Alam of the St. Frère Andre Catholic Mission. Fr. Alam told the parent, according to the letter submitted to CI, “that in some circumstances the Church allowed contraception”. M. Lévesque stated the course was approved by the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario (ACBO), further telling the father he should contact the Archbishop of Toronto with his concerns (good luck with that). XVI. Once again we have evidence of how a parent’s authority to teach their children Catholic moral values is being violated, undermined and overtaken by apostatic educrats, an infestation within Ontario’s Catholic school system. I was unable to locate the course outline referred to above. But just knowing the course was approved by the ACBO intimates that something is definitely rotten in Denmark. Sure enough, a little investigation yielded more proof of a kind of soft and subtle libertinism at work. Using the ACBO page on Episcopal Commissions as a jumping point led to the Institute for Catholic Education (ICE) website. Then click the “Ontario Catholic Curriculum” tag on the menu bar, then click on “Catholic Course Profiles“. Here, for example, click the Grade 9 bullet, then on the next page select the “Health and Physical Education” link. Then click the course profile for Unit 3 and find the following about midway into the text: “methods of preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are important concepts in this unit”. XVII. Okay, it’s my understanding the Catholic Church teaches that unmarried people, let alone 14 year-old/Grade 9 kids, are not permitted to have intercourse until they are, well, married. I also thought that only one method, i.e. abstinence, was the rule for Catholics. The cunning use of the word “methods” (plural) infers, well, other methods, which obviously is a euphemism for contraceptive techniques. Yet why should 14-year old (assuming mostly Catholic) kids be taught “methods” of pregnancy and STD prevention if Catholic teaching disallows sex outside of marriage? But, you see, that’s the trick. It is assumed that these “methods” will indeed be used by the kids (for we do not want to impose our Catholic morality by saying contraception is wrong) and, likely, these “methods” are taught or justified as legitimately “moral” means to an end. Let’s be clear: such “methods” are not provided (as they should be) as base facts as such to outfit young people with the intellectual equipment to defend and witness to Catholic morality when challenged by extraneous, secular, anti-Catholic forces that pressure kids to use these “methods”. Deviation from the Catholic norm has become the norm, so to speak. And if you think the encyclical Humanae vitae is mentioned in the classroom, then you probably also believe that Snooky from Jersey Shore obtained a Ph.D. in non-linear fluid dynamics at MIT. Correspondingly, when ICE’s website states that one of the agency’s objectives is “to foster a common vision on issues and policies that promotes and protects Catholic education”, we can confidently conclude that this claim is bullshit. Working backwards, then, there is also the ICE connection to the ACBO, meaning that the Ontario bishops are ultimately responsible for the implosion currently occurring within the Ontario Catholic school system, in that they have not, for whatever reason, wielded their authority to arrest and/or remedy the contagion of antinomianism unleashed by that ever-growing militant and powerful class of apostatic educrats and teachers. And who are the bishops on the ACBO Executive Committee? Ah, yes, we know them well: +Fabbro, +O’Brien, +Plouffe and its President…
His Eminence Thomas Cardinal Collins, which brings us to our next item… XVIII. ITEM THE SIXTH / LOWER YOUR EXPECTATIONS. The Consistory has come and gone and YYZ has a new Cardinal. Archidioecesis Torontinus has in recent decades been a jurisdiction well-known for red hat assignments (e.g. ++McGuigan, ++Carter, ++Ambrozic) so ++Collins’ elevation to Cardinal isn’t that much of a head-turner. Caveat: Collins is altogether unlike predecessor Ambrozic in numerous ways. Baby boy gossip columnist at the Whispers in the Loggia blog says Collins “will bring the sense of orthodoxy Pope Benedict wants, but also the common touch so many people appreciate”.[15] The “common touch” ascription is just a cutesy wootsy way of saying he’s non-confrontational, which is the case. Whereas Aloysius was firm, strident, unafraid to say uncomfortable things, could instantly spot heresy at 20+ kilometres down range, and was no friend of the CCCB, Collins is subdued, internalized, even timid, a behind-the-scenes kind of guy, and is amicable with the boys down Ottawa way. But the question is this: Are these qualities sufficient enough to tackle the anti-Catholic onslaught, from without and within, currently underway in Canadian society? It depends on the circumstance. For sensitive/internal church matters necessitating discretion, Collins style is conducive to getting the job done without any hoopla. Recall that B16 recently dispatched Collins, along with other Irishmen (including rock star ++Tim Dolan, also just elevated) on an Apostolic Visitation to the Emerald Isle, to assess seminaries and the sexual abuse controversy following the release of the Ryan/Murphy Reports. As for dealing with social/moral matters at home in the public square and within Catholic institutions, my opinion is that, regardless of the prestige and greater influence that comes with the cardinaliate, we are going to get the same lacklustre performance observed since he took the helm as TO Archbishop in late 2006. XIX. Two examples to justify: Firstly, you might recall that during H1N1 flu virus “outbreak” of 2009, His Eminence “suspended” Holy Communion on the tongue, despite the CDW’s Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, wherein it reads:“each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue”.[17] Whether Collins succumbed to the advice of some proportionalist canonist advisor or to terror mongering from media reports of a “pandemic” (or both) is an open question. Evidently, a qualified, unbiased epidemiologist was not consulted prior to the communiqué’s issuance by the chancery office. In the meantime, not a few Torontonians were frustrated, if not infuriated. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that the whole H1N1 “health scare” was a false alarm. Secondly, there is the atrocious issue of a mounting homosexualist assault on the Catholic school system over the last number of years, i.e. “gay-straight alliances”, “clubs” to prevent “bullying” and so forth, now enforced by the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty (if a certain bishop had any real gumption, he would formally, publicly, immediately excommunicate this pro-abort “Catholic” apostate, Latae sententae isn’t working). And what is Collin’s mode of approach when addressing the homo agenda? Here’s a clue:
With much love and affection…
I am ever your humble servant,
Sincerely yours, TH2
OOO XXX NOTES / REFERENCES 1. J.L. Allen, Jr., “Incivility hurts the pro-life cause”, National Catholic Reporter, September 11, 2009. 2. S. Gnomes, “What did the Church do with the talents bestowed at Vatican II?”, Salt+Light, January 16, 2012. 3. “Scientifically speaking”, Catholic Register, February 7, 2012. 4. C. Schönborn, “Finding Design in Nature”, New York Times, July 7, 2005. 5. From Pope John Paul II, “Theories of Evolution”, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996. Published in First Things, March 1997, no. 71, pp. 28-29. 6. P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology, Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds, ed./trans. R. Ariew (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 510. Selections from Duhem’s multi-volume Le Système du Monde. 7. L. Cochrane, Adelard of Bath, The First English Scientist (London: British Museum Press, 1994), p. viii. 8. M. Clagget, “Some general aspects of physics in the Middle Ages”, In: Studies in Medieval Physics and Mathematics (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), Paper I, p. 38. 9. S.L. Jaki, Science and Creation, From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Scottish Academic Press, 1986), p. 240. 10. S.L. Jaki, The Savior of Science (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1988). 11. M. Swan, “Bishops’ silence on climate change baffles nuns”, Catholic Register, January 15, 2012. 12. Quoted in ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. “Notes on International Mass Attendance”, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 15. C. El-chaar, “To Catholic bishops of Ontario”, Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 10. 16. Quoted in C. Lewis, “Archbishop of Toronto joins Vatican’s inner circle as cardinal”, National Post, January 6, 2012. 17. Congregation for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, ch. IV, pt. 2, para. 92. 18. Quoted in P.B. Craine, “Evangelicals disappointed at lack of Catholic leadership on homosexuality push in Ontario schools”, LifeSite News, January 26, 2011. You would think ++Collins would at least refer to Rome before making such vacuous comments to the media. Quoting the following would be helpful: “The Church identifies this task [Catholic education] as its own… and claims it for its own competence, regardless of the nature of the school (State–run or non–State–run, Catholic or non–Catholic) in which such teaching is given… Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever are subject to the authority of the Church… It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it”, Congregation for Catholic Education, Circular Letter to the Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences on Religious Education in Schools, sec. III, paras. 13-14. 19. “Archbishop Collins Elevated”, Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 23. 20. Quoted in D. Gyapong, “D&P’s Share Lent appeal launches”, Catholic Register, February 14, 2012.
The bishops of Ontario agree with a January 13, 2011 Globe and Mail editorial when it says, “It is not for the Church, by itself, to run Catholic education in Ontario”… There are numerous partners involved in the formation of our young people, all playing critical roles in the educational journey… In our publicly funded Catholic schools, however, as bishops it is our role to help to weave the thread of faith in our schools by offering guidance, as well as pastoral leadership and support, to our partners in Catholic education on a host of issues relating to the faith foundation of our schools.[18]
Almost fell out my chair when I first read that flower talk. Agreeing with the Globe & Mail? An “educational journey”, “weave the thread of faith”? You’re kidding, right? Hey, it’s not just me thinking Ontario’s bishops collapsed like a house of cards. After the elevation to Cardinal: “Fr. de Valk suggests that this would be an opportunity for Cardinal Collins to take a strong stand against Premier McGuinty and his subversive sex-ed policies, and re-assert the moral high ground of Church and family”.[19] If you read between the lines of that quote, it’s obvious that Fr. de Valk isn’t a happy camper – and rightly so. That’s because, notwithstanding the elevation to Cardinal, as archbishop (since 2006) Collins, along with his other non-confrontational ACBO buddies, was certainly within his authority to stop, or at least mitigate, the Gaystapo influence on Ontario Catholic schools. XX. Whether it be the homosexualist lobby, teachers unions (e.g. OECTA), or just the apostatic educrat class in general, the thing to be realized here is that you’re dealing with a significant number of individuals who have been, in the Marxist sense, thoroughly proletarianized. Oh yes, they dress nicely, they play golf on the weekends, they’re all smiles and sunshine at first appearance. But don’t be fooled. Once the debate gets going and matters come to a head, the cloak falls: obviousness in mannerism, incessant profanity casually expressed, over-the-top self-righteousness, petty fiefdoms to be protected, union due jackpots to be guarded, grantocracies and retirement benefits to be guaranteed, hedonistic or otherwise depraved lifestyles and fetishes to be accepted as “normal”, anti-Western sentiment, cultural relativism, and a multi-group-alliance advocating every other radical Left wing cause or idea at stark variance to the Magisterium. All meaning that you’d better have some street sense and a good measure of testicular fortitude because these punks have stone-cold agendas, and will stab you in the back faster than you can say Jack Robinson. Remember, people, we’re here talking about well-organized, clout-wielding enemies of the Roman Catholic Church, not Ward Cleaver and his band of merry men. Welcome to the jungle, baby!… and let TH2 assure you, it’s not fun and games. XXI. ITEM THE SEVENTH / D+P VULTURES CIRCLING OVERHEAD. Lent has just started so, regrettably, this means Development and Peace will soon be at a parish near you to pew-beg for donations via pretty little envelopes. Anyone who has followed Canadian Catholic news over the last three years already knows about the incontrovertible evidence demonstrating D+P’s support of pro-abortion groups in the so-called “Global South”. If not, check out the D+P page at LifeSite News here. You are also probably aware that the CCCB banned LSN at its plenary session last October (a despicable act that, astonishingly, caused no uproar in the Catholic blogosphere). This time around we get the usual empty promise from Star Chamber prez +Richard Smith: “Development and Peace is well aware it too must adapt and improve”.[20] Blah blah blah… Thusly: give ZERO DOLLARS to D+P or, like me, consider inserting a discount coupon for a Che Guevara T-shirt in the envelope that comes your way. Remember: D+P is an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, an enemy operating within. By funding pro-abortion groups, and by working ever so hard to deny and obfuscate this fact, it therefore has made a deal with the Devil. The cover provided by the CCCB shows the bishops are complicit in this deal. Sleep well, Mr. Big. Have a nice hot meal and a warm glass of milk before retiring tonight. And when you lay your head on the pillow, and as you enter the beta state, smile… and think happy thoughts. Evidently, your conscious is crystal clear. Thus concludes our exercise in carpet bombing.
With much love and affection…
I am ever your humble servant,
Sincerely yours, TH2
OOO XXX NOTES / REFERENCES 1. J.L. Allen, Jr., “Incivility hurts the pro-life cause”, National Catholic Reporter, September 11, 2009. 2. S. Gnomes, “What did the Church do with the talents bestowed at Vatican II?”, Salt+Light, January 16, 2012. 3. “Scientifically speaking”, Catholic Register, February 7, 2012. 4. C. Schönborn, “Finding Design in Nature”, New York Times, July 7, 2005. 5. From Pope John Paul II, “Theories of Evolution”, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996. Published in First Things, March 1997, no. 71, pp. 28-29. 6. P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology, Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds, ed./trans. R. Ariew (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 510. Selections from Duhem’s multi-volume Le Système du Monde. 7. L. Cochrane, Adelard of Bath, The First English Scientist (London: British Museum Press, 1994), p. viii. 8. M. Clagget, “Some general aspects of physics in the Middle Ages”, In: Studies in Medieval Physics and Mathematics (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), Paper I, p. 38. 9. S.L. Jaki, Science and Creation, From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Scottish Academic Press, 1986), p. 240. 10. S.L. Jaki, The Savior of Science (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1988). 11. M. Swan, “Bishops’ silence on climate change baffles nuns”, Catholic Register, January 15, 2012. 12. Quoted in ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. “Notes on International Mass Attendance”, Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 15. C. El-chaar, “To Catholic bishops of Ontario”, Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 10. 16. Quoted in C. Lewis, “Archbishop of Toronto joins Vatican’s inner circle as cardinal”, National Post, January 6, 2012. 17. Congregation for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, ch. IV, pt. 2, para. 92. 18. Quoted in P.B. Craine, “Evangelicals disappointed at lack of Catholic leadership on homosexuality push in Ontario schools”, LifeSite News, January 26, 2011. You would think ++Collins would at least refer to Rome before making such vacuous comments to the media. Quoting the following would be helpful: “The Church identifies this task [Catholic education] as its own… and claims it for its own competence, regardless of the nature of the school (State–run or non–State–run, Catholic or non–Catholic) in which such teaching is given… Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever are subject to the authority of the Church… It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it”, Congregation for Catholic Education, Circular Letter to the Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences on Religious Education in Schools, sec. III, paras. 13-14. 19. “Archbishop Collins Elevated”, Catholic Insight, February 2012, vol. XX, no. 2, p. 23. 20. Quoted in D. Gyapong, “D&P’s Share Lent appeal launches”, Catholic Register, February 14, 2012.
Link:
EXOTICA RANDOMLY SELECTED AND PERUSED, WITH OPINIONS PROFFERED THEREAFTER
