Blessing of the Ashes at a Tridentine Mass

Yesterday, Pertinacious Papist had a web-log post on the sermon given during the Ash Wednesday at his parish. I wish to quote the English translations that PP mentioned in the post:

Let us pray. -- O almighty and everlasting God, spare those who are penitent, be merciful to those who implore Thee; and vouchsafe to send Thy holy Angel from heaven, to bless + and hal+low these ashes, that they may be a wholesome remedy to all who humbly implore Thy holy Name, and who accuse themselves, conscious of their sins, deploring their crimes before Thy divine mercy, or humbly and earnestly beseeching Thy sovereign goodness: and grant through the invocation of Thy most holy Name that whosoever shall be sprinkled with them for the remission of their sins may receive both health of body and safety of soul. Through Christ our Lord.
R.: Amen.

Let us pray. -- O God, who desirest not the death, but the repentance of sinners, look down most graciously upon the frailty of human nature; and in Thy goodness vouchsafe to bless + these ashes which we purpose to put opon our heads in token of our lowliness and to obtain forgiveness: so that we who know that we are but ashes, and for the demerits of our wickedness are to return to dust, may deserve to obtain of Thy mercy, the pardon of all our sins, and the rewards promised to the penitent. Through Christ our Lord.
R.: Amen.

Let us pray. -- O God, who art moved by humiliation, and appeased by satisfaction: incline the ear of Thy goodness to our prayers and mercifully pour forth upon the heads of Thy servants sprinkled with these ashes the grace of Thy blessing: that Thou mayest both fill them with the spirit of compunction, and effectually grant what they have justly prayed for: and ordain that what Thou hast granted may be permanently established and remain unchanged. Through Christ our Lord.
R.: Amen.

Let us pray. -- O almighty and everlasting God, who didst vouchsafe Thy healing pardon to the Ninivites doing penance in sackcloth and ashes, mercifully grant that we may so imitate them in our outward attitude as to follow them in obtaining forgiveness. Through Christ our Lord .
R.: Amen.

Please take a look at some of the comentary that PP provides with these prayers: "Lent and the judgment of God"

Lose your Faith at Mass?

Can Mass ever be an occasion of sin? Could you lose your Faith by attending Mass? Cardinal Burke thinks so: "If we err by thinking we are the center of the liturgy, the Mass will lead to a loss of faith."

Please watch RCTV's Vortex episode titled: "Critical Mass"

Ash Wednesday - Holy Season of Lent 2011

"...In our sissified times, we now have two days of obligatory fasting: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. We now have eight days of obligatory abstinence: Ash Wednesday Good Friday, and all the other Fridays in Lent..."

"...To live a life of virtue, our passions need to brought into submission..."

"...Either we lead our passions, or our passions lead us..."

"...run your penances past a confessor..."

"...If you love our Lord, you have the Holy Season of Lent to prove it."

Take the time today to listen to "Lent: Fasting and Abstinence in the Tradition of the Church" at Audio Sancto.

Infallibly gain these graces...

Unite yourself to the to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and you infallibly gain the graces that you are in most need of. This 18 minute long Audio Sancto sermon, titled "The Mass: The Perfect Prayer of Petition", is a nice reminder of offering up ourselves during Mass.

Please listen to the audio here: The Mass: The Perfect Prayer of Petition

Kingdom of Zombies

Pray for the Faith of these children and their parents.

A Meditation on Modernism

The following article, copied in its entirety, is a good reminder of the problems that Catholics have to deal with on a day to day basis in the Church. Pope Saint Pius X pray for us! Emphasis and links are mine.

A Meditation on Modernism
by Fr. Thomas Crean O.P.

One hundred years ago, on the feast of our Lady’s nativity, 1907, Pope St Pius X issued his renowned encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. He wrote the encyclical to protect the Church against a new movement that was starting to develop among a certain number of Catholic intellectuals. For want of a better name, the Pope called this movement ‘Modernism’. He stated that it threatened ‘to destroy the vital energy of the Church’ and to spread poison through the whole of Catholic life. In fact, he went so far as to say that its proponents were ‘the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church’, since they harmed her from within and not from without.

What was the danger that prompted so vigorous a papal riposte? What were the ‘Modernists’ saying? In various ways, they were saying this: Catholicism should be based not, as hitherto, on reason, but rather on experience. The exaltation of experience above reason is the essence of the Modernist heresy.

Why is this so serious an error? The Church holds that her faith is rational. The First Vatican Council solemnly taught that the human reason is capable of knowing the existence of God with certainty. It also taught that even before coming to faith, a man can discover by the correct use of his reason that God has made a revelation to mankind. He does this by carefully considering the ‘external signs’ that bear witness to divine revelation, especially miracles and fulfilled prophecies. Vatican I, in fact, anathematised those who claim that we must be drawn to faith in God simply ‘by personal, internal experience or by private inspiration’.

The Modernists, however, did not accept that rational argument could show that Catholicism is the true religion revealed by God. There were various reasons for this. In philosophy, they were influenced by Immanuel Kant, who had argued that it was impossible for anyone to prove the existence of God. In theology, they were influenced by attacks on the historical reliability of the Bible, attacks led by men such as the German Protestant Julius Welhausen (for the Old Testament) and the former Catholic seminarian Ernest Renan (for the New). More generally, the Modernists, as their name suggests, were strongly influenced by the spirit of their times, which put forward inevitable progress as a ‘law of history’. This led them to reject as impossible the notion of a religion revealed from heaven once and for all. A fortiori they rejected the notion that one should discover by the good use of reason what this religion is and then embrace it.

Now the Modernists, at least in the beginning, wished to help the Church. There seems to be no reason to doubt that men such as Alfred Loisy (1857-1940) and George Tyrell (1861-1909) were at first sincere in desiring the Church to be immune from the attacks of non-believers. Thinking that she could no longer be defended by reason, they called experience to her aid. In the middle of a sophisticated and unbelieving world, religious experience would henceforth justify the existence of the Catholic Church.

Like all heresies, Modernism begins with the distortion of some part of Christian truth. It is quite correct to say that apologetic arguments by themselves can never bring anyone to Christ. A preparation of the heart is necessary for someone to embrace the faith. Likewise, there is a proper place in the Christian life for the category of ‘experience’. Who will deny that being present at a High Mass or looking after a sick person may be a profound experience that strengthens one’s hold on some Christian teaching or other? But none of this means that ‘experience’ is the ultimate guide to religious truth. Before conversion to the Catholic Church, natural reason is the guide; after conversion, our guide is the teaching authority of the Church, accepted by that same reason now enlightened by faith.

It would have been bad enough if the Modernists had simply denied the possibility of apologetics. In fact, their exaltation of ‘experience’ led the more radical among them to go further, until they drained the Creed itself of meaning. These radical Modernists taught that man has an innate religious sense, active in some people, dormant in others, and that a believer is simply someone whose religious sense has been somehow awakened. He has had ‘an experience of the divine’. When a group of believers reflect together on their various experiences, dogmas gradually result. Yet these dogmas are not truths publicly revealed by God and passed down without change from apostolic times. For a radical Modernist, a dogma is just a symbol of the religious experience of the believers. A dogma is therefore true insofar as it expresses these experiences in a fitting way.

But what particularly disturbed Pope Pius was that the Modernists continued to use the Catholic formulas of faith even when they had ceased to believe in them. Among themselves, they might interpret the Church’s doctrines in a purely ‘subjective’ way. But among non-Modernists they would continue to use the ordinary expressions of faith, no doubt justifying themselves by the thought that these formulas were, after all, true: that is, truly useful symbols.

For example, when a Catholic declares, ‘Christ is God’, he means just what he says. A Modernist, in using the same words, might mean, ‘in meeting Christ, or belonging to the community that he founded, one experiences the presence of the divine’. Again, if a Catholic says, ‘Christ was born of a Virgin’, he means exactly that. If a Modernist said it, he might mean ‘in contemplating Christ, one has a sense of radical newness, of something without a fully satisfying natural explanation’.

It will be seen at once that Modernism is essentially foggy. Whereas the Catholic creed consists of statements that are simple enough for a child to understand – for God Himself is simple – Modernism thrives on ambiguity and unclarity (Belloc said that Maude Petre, an English Modernist, had written a book to prove that God was not a Person but a Vagueness.)

Was the Pope a victim of paranoia in supposing that the men he had in mind emptied the creed of meaning whilst continuing to profess it? Let the most famous name among them, the French priest Alfred Loisy, be our witness. In a letter written in 1904 to Cardinal Merry du Val, the Vatican Secretary of State, he declared ‘I accept all the dogmas of the Church’. But in his private diary at the same period, he noted, ‘I have not been a Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time’, and again, ‘Pius X, the head of the Catholic Church, would excommunicate me most decidedly if he knew that I hold... the virgin birth and the resurrection to be purely moral symbols’.

From the beginning of his pontificate in 1903, St Pius had attempted to persuade the Modernists, whether moderate or extreme, to abandon their system, but when this failed, he acted swiftly and decisively. In the encyclical Pascendi, he exposed their motives and methods to the broad light of day. At the same time he promulgated, through the Holy Office, a list of 65 condemned propositions taken from the books of the leading Modernists. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he issued the ‘anti-Modernist oath’, to be taken by all clergy and others with teaching posts in the Church. This oath affirmed with crystal clarity that the Catholic faith is founded on reason, and that the Church’s dogmas do not depend on religious experience, but were revealed by God to the apostles and so cannot change. Although the imposition of this oath led to much public controversy, in the end only about forty priests refused to sign it. By this means were Catholic seminaries and universities preserved from Modernism at least until the time of the Second World War.

So far, we have considered two general features of the Modernist movement: its abandonment of apologetics and, at least among its more radical representatives, its denial of the obvious meaning of the Creed. We can now consider a third characteristic of the movement, one that makes it peculiarly hard to eradicate, namely its attitude towards the magisterium or teaching office of the Church.

St Pius X noted that the Modernists of his day considered conflict between the magisterium and the laity to be a normal and healthy state of affairs (today this is sometimes called ‘creative tension’.) They considered that the pope and the bishops ought to act as a ‘conservative’ force within the Church, maintaining the traditional expressions of doctrine intact: until the ‘common consciousness’ of the faithful had so ‘evolved’ that it became necessary to replace some traditional doctrine with a new one. Accordingly, the Modernists claimed that men such as themselves, who were in the vanguard of this ‘evolution’, must inevitably clash with the pope and the bishops. The Pope’s ironic description of this Modernist attitude is worth quoting at some length:

‘[When condemned by the Church] they reflect that, after all, there is no progress without a battle and no battle without its victims; and victims they are willing to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority which uses them roughly, for after all they readily admit that it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it remains deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the progress of souls, but the hour will surely come when further delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while they cannot be finally evaded. And thus they go their way, reprimands and condemnations not withstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility.’

In other words, even when condemned, the Modernist would not feel compelled to choose between faithfully accepting the Church’s teaching and openly leaving the Church. In such circumstances, there would seem to be no other option than to act as Pope Pius did: to administer an oath of fidelity, relying on the natural human horror of perjury to prevent it from being taken insincerely in more than a very few cases.

It is a commonplace that Modernism returned to the Catholic Church after the Second World War and particularly from the time of the Second Vatican Council. If the Modernism of St Pius’s day may be compared to a dangerous tumour, removed by the prompt action of a skilful surgeon, this later Modernism might be compared to a great flood of water pouring into a house with devastating effects. Many eloquent and acute authors in various lands have chronicled this ‘flooding’ of the Church. One might name, for example, Romano Amerio (featured in the May Mass of Ages); the German philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand; Jean Madiran, in France; and our own Michael Davies. Such writers as these have amply shown how the spirit of Modernism re-entered the Church when the vigilance of the ‘watchmen’ was relaxed.

This ‘neo-Modernism’ has presented the same features as the original Modernism. First, it undermined apologetics. Apologetics presupposes a clear distinction between the knowledge that our natural reason can have of God and the knowledge that comes from the grace of faith. But during the second half of the 20th Century, a marked tendency developed among Catholic theologians to blur the distinction between the ‘natural’ and the ‘supernatural’ (this is why many of them, today, stumble at the venerable doctrine of Limbo, or the natural happiness prepared by God for unbaptized souls who have never known the use of reason.) As a result, apologetics, which had previously been taught not only in seminaries but also in Catholic secondary schools, fell out of favour.

This decline of apologetics was accelerated when seminarians ceased to be instructed in the perennial philosophy perfected by Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas and their heirs, in favour of a rather superficial acquaintance with ‘modern thought’. Accordingly, the traditional proofs of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, proofs that show the rational basis of Christianity, were devalued in the eyes of many. The rout was completed by ‘developments’ in biblical studies. From the 1960’s, it became fashionable in many Catholic circles to accept the scepticism about the Gospels that had previously been the mark of liberal Protestants. At the same time, many Catholic exegetes came to embrace the idea, repeatedly condemned by the Popes and by Sacred Tradition, that there are errors in the Bible.

(The best modern work of apologetics that I know is Fr Peter Joseph’s revision of Archbishop Sheehan’s classic Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine. This was published some years ago by the Saint Austin’s Press; I hope very much that they, or some other publishing house, will soon bring it back into print.)

The second Modernist characteristic mentioned above was that of using Catholic language without Catholic convictions. The most devastating example of this in recent times perhaps concerns the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist. It is not common for any one with a teaching position in the Church to deny that Christ is present in the celebration of the Mass. But probably many seminarians in different countries have been exposed to accounts of this doctrine which claim that transubstantiation is an ‘outmoded’ concept. The alternative explanation of Christ’s presence which is then given is likely to be a Modernist one. That is, the physical presence of Christ will often be at least tacitly denied, and the experience of the ‘worshipping community’ invoked to take its place.

Another example is the doctrine of the Resurrection. It would be very surprising if anyone with the title of a Catholic theologian should ever say, ‘Christ is not risen’. Yet one sometimes hears or reads that the resurrection does not necessarily mean that Christ’s tomb was empty on the third day, but simply that Christ has been glorified or ‘vindicated’ by God the Father. Of course, this is a self-contradiction: how could it be our Lord who was glorified if His Body had not risen again? Either those who say such things are simply very confused (that is what we should hope); or else, they are reducing the resurrection to an experience, either an experience of the apostles or an experience of the contemporary ‘believing community’.

The third characteristic that I, or rather Pope St Pius, distinguished in Modernism was the habit of ignoring the immemorial teachings of the Church in the name of an alleged evolving Christian consciousness. It would not be hard to find evidence of this within the Church today; one can simply read the Tablet. But not only is the habit of ignoring the magisterium more widespread than in the days of Pascendi, it also extends to a greater range of Catholic doctrines. St Thomas Aquinas, discussing tyranny, remarks that when there is a succession of tyrants in a land, the later ones will usually be more tyrannical that the earlier ones. This is so, he explains, because the later tyrants ‘do not relax the burdens inflicted by their predecessors, and also invent new ones out of the malice of their hearts’. In the same way, Modernism has a tendency to grow with the years. All 65 propositions condemned by the Holy Office in 1907 are alive today; but any list of contemporary errors would need to include many others too, for example about the maleness of the ordained priesthood, the abrogation of the Old Covenant and various moral questions.

At the end of his encyclical, St Pius states that the two great causes of Modernism’s spread are pride and ignorance. It follows that if we are to be free in spirit from the continuing influence of Modernism, we shall need humility and knowledge. Humility preserves us from supposing that we know better than our Catholic forebears and from the fear of seeming old-fashioned. It therefore defends us against the doctrinal deviations current at any given time (in our day, perhaps the worst such deviation is the denial of the seriousness of being outside the visible Church.) Knowledge is necessary because false ideas often spread not from ill will but from confusion. Pascendi insisted that the philosophy of St Thomas was the great remedy against such confusion, and that it must therefore be the basis of all seminary studies: but there is no reason why it need be confined to the seminaries (for those wishing to become acquainted with ‘scholasticism’, the best short work that I know is Maritain’s Introduction to Philosophy, recently brought back into print.) More generally, continual contact with the works of the Doctors of the Church is surely a powerful way to protect ourselves against what the spiritual writers call ‘the presumption of novelties’, and so to root ourselves in the Tradition of the Church.

Finally, in his outstanding work The Devastated Vineyard, Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote, ‘we must storm heaven with the prayer that the spirit of a St Pius X might once again fill the hierarchy’. If that is true, and I do not doubt that it is, we might like to use the following prayer, given in the Dominican missal as the collect of the Mass ‘for preachers’:

Enlighten, O Lord, the hearts of thy servants with the grace of the Holy Ghost: give them a tongue of fire; and on those who preach thy word, bestow increase of power.

Copyright ©; Thomas Crean O.P. February 2009

"The Rite" Couldn't be more Wrong

In offline discussions we have heard comments both pro and con towards the new new Hollywood movie called "The Rite." Recently we asked readers to provide comments or reviews if they had seen the movie. Billy G submitted the following review on the movie. It is posted as his opinion and take on the movie, and other submissions are welcome.

"The Rite" Couldn't be more Wrong
Following a best-selling book by author Matt Baglio, Warner Bros. Entertainment has seemed it fit to create a film adaptation of The Rite, butchering the story, the theology, and the talents of the actors in the process.

**WARNING: SPOILERS**
My review may reveal plot elements which may give away the outcome of the film (though I feel the direction of the movie is hardly surprising).

I saw The Rite on the first of February, 2011, with a good friend of mine who happens to be a district manager for Carmike Cinemas. We were both excited at the prospect of being able to hang out and discuss the film afterward. I had read the book, but had heard some less-than-flattering reviews on the film, which prompted me to enter the film with feelings of desperation rather than anticipation. I had thought, prematurely, that I would use one word to describe the film: "revolting." Instead, I left the film with another word: "comical."

My friend and I agreed that the film had over-the-top acting, care of Anthony Hopkins, coupled with bad direction (Mikael Håfström), uncreative dialogue (Michael Petroni), and a disjointed plot. He was happy with the score of the film, whereas I believed the score to be dull, uncreative, and easily overlooked. The cinematography was inconsistent; the film had beautiful shots (which is hard not to achieve when shooting in Rome) in some segments, and absolutely tired and overdone shots in others.

In all, the movie, as a creative piece, has an amateur feel to it. The director/writer added a few "winks" to audience members who had read the book, but this hardly redeemed the film as a whole.

But you probably do not want to read my creative analysis of the film. You are, more likely, looking for my content analysis of his film.

Unfortunately, my criticism starts with the very beginning of the film. Perhaps thirty-seconds into the movie, we see a text that reads, "What follows is inspired by true events." The problem with this text is that it is a non-statement. Films, in general, have destroyed any credibility they have as documentary works. Rare is the instance you will find a film that accurately depicts reality. The Rite is no exception. To say, "[X] is based on a true story" incites audience members to take the story told at face-value, as though they were reporting on specific events and not trying to entertain an audience.

That being said, The Rite is based on true events just as much as James Cameron's Avatar is based on true events. What true events inspire James Cameron? Well, there does exist an American military, we do have computers, there are other planets, and the American military did once war with indigenous peoples of an inhabited land. Of course, the story of Avatar is pure fantasy, but who are we to say that the fantasy is not inspired by reality? In the same way, The Rite is fantasy.

To be sure, demonic possession is a reality and there do exist exorcists appointed by the Church to combat the devil. But, other than that, The Rite has no real credibility whatsoever.

Synopsis
The film follows Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue), a "seminarian/deacon" who is struggling with atheism. His mentor in seminary, Fr. Matthew (Toby Jones,) receives an email from Michael explaining this fact and encourages Michael to take a (three month) course on exorcism in Rome. The head of the program, Fr. Xavier (Ciarán Hinds) notices Michael's skepticism (and lack of respect) and sends him to Fr. Lucas (Anthony Hopkins), who is described as a "less-orthodox" priest.

Michael then follows Fr. Lucas in what can only be called an apprenticeship and begins participating in exorcisms. Through a series of events, the two encounter a demon who is "hopping" from possessed people into others, until he finds a new "home" in Fr. Lucas himself. Thus, to claim his title as an official exorcist, Michael must exorcise the demon from the man who taught him everything.

Comparison
The book follows Fr. Gary Thomas, who actually was a mortician before hearing the call to the priesthood. He did struggle with doubts over his faith (as we all do), and he was skeptical of possession. This is what made him such a good candidate for the program in Rome - which was actually four years after ordination, as opposed to a three-month stint while still in seminary. Exorcists must be skeptical of all cases of supposed possession.

Fr. Gary was not a skeptic in the sense that he did not believe in God, he was a skeptic in the sense that he did not necessarily believe in demonic possession. But he was not thrown out of class to be apprenticed to a priest; the course ended with priests being apprenticed to experienced exorcists. Fr. Gary was apprenticed to Fr. Carmine de Filippis, a priest who had performed over two thousand exorcisms in his time.

Fr. Gary participated in exorcisms, but never once challenged Fr. Carmine's credibility, nor did Fr. Gary have to exorcise a demon from Fr. Carmine.

Specific Criticisms
I will briefly outline the observations that led me to stop taking the movie seriously:

• The director/writer shows an ignorance of seminary.

When the film opens, the protagonist, Michael Kovak, is torn over decisions for his future. Should he go to seminary school or should he become a full-time mortician? Unfortunately, this is treated as something trivial. Michael refers to seminary as "seminary school," a place he can go to receive a free education. His plan is to leave before he takes his final vows.

Of course, this has many problems. First, while most dioceses in the United States do pay for your tuition in seminary, seminary is incredibly difficult to get in to. Applicants must first express an interior call to the priesthood, then go through numerous meetings with the Vocations Director (and Vocations Board), fill out mountains of paperwork, and undergo numerous psychological evaluations. Few men (if any) will ever enter seminary with the idea that they are only there to get a free education.

• The director/writer shows an ignorance of the deaconate.

In addition to the problems with their understanding of seminary, they completely misunderstand the deaconate. While the deaconate is included in the sacrament of Holy Orders, deacons do not have the authority to perform specific tasks that are due only to the priesthood of the Catholic Church. For instance, a deacon cannot, under any circumstances, perform the Anointing of the Sick, nor can the deacon Absolve one of sins (see canons 935; 1003). To be sure, the deacon can administer Viaticum (last Holy Communion) and say prayers for the dying.

Within the first fifteen minutes of the film, Michael Kovak, a deacon, is giving the Last Rites to a woman who was hit by a car. After this scene, I violently shook my head and laughed.

With the apex of the Internet, how difficult is it to clarify Church practice, especially when basing a script off of a factual book on the Catholic Church? What we have here, ladies and gentleman, is a case of lazy writers who refuse to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Further, Deacons cannot canonically perform exorcisms: "No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary" (c. 1172.1). "The local ordinary is to give this permission only to a presbyter (priest) who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life" (c. 1172.2). Deacons (and lay people) can pray prayers of liberation and deliverance, but not the formal prayer of exorcism as outlined in the rite.

• Toward the close of the film, Fr. Lucas comments, "I'm not in a state of grace, and when you're not in a state of grace you can't pray."

Here, we have a supposedly experienced priest and exorcist commenting on the nature of grace and prayer. Of course you can still pray while not in a state of (sanctifying) grace. God does not abandon us to death should we ever fall into a state of mortal sin! The Church calls God's actions on those removed from sanctifying grace "actual grace." God always tugs and pulls at our heart to come back to Him.

In fact, it is in a state of mortal sin that one should pray all the more fervently for God's mercy and forgiveness before seeking healing in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (something easily available to a priest in Rome).

• "Contagious Possession"

Apparently possession is contagious in the world The Rite creates. By the conclusion of the film, the audience is led to believe that this particular demon has been following Michael Kovak since he was young. First, he possessed his mother, then his father, then a pregnant girl in Italy, and finally Fr. Lucas. All to get at Michael.

Now, if you read any book on possession and exorcism, you will find that this is simply not how demons operate. Demons are not contagious - they do not possess you simply because you happen to be in the vicinity of someone who is afflicted. Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist for the Vatican, in an interview with Gyles Brandreth says, "I believe God sometimes singles out certain souls for a special test of spiritual endurance, but more often people lay themselves open to possession by dabbling with black magic. Some are entrapped by a satanic cult. Others are the victims of a curse."

I believe the case of Rosalina, the pregnant Italian girl, is based on an actual case, though I cannot recall if I read about this case in The Rite or in another book by Fr. Amorth. Regardless of this fact, we cannot be led to believe that demons are contagious and that you will become possessed if you are involved in exorcisms. In fact, those participating in exorcisms are probably safest from possession. They are not safe from the devil's harm, but safe from possession, unless they open themselves up to it.

Conclusion
Because of the glaring theological flaws in the director/writer's understanding of seminary, the presbyterate, the sacraments, grace, possession, and exorcism, I was simply unable to take this movie seriously. I was never terrified, though there were some disturbing moments in the film.

I do believe that Catholics should exercise discretion in seeing this film, but I do not believe the film is necessarily dangerous (in fact, I think Paranormal Activity is far more dangerous than this film). If you are familiar with theology, particularly demonology, you will probably find the film laughable (I did).

I left the theater feeling conflicted. On the one hand, I felt sorry for the director/writer. They had such a great story to work with and create a truly informative, and at the same time, terrifying, film that depicted the reality of demonic possession. Instead, they chose to write a complete fantasy that had very little basis in reality.

On the other hand, I was glad that they wrote a fantasy. The film should educate Catholics on how the world views possession and exorcism. This gives us a much greater opportunity to learn about our own faith and to evangelize.

In all, I did find some gems in the film, but nothing of note. I was disappointed with the acting, the direction, and the general plot. If you have the time to waste, wait to get the movie on Red Box or Netflix. Do not pay full price to see it.

DO pay full price to buy the book and read it. You will not be disappointed.

Michael on the Michael Coren Show

Good interview, worth the time to watch:



This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

An Opportunity...

I wonder if these people are as secluded as this website would lead one to believe. I can imagine that most of us have no knowledge of their existence. I am curious how much they know about their surrounding civilization... more importantly, I want to know if they know of Christ and His Church.



It is somewhat disturbing that the environmentalists want to keep these people "free", by being the ones that limit the contact. I am not sure I would be very happy if my knowledge of the outside world was filtered through a disciple of atheistic planet worshipers instead of coming from disciples of Christ.

Two types of people...

Two types of people will watch this video. The first are those who find the video deplorable and can't see past the hair style and mannerisms. The second are those who are Catholic and hear the Truth for what it is. Which group do you fall under?

Acclimated to the Stench of the Smoke

[Hat tip to P.B.]

All too often the impression I get when talking with fellow Catholics is that they are in some alternate universe when it comes to the definition of Catholicism. I often find myself confused or frustrated after listening to sermons that are simply empty of any real meaning. The following weblog post belongs to Fr. Longenecker. Emphasis is mine.

The Smoke of Satan
by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

There are many problems in the Catholic Church that might be thought to be the 'smoke of Satan' entering the church, but for my money one thing, above all others, has been the successful work of Satan, which has undermined the church, emasculated her ministry, sabotaged the aims of the Holy Spirit and captured a multitude of souls.

It is the modernist re-interpretation of the Catholic faith. The reductionist results of modern Biblical scholarship and the infiltration of a modernist, rationalistic and materialistic mindset meant that the supernatural was assumed to be impossible, and therefore the Bible stories (and also any supernatural elements of the faith) had to be 'de-mythologized.' Everything supernatural within the Biblical account and within the lives of the saints and within the teaching of the church were assumed to be impossible and had to be 're-interpreted' so they would make sense to modern, scientifically minded people.

So the feeding of the five thousand wasn't a miracle. Instead the 'real miracle' was that everyone shared their lunch. Everything had to be questioned and 're-interpreted' in such a way that it could be accepted and understood by modern people. So when we call Jesus Christ "God Incarnate" what we really mean was that he was so fully human, and that as he reached his potential as a man that he shows us what divinity looks like. When we speak of the Blessed Virgin we mean she was 'a very good and holy Jewish young woman.' When we speak of the 'Real Presence' we mean that we see the 'Christ that is within each one of us."

I hate this crap.

It's the smoke of Satan, and it's virtually triumphant within the mainstream Protestant churches, and sadly, the modern Catholic Church in the USA is riddled through with the same noxious heresy. The reason it is so obnoxious and disgusting is because priests and clergy of all sorts still use all the traditional language of the liturgy, the Scriptures and the creeds, but they have changed the meaning of it altogether. They never actually stand up and say that they have changed the meaning, and that they no longer believe the faith once delivered to the saints. They don't discuss the fact that they have not only changed the meaning, but robbed it of meaning altogether. Instead they still stand up week by week and recite the creed as if they think it is true, but what they mean by 'true' is totally different from what their people mean.

So Father Flannel stands up on Easter Day and says, "Alleluia! Today we rejoice in the glorious resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead." His people think he really believes that Jesus' dead body came back to life by the power of God and that he went on to live forever. In fact what Father Flannel really means is that "in some way the beautiful teachings of Jesus were remembered and continued by his followers long after his tragic death." The people don't know why Father Flannel's Catholic life is so lightweight and limp and they don't know why his style is so lacking in substance, and they go on in their muddled way thinking that he really does believe the Catholic faith when, in fact, he doesn't at all.

Consequently, Fr Flannel doesn't really have much of a message at all. He doesn't believe any of the gospel except as some sort of beautiful story which inspires people to be nicer to each other. All that is left of his priesthood, therefore, is to be a nice guy to entertain people with inspirational thoughts and get everyone to be nicer to one another and try to save the planet.

The poor faithful have swallowed this stuff for two or three generations now, and they don't even know what poison they're swallowing because the lies are all dressed up in the same traditional language the church has always used. It's like someone has put battery acid into a milk bottle and given it to a baby, and never imagined that there was anything wrong with doing so--indeed thought it was the best thing for baby.

The faithful don't know why their church has become like a cross between a Joan Baez concert and a political activism meeting. They don't understand why they never hear the need for confession or repentance or hear about old fashioned terms like 'the precious blood' or ' the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior" The fact of the matter is Father Flannel doesn't really think that sort of thing is 'helpful'.

This is why evangelization of the American Catholics in the pew is probably the most difficult task of all. They don't know what they don't know. For three generations now they have been given watered down milk and been told it was wine. They actually think that Catholic lite is what it's all about, and are astounded to think that there are some of us who think that they have actually been fed a version of Christianity that is scarcely Christianity at all.

What is the Catholic Church?

Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Those of you who wish to mock and complain about Holy Mother Church and her teachings, should reconsider.

Candlemas Day

Christmas is officially over.

Today is the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Candlemas Day, and 40 days after Christmas.

Forty days after the birth of Christ Mary complied with this precept of the law, she redeemed her first-born from the temple (Numbers 18:15), and was purified by the prayer of Simeon the just, in the presence of Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:22).
...
From Jerusalem the feast of the fortieth day spread over the entire Church and later on was kept on the 2nd of February, since within the last twenty-five years of the fourth century the Roman feast of Christ's nativity (25 December) was introduced.

Pray for Fr. Thomas Euteneuer

I recently posted an audio link of cometary by Fr. Thomas Euteneuer. Until that post, I was only familiar with that link, Fr Euteneuer's work with HLI, and his interview with the CINO Hannity.

It seems that some events took place surrounding Fr. Euteneuer that caused a large portion of the Catholic blog sphere to speculate in shameful and ignorant ways on those events.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer and his Bishop have written letters to address the entire situation. God bless this Priest, and may the Blessed Virgin Mary intercede for him. Keep Fr. Euteneuer and all other priests in your prayers daily.

Opinions

On occasion I read the blog at WDTPRS. While skimming an article today I came across the following comment. (Emphasis belongs to the weblog's owner, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.)

I am in the second year of Diaconate formation, but am not yet ordained, nor instituted as an Acolyte. My pastor delegates me to purify the chalices after Mass because no deacon is present. [Indeed?]
Our parish priest is 74 years old, and this is his fifth and final Mass of the weekend. To force [?] him to purify the eight cups used during the Mass would be an undue burden, in my opinion. [Your opinion in this is one thing, for the sake of conversation. I counts not a whit for practice, of course. You don't get to decide what the Church's laws are. you get to obey them.] I have been trained regarding the revision posted here denying EMHCs purification. I have a deep, abiding understanding of the sacred nature of the task of purification and do so with extreme reverence. I also teach others about the purpose behind reserving purification for only specially trained persons. [Does the law say "specifically trained persons" or priests, deacons and acolytes?]
That said, I find it absurd to imagine that what I have been delegated to do is wrong in the eyes of God. I invite others to charitably address my position, however. Peace be to you… [I will address it. Follow the Church's law. This is a matter that concerns how the Blessed Sacrament is treated. This also concerns the role and identity of laity and of the ordained.]

Sometimes holding a personal opinion has little purpose or value. (Yes, I realize this is coming from someone posting on a weblog.)

Exorcism and Abortion...

In the news lately we hear about a man ripping babies from the womb of mothers, the DC March for Life, and a Hollywood exorcism move called "The Rite" (based on a book by the same name.)

What do they all have in common? Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, a Catholic Exorcist, provides some interesting commentary. Please listen to the Audio Sancto link titled: "An Evening with an Exorcist."

Pope Benedict XVI on St. Joan of Arc

WDTPRS has a copy and some commentary on General Audience recently given by our Holy Father. The topic was a brief biography on St. Joan of Arc.

A couple topics caught my eye: Bad theologians, and military intervention for the sake of peace.

The Great Lie

I came across a post or two at a 'blog named Feministe about the recent horrific discoveries at an abortion clinic in Philadelphia claiming (along with many comments to the post) this case "proves" the same old worn out arguments for making abortion "safe, legal and rare". There were numerous contradictions and blatant inconsistencies in the post and the attached comments, so I wrote a comment in an attempt to address at least a few of them. Since the comment is currently under moderation, and I really have no hope that it will actually be published, I hope you'll forgive me for posting it here:

“The Truth of the matter is that each and every life created, from the moment of its conception, has intrinsic value given by its Creator that is not dependent on whether said life is “wanted” by another human or is useful in some way to another human. This includes tiny embryos up to full term and beyond and the mothers who carry them, and the fathers who gave the other half of the DNA. This is most clearly true of innocent life.

I HAVE “been there”, as a mother who has carried 5 children to term and lost 2 children to miscarriage. I know for a fact that my life DOES have value beyond its role in carrying a “fetus”. Where is the logic in saying that because MY life has value beyond its use to the fetus, therefore the fetus’ life has no value beyond its use to me? You can’t have it both ways, or if you DO want to have it both ways at least have the intellectual honesty to come out and say it. It is this utilitarian claim that says "your life has no value because it is of no use to me" that can carry an abortion doctor from a clean and sterile, well kept and licensed clinic to the horror of Grosnell’s clinic. Just because an abortion was clean and sterile and performed on a tinier human doesn’t mean that that tinier human is any less dead than the ones Grosnell killed.

Just one inconsistency that I saw in the article:
The author states that “outlawing abortion would have done absolutely nothing to help the women and babies who died or suffered in Gosnell’s care.” Ok, leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is NO way to know this with such certainty as she seems to possess, we see that the author then goes on to say “how greater government oversight and enforcement of health care laws could have shut down Gosnell’s operation years ago.” So it’s not practical to enact and enforce laws that are by definition designed to protect both the mother AND the baby, but yet we must advocate for “government oversight” (a.k.a. enacting and enforcing laws) over health care?

If one would take the time to study the pro-life stance, one would be able to see that pro-life advocates are only being consistent when they advocate also for abstinence and against free-range contraceptives (dangerous in their own right). These advocates want to bring about the end of the perceived “need” for abortion by eliminating unwanted pregnancies through educating people on 1) the fact that all life has intrinsic value aside from its usefulness and 2) respect for the sacredness of the act that brings about this life, and the sacredness of the marriage that protects that act.

My heart bleeds for the woman who truly believes The Great Lie that she can have no choice but to end the life present within her, that depends on no one if not her. If I can kill the life within my very womb, what is to stop me from killing the life just leaving it? Or the life that I have far less reason to care about?”

I know these arguments are far from complete and are barely coherent... I welcome additions and corrections.

Horror Show...

News reports and details are growing concerning a Philadelphia man who has murdered countless babies in the most gruesome of ways. Reports are referring to his operation as an illegal abortion "clinic."

Bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses "were scattered throughout the building," Williams said. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

Sometimes, the elderly physician [how is it possible that someone could mistake this man as a physician?] didn't do this right away. Often, he allegedly gave the chore to his unlicensed office staff. One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck - after first playing with him.

The grand jury report is particularly difficult to take. It contains very graphic descriptions and images. (Including images of some of the victims.)

Some new reports are starting to key in on point about how abortion must not have been available enough. Other points discuss how "inhumane" this particular abortion mill was. It is shocking... the level of ignorance that cannot understand that a child destroyed in the womb is just as horrific and appalling.

For some people... "Out of sight out of mind" is apparently a way of life. Wake up you ignorant, apathetic, waste of air, worthless people. Our children are being brutally murdered, and even if you don't support it, you are not doing enough about it. Shameful and disgusting.

I'm just saying...

Thanks to a couple inches of winter weather, my commute was almost tripled this morning (honestly people -- it's just snow!), which gave me more than enough time to develop nausea listen to the propagandists at NPR paint their picture of “the facts” surrounding the shooting this past weekend in Tucson:

• The shooter was a “lone wolf” and acted alone
• That right-wing talk radio could possibly have played a roll in inciting violence
• That the Congress woman narrowly defeated a tea party candidate to win election
• That Arizona’s gun laws are perhaps too liberal
• That the shooter had attended “meet and greet” events with the Congress woman in the past and received thank you notes from her (or was it her office?)
• That the shooter had notes in his house about planning ahead (though what those plans are is unclear)
• That “some other people” were also injured by the shooter

When I got to work I did some quick internet searching and learned a few things that NPR didn’t bother mentioning:

• The shooter is a left-wing, pott-smoking liberal who has an affinity for reading Marx
• While the Congress woman was injured, a Catholic Federal Judge was killed
• The shooter had been rejected for elistment in the US Army
• The shooter has been linked with white supremacy extremists

So the Catholic judge was invited to the event at the last minute and a drug-abusing liberal guns him down along with several others. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence; or perhaps the judge was the real target and shooting the Congress woman provides sufficient obfuscation to the event to conceal this motivation?

Arizona Shootings

The situation is sad. The shootings were sad. The news media focus and coverage is sad. Almost immediately after the shooting took place, the talking heads sprung into action substituting biased supposition to replace missing information. The general story was that "some right wing gun toting nut-job" had a beef with liberal politics and took it out on this group of people. In actuality it turns out the shooter in custody was a "radical left wing gun toting pot head."

Also hardly touched by the media was the fact that the Federal Judge who was murdered happened to be a "daily Mass going practicing Roman Catholic." Judge John Roll had even attended Mass the morning of the shooting. Pray for the soul of Judge John Roll, and for his grieving wife and children. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace.

Stem Cells

Great video pointing out some of the facts regarding adult and fetal stem cell research. Gotta love the jabs comparing the debate with Galileo towards the end of the video.

Abstaining from Meat on Fridays

Was reading Musings this morning and came across a really well written post on why we abstain from meat on Fridays. The article is long, but well worth reading. I will re-post some of the article here:

Regardless of the available options, there are at least seven reasons to keep the traditional sixth-day penance:

1. It is corporate. Having everyone do his own form of penance lacks the marvelous unity of almost the entire Catholic world performing the same act on the same day. This is not only spiritually constructive, it is socially edifying, building up solidarity and deepening our awareness of joint membership in the mystical Body of Christ.
2. It is ancient. A single practice unites all the living, but when it is ancient it also unites them to their forebears. If tradition is, as Chesterton put it, the democracy of the dead, then Friday abstinence is the veritable apple pie of Catholic life. In the words of the American bishops in 1966: We show "out of love for Christ Crucified... our solidarity with the generations of believers to whom this practice frequently became, especially in times of persecution and of great poverty, no mean evidence of fidelity to Christ and His Church."
3. It is testimonial. Friday abstinence bears powerful witness to the distinctiveness of the Church. My Protestant friend whom I mentioned earlier knew little about Catholics when he was young, but he knew they stood for something when he watched his papist peers exercise self-discipline even away from the watchful eyes of their parents.
4. Abstinence is efficacious. Ancient authors taught that abstinence from food and drink was useful in dampening "the ardor of lust." Bodily passions are not bad per se, but left untrained they can become the occasion of sin. Trimming the body’s food intake, as modern studies have confirmed, can lower lustful proclivities.
5. Abstinence is appropriate. The Church still teaches that every human being is required to do penance by virtue of divine law (Can. 1249), and Friday abstinence is an especially appropriate way to do this. It was on a Friday in Eden that Adam and Eve transgressed the first law of abstinence. And, of course, it was on a Friday that our Lord was crucified in order to undo the effects of that transgression. It is therefore appropriate to make abstinence our Friday penance, in sober memory of the Fall and "in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ."
6. Abstinence from meat is particularly appropriate. Catholicism ingeniously teaches both through presence and through absence. Usually, the Church employs physical signs to convey invisible realities; but sometimes, she temporarily withdraws something as a way of arresting our attention and heightening our awareness of what is missing.
   
   Hence, the suppression of the Alleluia during Septuagesima and Lent effectively demonstrates that we are in exile from our true Home, where the angels sing Alleluia without ceasing. Veiling sacred images in church during Passiontide — when we would most expect to gaze upon a crucifix — paradoxically heightens our awe of Christ’s Passion. And prohibiting the sacrifice of the altar on Good Friday draws us in an inverted way to the sacrifice of the cross made that day.
   
   Similarly, when we "make meager," we withdraw from our table the flesh of an animal whose blood was shed for us on the day in which the Blood of the God-man was shed for us. The absence of the former paradoxically reminds us of the latter; not having a bloody victual backhandedly alerts us to the Bloody Victim.
7. It is Christ-like. Jesus Christ consumed nothing on Good Friday except the gall He tasted shortly before His death. With fasting or abstinence on the day of the Crucifixion, Catholics in some small way "suffer with Christ that they may one day be glorified with Him. This is the heart of the tradition of abstinence from meat on Friday."

A gift to give...

What gifts can we present to our Lord? Christ longs for our salvation, a simple gift is our cooperation with His grace.

Modern Christmas

Quotes to ponder...

"Technology can be among the most powerful weapons in the dictator's armory. Propaganda, the suppression of the truth, particularly in democratic societies, will bring upon an age of enslavement where instead of yokes and chains, people in celebrated 'free' societies like America will be bound by the soft restraints of ignorance, incuriousness, distraction and irrationality."

"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an 'iron curtain' between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciation, the most compelling of logical rebuttals."

Both of these quotes are attributed to Aldous Huxley.

Today is Gaudete Sunday

Rejoice!

Odd presidential news...

It seems that President Clinton has settled back into the White House. President Clinton joined President Obama to help endorse a new tax plan during a press conference.

Obama introduced Clinton lightly as "the other guy" and recalled how Clinton has overseen heady economic times. Obama warned that he wouldn't be staying long -- another White House Christmas party was waiting, as was his wife, Michelle.

After Obama left the conference, Clinton essentially slipped in and commanded the press conference as if he was president again.

Clinton was asked what advice he had for Obama, given the context of the times: the current president has to deal with a Republican Party that just won a convincing victory in the midterm election and will soon grab control of the House. Clinton faced the same halfway through his embattled first term in 1994, worked some major deals with the opposing party and rebounded to re-election.

"I have a general rule," Clinton said, "which is that whatever he asked me about my advice, and whatever I say should become public only if he decides to make it public." Obama didn't provide that permission, saying: "I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off."

Where is the leadership?

What may have been less foreseen by President Obama’s team, however, was the stark contrast in what the military calls command presence. Seeing President Clinton in front of the microphone, deftly parrying the tough questions of the White House Press Corps, I couldn’t help but wish that the former Arkansas governor was doing more than consulting in these harrowing economical times.

[EDIT:  This next part comes from an article that is satirical in nature.  This did not happen.]
All of this followed by the fact that President Clinton still has not left the White House.

But twenty-four hours after former President Bill Clinton appeared at the White House to endorse his tax plan, President Barack Obama is "still looking for the right way to ask him to leave," an aide confirmed today.

How about... "get the hell out... you had your turn!"?

Mr. Obama had assumed that once the former president wrapped things up with reporters yesterday, he would say his goodbyes and depart in a waiting car, "but that kind of didn't happen," the aide said.

"Clinton kind of went, 'Do you have a computer I can use? I just want to check my email,' and then kind of made himself at home in the Oval Office," he said. "The president was being polite and all, but you could tell he was kind of pissed."

?!?!

Links of interest:
Bill's Back: Clinton commands stage at White House
The Ghost of Presidents Past – Clinton’s Unexpected Sub for Obama is Telling
[Satire]Obama "Still Looking For Right Way" to Ask Clinton to Leave White House
Has Obama jumped the shark?

Ron Paul on Wiki Leaks

Recently a commenter posted a You Tube video in response to one of our entries related to WikiLeaks. The video (about 5 minutes long) is a speech given by Ron Paul on the US House floor. Ron Paul concludes his speech with a number of the following questions to consider (emphasis mine):

Number 1: Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

I would like to encourage readers to provide commentary on how they view WikiLeaks.

Vestibulo-ocular reflex

On a rare occasion we will take a break for the typical topics of interest to experience the "dancing babies" and "epic beard men" that the internet has to offer. After seeing an advertisement for Fushigi the following video representing Vestibulo-ocular reflex in chickens came to mind.

TV Christmas Specials

'Tis the season for numerous "Christmas Specials" that fill the prime time airwaves. While many of the Christmas specials have little to do with the Nativity of Christ, a number of them have a common theme. The theme consists of a group trying to celebrate (some version of) Christmas while a antagonist is trying to ruin said celebrations. The stories generally end up with the antagonist mending their "evil" ways or having a change of heart that allows them all to celebrate (some version of) Christmas.

During this Advent season the rest of the world has already started celebrating (some version of) Christmas that often has little to do with the Son of God. Every year the "secular Grinch" attempts to steal more and more of (the real) Christmas... a parallel concept to that which is addressed in the the TV specials.

Many of us watched these formulaic Christmas Specials with our children, or as we were growing up. The secular shows (often divorced from Christianity) urges its viewers to defend (some version of) Christmas and proclaim the need for conversion of those who are against the "season." Seems we should be prepared to do the same for the true reason for the season.

Christmas Music

I thought I would share a great deal that Amazon has going on right now... 99 (real) Christmas songs for $2. Having never purchased mp3s from Amazon before, the process was a bit awkward, but not difficult in the least.

Talking points for discussing the TSA full-body scanners

BACKGROUND

There is a plan afoot to market X-ray devices for use in all transportation checkpoints and eventually at football stadiums and schools until they become ubiquitous. This is being done to make money for some government insiders and must be resisted at all costs. It's dangerous and unnecessary. People are also being forced to step into these devices under threat of an onerous and invasive government frisking. The following are talking points to debate the use to abolish of these machines. And when you are at the airport, please opt-out, these machines are indeed dangerous.

POINTS TO ADDRESS WITH FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS

• Why did we go from spot checking to everyone getting X-rayed? What changed?
• It's all about the marketing. They want to sell more and more of them.
• Michael Chertoff is behind the machines. His consulting firm helped develop the marketing scheme. Do you think that's right?
• Next thing you know they will put them in schools. Do you want your child X-rayed daily?
• Most experts agree that X-rays at any dose are unhealthy and cause cancer.
• X-rays cause cancer. Minimum exposure levels are just suggestions.
• Physicists and medical experts at UCSF Medical Center say the government is wrong about the safety of these machines. Others agree.
• These machines have not been fully tested. Just the idea has been tested, the machine themselves have not.
• Radiologists do not run the machines. Why not?
• The TSA workers are not allowed to wear dosimeters to check for X-ray exposure... Why? What are they hiding?
• What happens if a machine malfunctions? What happens if you are in it?

ADDITIONAL POINTS REGARDING THE MORE RARE MILLIMETER WAVE MACHINES

• These machines are not proven safe.
• The effect of millimeter waves are still being investigated
• Current evidence shows that millimeter waves cause DNA damage.

Avoiding the Lemming Effect...

Lemmings. Small soft furry rodents with short tails found in the North. Some species of lemmings migrate in large groups and get themselves in trouble when encountering bodies of water or other similar hazards. Many are familiar with stories about large groups of lemmings mindlessly following each other off cliffs committing mass suicide.

The lemming effect is often used to refer to group-think and those people who mindlessly follow popular opinions, newest trends, or latest fads.

When you see everyone else quickly being led a certain direction stop and look where you are headed and why you are being led there.

The titillating WikiLeaks information being unleashed on the public should not be dismissed, but it also should not be accepted with open arms. When information suggests the potential for some serious consequences, a moment of pause should be taken to examine the possible outcomes more thoroughly.

Cowards be damned

Apocalypse 21:8:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Please view this week's Vortex: Who Goes to Hell First?

December 6th: St. Nicholas

Recently RCTV posted a Vortex video that shows St. Nicholas punching Arius in the face. I wanted to take the opportunity to share another picture of the event.

Above is a painting of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. Notice St. Nick on the left, Arius cowering on the right, and Constantine leisurely observing the incident from his throne.

Man up...

The etymology of the word virtue essentially is tied to the Latin word for manliness. The seven cardinal virtues are divided into two groups, Theological (Faith, Hope and Charity) and Moral (Justice, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude). Over the past few days the Vortex has been covering the Moral Virtues. All of the videos have been insightful, but I was particularly urged to write after watching today's video on Fortitude.

[F]ortitude removes from the will those obstacles arising from the difficulties of doing what reason requires. Hence fortitude, which implies a certain moral strength and courage, is the virtue by which one meets and sustains dangers and difficulties, even death itself, and in never through fear of these deterred from the pursuit of good which reason dictates. The virtues annexed to fortitude are:

• Patience, which disposes us to bear present evils with equanimity; for as the brave man is one who represses those fears which make him shrink from meeting dangers which reason dictates he should encounter, so also the patient man is one who endures present evils in such a way as not to be inordinately cast down by them.
• Munificence, which disposes one to incur great expenses for the suitable doing of a great work. It differs from mere liberality, as it has reference not to ordinary expenses and donations, but to those that are great. Hence the munificent man is one who gives with royal generosity, who does things not on a cheap but magnificent scale, always, however, in accordance with right reason.
• Magnanimity, which implies a reaching out of the soul to great things, is the virtue which regulates man with regard to honours. The magnanimous man aims at great works in every line of virtue, making it his purpose to do things worthy of great honour. Nor is magnanimity incompatible with true humility. "Magnanimity", says St. Thomas, "makes a man deem himself worthy of great honours in consideration of the Divine gifts he possesses; whilst humility makes him think little of himself in consideration of his own short-comings".
• Perseverance, the virtue which disposes to continuance in the accomplishment of good works in spite of the difficulties attendant upon them. As a moral virtue it is not to be taken precisely for what is designated as final perseverance, that special gift of the predestined by which one is found in the state of grace at the moment of death. It is used here to designate that virtue which disposes one to continuance in any virtuous work whatsoever.

Gentlemen (and ladies) you must persevere and you must endure. "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you."

Merry Xmas!

Yes I said Xmas. No, I am not taking Christ out of Christmas. The X is one of many monograms of Christ. Chi Rho (XP) is also one of the earliest ways that the name of Christ was abbreviated.

While it is true that many attempt to use Xmas as a way to take Christ out of Christmas... we don't have to allow that to be so. Take back the X!