The Law of God
Versus
Consensus of the Many
By Stephen Volk
"True rationality is not guaranteed by the consensus of the many, but only by the openness of human reason to the reason of the Creator and by listening together to this Source of our rationality.” - Pope Benedict XVI
One day, near a Catholic Church in Cologne, Germany, rats, the size of moles, were seen all times of the day and night, scurrying around the church. Finally, I asked someone what they thought of them. A local German merely wrinkled up his nose and said, “Aren’t they cute?” It was apparent that as a defense mechanism to what seemed an unconquerable problem – not unlike residents forced to stay near the Chernobyl accident – desensitization to dangers and a willful denial of the problem resulted.
I then asked, “Is anything being done about this?” “No,” was the fatalistic reply. “Bureaucracy would take at least two years.” This was the consensus of the many. Well, even if it would take two years to conquer encroaching epidemic, disease and plague, I contacted medical authorities (also strangely desensitized) about poison rats could take back to their nests, while also discussing preventative measures such as school children not throwing their garbage every day near the Catholic Church located between the grocery store and school. In this case, it didn’t take an Encyclical to define the problem though it took a healthy intolerance and an aversion to desensitization to overcome it…
Attorney Randy England, a most promising candidate as a 21st century St. Thomas More, emphasizes, “A large measure of tolerance is a virtue in this world. Within the Church, however, there must be limits beyond which the title ‘Christian’ can no longer apply. Of course, the title no longer applies when a Christian forsakes the Law of God to join the consensus of the many.
The Church is not wedded to the passions of the moment, but bound to the truth without regard for any momentary twists currently popular with those individuals who are given over to the latest scientific or philosophical musings. This ‘dogmatic relativism’ was rejected by Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis. He wrote that the way in which we express the truth:
…is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the terms in the same way. [But] it is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. This is supreme impudence and something that would make dogma a reed shaken by the wind.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[i]<!–[endif]–>
A most intriguing book is Justice Holmes, Natural Law, and the Supreme Court by Francis Biddle<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[ii]<!–[endif]–> (Macmillan: New York, 1961). In its pages, we see Catholic dogma confronted by the “consensus of the many” argument. In the following excerpt, Francis Biddle argues:
"At times Father Lucey seems to be angry for what eludes him. But the difference between the two men is not principally a question of misunderstanding. It comes down to a determination of the sources of general principles. The Catholics say that they come from God, and have a validity entirely independent of their human acceptance. For Justice Holmes they are derived from the consensus of the community embodied in the long tradition of the law, of the dominant beliefs of the culture of which he felt himself a part, and of the Constitutional provisions expressing that culture.
"Put simply, and without the paradoxes and teasing oversimplifications, Holme's beliefs are neither radical – for our day and age – nor disturbing: the belief that men make their own laws, that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite; that since morality is human in its origin and its end, men should be permitted to discover what is for them desirable and how it should be achieved, and allowed to indulge in their own legislative experiments to better their lot – they are not fools for doing what they want to do; that the justification of any rule of law is that it helps to bring about a desired social end; that law must change to follow the needs of man; that all doctrine must be adjusted to these needs… There can never be reconciliation between the dogmatic mind and the free mind." The "free mind" he refers to of course is the Liberal mind and I'm reminded of the 1899 Catholic classic Liberalism Is A Sin by Fr. Felix Salvany (TAN Books).
Satan could not have put it better. The great Irishman C.S. Lewis wrote about the timeless Law of Nature, the Moral Sense, in his Mere Christianity. Biddle's is the creed of Liberalism and appears to be logical – while we remind ourselves "logic" is not "truth." Biddle is right when he says it comes down to the sources of general principles. But after mocking the omnipresence of God (as we see Science taking the moral high ground) Biddle then "assures" us Holmes is the one who is right for believing the true principles are derived "from the consensus of the community."
(C.S. Lewis believed democracy isn't always the best form as the majority is usually wrong. Today, the Marxists, Freemasons and New Age work together, sometimes unwittingly, under a façade of democracy, for the ultimate Marxist goal of internationalism. While the Cold War appeared to be won outside North America, Marxism continued its North American infiltration of government, education, media, the arts and the Church. Bella Dodd’s predictions were true!)
Let's take this "logic" a step further. Who has been diligently forming the "consensus of the community?” The "politically correct" Constitution-ignoring amoral globalists/internationalists. Marxism opposes constitutions. For decades, any goal the globalists/internationalists wanted to achieve needed to be perceived as if emerging from "the grass roots." You sadly see it in journalism every day: Common people interviewed in the radio and newspapers with the answers the globalists want to supply and further condition the public with. But the goals are originally made at high levels then implemented from the top down, with the veneer all these "good ideas" are coming from the grass roots. Rothschild's ISO 9000 was an excellent example, as were privatized prisons. There are thousands of examples…
So much for the consensus of the unregenerate community.
So when Biddle says "morality is human in its origin and its end," he is partially right. The true Catholic way is to have and rightly so, morality spring from true doctrine. But this is turned upside down (thanks to the Marxist Frankfurt School of homosexual Jewish social engineers, whose purpose for their 1950 The Authoritarian Personality is to turn the values of western civilization upside down) as Biddle perverts that "law must change to follow the needs of man; that all doctrine must be adjusted to these needs." This is absolute insanity. But it's what we have pandemically today! That is, the law changing to meet the sinful needs of man.
In The Vatican and the Kremlin by Camille Cianfarra is further insight to the “consensus of the community.” Cianfarra reveals, “In man’s relations with other individuals, the Communists uphold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination, they assert, is derived from the community as its first and only source.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[iii]<!–[endif]–> There you have it. According to Marxists (“politically correctness” is cultural Marxism) authority is derived from the community as its first and only source. Francis Biddle was Attorney General for the Roosevelt administration which chose to support totalitarian Marxism in WWII.
Marxist “consensus of the community” belief infiltrates the Catholic Church today. On a recent CBC program, The Current, Anna Marie Tramonte interviewed Rev. Richard McBrien who admitted, “We see the younger generation who are increasingly open on the matter of homosexuals in our society. And that’s the way our society is moving… The Church will have to move with society.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[iv]<!–[endif]–> The Church will have to move with society? The Church will have to move with the consensus of the community? The Church must become Marxist? Liberal Richard McBrien and anti-Catholic Biddle are agreed that "law must change to follow the needs of man; that all doctrine must be adjusted to these needs." Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI addressed this issue by unequivocally stating, "True rationality is not guaranteed by the consensus of the many, but only by the openness of human reason to the reason of the Creator and by listening together to this Source of our rationality.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[v]<!–[endif]–>
Fr. C. E. Coughlin warned, “Father Teilhard de Chardin’s importance in history exhibits the clearest explanation and proof of Lenin’s theory of ‘boring from within’. Churchmen frequently profess communist doctrines. When Pope Pius XII, in 1950, published his Encyclical ‘On the Human Creation’ (‘Humani Generis’) it was unmistakably directed against the type of Hegelian pantheism as voiced by Teilhard. And following its publication (Teilhard knew it had him in mind) the affronted priest wrote: ‘In spite of Encyclicals only the Roman Church is the axis of an evolution that is able to carry out the necessary transformation’. Thus he hoped to use the decatholicized Church, which he called ‘Roman’, as leverage to effect his goal of fusion; the union of Russia and America, of the Kremlin and the Vatican, of atheism and theism, of Christianity and communism, of Christ and chaos!<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[vi] <!–[endif]–>
Coughlin was a college professor before he became a priest and during that time made a special study of Russia.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[vii]<!–[endif]–> He accused the government of building up communism,<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[viii]<!–[endif]–> as today the Canadian government should be accused of building up Marxism. The Canadian government is building up the “consensus of the many.” It is for this reason Father Groeschel, during his recent visit to Canada, warned that Canada is now becoming a “land of darkness.” It is growing dark because of the “consensus of the thought-controlled many.” But while Canadian Catholics are now on the defensive concerning “human rights” commissions, they should simultaneously be on the offensive to expose atheist Marxism undermining Canadian society. Coughlin revealed, “One clearly sees Moscow’s interest in Teilhard and his philosophies. Brilliant as he was, he lit a candle whose thin flame offered for the Russians a glimmering of hope in the dark night of Vatican-Kremlin contradictions; and bestirred a satanic expectancy on the hearts of the latter that, possibly without war and nuclear weapons, five hundred million Catholics and one billion non-Catholics could be converted to Hegelian Marxism and Soviet atheism…”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[ix]<!–[endif]–>
To effectively pray for, confront, and if needed to expose the unrepentant, liberal Marxist priests like Notre Dame’s McBrien, one needs to understand de Chardin as the link between Kremlin and Vatican and how Catholic clergy frequently profess Marxist doctrines, wittingly and unwittingly. A growing “consensus of the community” within Catholic leadership, for decades, with de Chardin leanings, has softened their stance to modern and secular-materialist destruction of natural law. To quote de Chardin directly (1952) he wrote: “As I love to say the synthesis of the Christian God (of the above) and the Marxist God (of the forward)… is the only God whom henceforth we can adore in spirit and in Truth.” As if Marx recognized a God! As if communism by its nature is not atheistic! As if there possibly could be a synthesis, a fusing together, of God and anti-God, Christ and anti-Christ!<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[x]<!–[endif]–> As if Gorbachev in the Presidio is not an ardent disciple of Lenin’s doctrine of revolutionary flexibility.
So now that "samesex marriages" and "adoption rights for samesex unregenerates are forced upon the UK Catholic Church," to decatholicize it, Biddle would have us believe all doctrine must be adjusted to the "needs" of these "new moralities." Feminist politicians who infiltrate Opus Dei promote the “consensus of the community” and “new moralities.” So here's where our new 21st century war comes in: Will true traditional Catholic doctrine stand up to and overcome victoriously the "new moralities" in conflict with the Law of Nature? Or will the consensus of the community – formed at the top by 21st century, atheistic Marxist social engineers – quickly lead to "new moralities" leading to "new doctrine." This is, indeed, the basis of the rule of law for the UN (proven countless times to be criminal by New American Magazine) and the "politically correct" culturally-Marxist congressmen and senators who have been secretly taking their orders from the liberal Javier Solana in Europe; most recently culminating with Presidential Decision Directive 50 giving President Bush power over Congress.
While one is tempted to throw up their hands and simply say, "Well, another civilization bit the dust" (there is now an official FBI pamphlet downloadable at Stan Monteith's website which says anyone quoting the Constitution to an officer is to be arrested) I'm reminded of the vision of George Washington published in 1880 where it was shown that, with the help of angels, the USA would win its third world war. As incredible as this is – and as much as it has been hidden from the public – it appears valid and true. But there are tremendous, tremendous fights ahead… This is a good time for the Church Militant to stay focused in fighting mode.
As Canadians, we can see western civilization spared the fate of Russia – as did Achille Ratti, Papal Nuncio, later Pope Pius XI – who displayed fearless faith, fides intrepida, when Ratti stood with the defenders of 1920 Poland; while prayerfully “busy day and night in building up the courage both of government officials and of their people, appreciating that the Marxist invasion must be crushed.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[xi]<!–[endif]–> Due to inevitable confrontations, (perhaps compared to 1948 Rumania)<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[xii]<!–[endif]–> it would appear Catholics in North America as the Church Militant will become far less guilty of sins of omission and acknowledge their truly anointed active roles and destinies; with Divine assistance to sway the “consensus of the thought-controlled community” to Jesus Christ. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
Stephen Volk
<!–[if !supportEndnotes]–>
<!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[ii]<!–[endif]–> It is noteworthy this is the same anti-Catholic Francis Biddle who, as Attorney General decades before, Father Charles Coughlin challenged “to give an opportunity to him to ‘defend the property’ of the publication, Social Justice,” founded by Father Coughlin.
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[iv]<!–[endif]–> The Current, CBC One, Rev. Richard McBrien Church historian and liberal Catholic theologian, professor of theology at Notre Dame University, interviewed by Anna Marie Tramonte. McBrien is one of the most liberal Catholic theologians in the U.S. McBrien has shown he is 100 percent opposed to the official teachings of the Catholic Church when it counters the gay and lesbian movement's agenda. Why is a Catholic theologian ignoring the Douay-Rheims Scripture, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.”
<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[xi]<!–[endif]–> C.E. Coughlin, “Fides Intrepida,” Why Leave Our Own? (1939), pp. 77-78. Pope Pius XI “was particularly determined that governments should not establish policies hostile to the natural law and to the practice of religion. (p. 79)
SHARIA LAW versus Canadian Freedoms!
In the article, Censorship in the Name of ‘Human Rights’, the secular National Post sees Canadian “human rights commissions” as a “politically correct shakedown racket.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[i]<!–[endif]–> Highlights include “human rights commissions are the perfect instrument to pursue their agenda of censorship”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[ii]<!–[endif]–> and “Freedom of the speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called fundamental freedoms in our Constitution, now come second to the newly-discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[iii]<!–[endif]–>
But it is far more than that. What some mistake for a “thin-skinned bystander” is actually Sharia Law! We have two systems of law in Canada which ultimately cannot coexist. Our Constitutional freedoms of the press, speech and religion; versus the Islamic control and censorship of constricted Islamic society through Sharia Law.
The National Post emphasizes, "The commissions are not neutral; they're filled with activists, many of whom aren't even lawyers and do not understand the free-speech safeguards contained in our Constitution."<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[iv]<!–[endif]–> "Ordering a person - or a magazine - to say or publish words that they don't believe is an Orwellian act of thought control."<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[v]<!–[endif]–>
Of course they don’t understand the free-speech safeguards recognized in our Constitution. It is Sharia Law where there are no free-speech safeguards. As the Canadian Islamic Congress is taking Maclean’s to a Human Rights Commission – who will be next? – Sharia Law is under no obligation to recognize Canada’s Constitutional freedoms. A demographic study published in Maclean’s violates Islamic secrecy and therefore the Sharia Law idea of control.
When The National Post calls this “A quirk in our legal system used to undermine our Western traditions of freedom,”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[vi]<!–[endif]–> in the case of the CIC Sharia Law will not be absent. Meanwhile, the CIC uses the smokescreen and Trojan horse of a “human rights commission” to actually to further implement Islamic control and censorship, bringing Canada one ominous step further into an Islam-dominated society!
As freedom isn’t free, now is the time to see this “quirk” permanently restrained before it permanently restrains. An extremely small but well-organized minority is taking advantage of the indifferent Canadian masses to turn western civilization upside down. It is now or never to strengthen freedom of the press, speech and religion!
What I propose is that all “activists,” to become activists on human rights commissions – whether Islamic or “politically correct” - must first pass a federal test for competency in understanding Canada’s freedoms of the speech, press and religion. Those who pass the test are then legally accountable, while serving on any “human rights” commission, for harassment and violation of those freedoms. This quirk, this puff of smoke over the volcano, must be dealt with before the political volcano has a full-blown explosion!
Stephen Volk
<!–[if !supportEndnotes]–>
<!–[endif]–>
Stephen Volk | November 16, 2007 |
print this post |
email this post
Not only at Halloween, Wikipedia might equally be coined "Wicked Pedia" or "Wicca Pedia" as it is collectivist evil any way you look at it. Just the term "free encyclopedia" should be a major clue to its atheistic Marxist-collectivist nature.
As a Father Charles Coughlin scholar, I tried on several occasions to edit the Charles Coughlin article for truthfulness. Easily discerning its severe Marxist spin on Father Coughlin - who for over a decade stood firm against Marxism and warned of its propaganda inroads into America - I attempted to put the article straight. But each time it reverted to the Marxism spin, as if my editorial input had not existed.
So we may have to have an "Ameripedia" of truth to counter the subversive "Wikipedia." The following is my article and demonstrates what should truthfully be on "Wikipedia." But after several tries the Marxists in America continue to censor the truth:
Charles Edward Coughlin (October 25, 1891 – October 27, 1979) was a Canadian-born Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan's National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than forty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. This hard-hitting patriotic radio program included exposing communism and nazism. But Marxist propaganda retaliated with a smear campaign lying that the radio program was "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture."[2] "Social Justice" exposed the New Deal and its underhanded communist dealings (see Charles Coughlin's first interview on the Howard Miller radio program) . Antisemitism not once permeated his radio broadcasts, though anti-communism did.
Coughlin was born in Hamilton, Ontario, to Irish Catholic parents, and was ordained in Toronto in 1916. He taught at Assumption College in Windsor, Ontario, before moving to Detroit in 1923. He began his radio broadcasts in 1926 over station WJR, broadcasting weekly sermons on a regular program. In 1931 the CBS radio network dropped free sponsorship, so he raised money to create his own national network, which soon reached millions of listeners. He strongly endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1932 Presidential election. He was an early supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal reforms, and coined the phrase "Roosevelt or ruin," which was famous during the early days of the FDR administration as well as "The New Deal is Christ's Deal."[3] However, Coughlin's focus changed during the 1930s as he preached more and more about Roosevelt's support of atheistic Marxism and the negative influence of amoral international bankers and of Wall Street on the general welfare and about the need for monetary reform. Coughlin claimed that the Depression was a cash famine, and proposed monetary reforms, including the elimination of the privately-owned Federal Reserve System, as the solution.
By 1934 Coughlin was perhaps the most prominent Catholic spokesman on political and financial issues, with a radio audience that reached millions of people every week. When he began exposing the "New Deal," Roosevelt organized a propaganda fund and sent Joseph P. Kennedy and Frank Murphy, prominent Irish Catholics, to try to tone him down. But seeing Henry Morgenthau giving a ten million dollar check from US taxpayer money to Mexico - the same Marxist Mexico persecuting and murdering Catholics - Coughlin began denouncing Roosevelt as a tool of Wall Street. He supported Huey Long until Long's death in 1935, and then supported William Lemke's third party in 1936. Thus, as Coughlin became a bold and widely-admired opponent of the New Deal, his radio talks escalated against the politician Roosevelt, capitalists and atheistic-Marxist Jewish conspirators (Trotsky's real name was Bronstein). Kennedy, who strongly supported the New Deal, warned as early as 1933 that Coughlin was "becoming a very dangerous proposition" as an opponent of Roosevelt and "an out and out demagogue." Kennedy worked with Roosevelt, Bishop Francis Spellman and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) in a smear-campaign effort to get the Vatican to shut Coughlin down in 1936. The hypocrisy was especially noticeable on Pacelli's part, who concealed from the public Pius XI's final encyclical against antisemitism. Had Pacelli really been concerned about antisemitism, he would have published this, but Pacelli was towing the Marxist and world government line, a world govt. Father Coughlin opposed till his death in 1979.[4] In 1940-41,though Kennedy wrongfully attacked the isolationism of Coughlin (and aviator Charles Lindbergh), But Father Coughlin stood firm on George Washington's views against foreign entanglements as solidified in the Monroe Doctrine. To benefit the military/industrial complex, Coughlin warned, "Poor people fight the wars and poor people are made to pay for the wars." Father Charles Coughlin was known as only second to Roosevelt in power and popularity.
Antisemitism: Propaganda Lie To Smear Father Coughlin
After 1936, Coughlin never expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini, explaining both fascism and Marxist communism were totalitarian and dictatorial and that Roosevelt was not to choose one over the other. His CBS radio broadcasts were never antisemitic though this was part of the ongoing Marxist propaganda and smear campaign to say they were. He blamed the Depression on an international conspiracy of Jewish and gentile bankers, and also claimed that Jewish and gentile bankers were behind the Russian Revolution.
Do you get the gist? Father Charles Coughlin was such a brilliant Catholic priest - equally fighting communism and nazism - that he is still a threat to the strongly-embedded cultural Marxism of our day, known as "political correctness." So the battle is on. If we are now to have "Patriotic Correctness" we must have an "Ameripedia" where truth is told and with editorial watchdogs refusing Marxist propaganda inroads.
Go now to FatherCoughlin.com and turn up your speakers to soak in truth!
Stephen Volk
Stephen Volk | June 20, 2007 |
print this post |
email this post
For everthing there is a season! Knowing that "Satan" means "slander," it's time to call a firm halt against the decades of unwarranted liberal slander towards Father Charles Coughlin…
While this man should by now be hailed as one of America's great heroes - who tirelessly fought for the poor during the Great Depression - his name is still being sloshed in the mud of liberal propaganda.
I have read many first editions by and about Father Coughlin. It is easy to conclude that he was never an antisemite. Absolute nonsense. But in the charisms of the Church he did have powerful, powerful God-given Gifts of Wisdom, Discernment and Knowledge:
"I do ask , however, an insane world to distinguish between the innocent Jew and the guilty Jew as much as I would ask the same insane world to distinguish between the innocent gentile and the guilty gentile."
Is this not completely fair? Or does the Bible not say, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
To clear up decades of confusion, www.FatherCoughlin.com is now open! As a Grand Opening Gift to you, go now to download your FREE complete book by Father Charles Coughlin, "Am I an AntiSemite?" Then check back often for FREE download of all his radio programs!
Why the urgency? Because today's "political correctness" is cultural Marxism.
Once again, we need strong, visionary leadership to prayerfully and boldly combat this before our civilization is left in ruins!
Go now to receive you FREE GIFT: www.FatherCoughlin.com
Father Charles Coughlin
“The Need to Reclaim Catholic Social Teaching” by Doug McManaman was timely, scholarly and insightful. McManaman warns, “The Marxist or semi-Marxist approach to social justice can be attractive and is even described by some as ‘liberating.’” Indeed, the courageous Pius XI wrote, “Anyone who would save Christian civilization may not collaborate with Communism in any manner whatsoever because it is intrinsically evil.”
McManaman rightly observes, “The official teachers of the Church enjoy the benefit of the charism of office; and they have been careful not to endorse unregulated capitalism on the one hand, and even moderate socialism on the other, warning that the latter is simply irreconcilable with Christianity.” Father Coughlin observed this in 1972, warning, “The contest in which Moscow and Washington are now engaged is a contest between two atheistic states, one admittedly so, and the other hypocritically so; one definitely opposed to God and religion, the other clumsily tolerating both God and the Church.”
Coughlin explained, “Marxism or Communism has grown and matured all the way from Arianism through the logical development of revolution – a growth encompassing sixteen centuries of conflict. Communism is the logical development of the mistaken Christian policies and practices of the past. It is a synthesis of all heresies; a compendium of all the false theories of sociology; a denial of all basic, natural and moral laws; an exaltation of Satanism. Yet Communism’s rise to primacy (in a short span) has been too spectacular to be man-directed; while the decay of Christianity’s influence equally has been too tragic to be the results of mere human hatred or ingenuity. Satan is unleashed!”
Coughlin observed, “Despite this evolutionary and revolutionary political phenomenon emerging in Europe and America there is still hope the fervor, faith and fearlessness of many bishops and Catholics will counterbalance the Satanists.” While this hope remains strong today, Crisis Magazine of June 2007 nevertheless reported, “What would a post-Christian Europe replace Christianity with? To me, it seems clear: Europe would be a cultural battleground between a weak-kneed, postmodern faith of multiculturalism and socialism on one hand and a virile Islam on the other.”
In view of Islamic demographics and the unwitting acceptance of cultural Marxism’s “political correctness,” this analysis could be applied to the question, “What would a post-Christian Canada replace Christianity with?”
Born in Hamilton, Ontario, educated in St. Michael’s College in Toronto, Father Coughlin gives this dire warning: “Recognize that many of the philosophies and immoralities of the French and Russian revolutions have been firmly rooted in universities and seminaries; and generally accepted in part by a formidable segment of politicians. I refer not only to their economic theories of Socialism already factualized in America and planned for all Europe but, more particularly, to their beliefs and attitudes toward authority. In the case of Catholics this means eventually retaining or rejecting papal primacy and the entire concept of the supernatural life.”
FOR YOUR FREE EBOOK BY FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN GO NOW TO WWW.FATHERCOUGHLIN.COM
Doug McManaman, “The Need to Reclaim Catholic Social Teaching,” Catholic Insight Magazine, June 2007, p. 25.
Father Charles Coughlin, Twelve Timely Essays on Antichrist (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Charles E. Coughlin, 1972), p. 33.
McManaman, p. 25.
Coughlin, pp. 1-2.
Coughlin, p. 8.
Coughlin, p. 9.
Armstrong Williams, “Abandonment of Faith in Europe,” Crisis Magazine, June 2007, p. 34.
Coughlin, p. 9.
Stephen Volk | June 14, 2007 |
print this post |
email this post
In the Chelsea Journal article by Ivan Holinaty, “The Meaning of Alexander Solzhenitsyn,” one only has to replace Russia with America to receive its ominous warning for today. The article reads:
“While Russia’s (America’s) society is structured to prevent and restrict the action of the individual’s conscience, in the West this is (was) not so. There, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to act according to conscience are (were) all recognized rights. Yet, the West has failed to act. Why? In Solzhenitsyn’s view, it is lack of courage, conviction and strength:
“‘One psychological tendency of (American) man is always astonishing. When happy and carefree, he fears even the slightest shadow of trouble on the edges of his existence; he tries to ignore the sufferings of others (as well as those lying in store for him); he gives way in many matters, including those that are truly important and morally essential – all in order to prolong his happiness. Yet suddenly, when he finds himself in great extremity, miserable, naked, stripped of everything that enhances life, he summons up the firmness to carry on to the final step, giving up his life but not his principles.’
“The fault of the West (America) is that it has quietly, perhaps unknowingly, surrendered its conscience and its responsibility to the rest of humanity for the sake of its own material prosperity and desire to live life as happily as possible, with as little pain and suffering as possible.
“Just as he (Solzhenitsyn) sees the need for Russia (America) to find its conscience, to repent and then impose limits on its ambitions – Russia (America) must do this for herself; no one can impose it on her – Solzhenitsyn sees the same need for the West. The West (America) must acknowledge that for its own comfort, it has deserted others.”
Who has America deserted? Millions of unborn to the collagen industry! Hundreds if not thousands of Americans quietly euthanized behind the scenes! The younger generation taught the homosexual lifestyle in school! Pornographic pollution! Sins of omission in leadership areas! The tragic list goes on and on…
While there is yet time for Americans to repent – before being stripped of everything that enhances life – the hourglass sands are rapidly falling. America must find its conscience. As in 1987, when the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith addressed an invitation, “to those responsible for the formation of consciences,” it is now an urgent plea, before its final echo fades away through the Rocky Mountains of America….
Ivan Holinaty, “The Meaning of Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Good or Evil – You Cannot Build Your Life Apart From This Distinction,”
The Chelsea Journal, November/December 1977, pp. 292-296.
Holinaty, quoting “Solzhenitsyn: Message to the World,” New York Review of Books, October 4, 1973.
Alphonse de Valk, Gen. Ed., Vatican On High Tech Conception, May, 1987, p. 25.
Stephen Volk | May 28, 2007 |
print this post |
email this post
Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” 1 Guess what year this is from? “No observant person questions the need of a Christian Front in America – a Christian Front for Jew and Gentile – lest there be imposed upon all of us a Popular Marxian Front. No informed person denies that the day for tolerance towards the Communist Front has passed. In our days we have seen Christ scourged from our schools, His principles mocked in our courts, His enemies applauded in our labor unions, His counsels rejected in our industries and His enemies defended by our Government.” 2
In the same newspaper is the article, “Brave Bishop Calls For a Christian Front,” which includes, “Not only should Catholics speak out fearlessly and unceasingly against enemies of God and country, but they should heed the appeal of Pope Pius XI, and invite all others, similarly minded, to join with them in creating a United Christian Front against these enemies, and for the promotion of a Christian order of Society. Such is their evident duty as followers of Christ, and particularly as soldiers in the world-wide army of Christ, as members of His Mystical Body…” 3
William S. Lind, Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation, defines the Marxism we contend with today: “In his columns on the next conservatism, Paul Weyrich has several times referred to cultural Marxism. He asked me, as Free Congress Foundation’s resident historian, to write this column explaining what cultural Marxism is and where it came from. In order to understand what something is, you have to know its history.
“Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’
“Cultural Marxism began not in the 1960s but in 1919, immediately after World War I. Marxist theory had predicted that in the event of a big European war, the working class all over Europe would rise up to overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When it finally did happen in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What had gone wrong?
“Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, 'Who will save us from Western civilization?' That same year, when he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.
“In 1923, inspired in part by Lukacs, a group of German Marxists established a think tank at Frankfurt University in Germany called the Institute for Social Research. This institute, soon known simply as the Frankfurt School, would become the creator of cultural Marxism.
“To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important - - had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s 'superstructure,' but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.
“Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals.
“Fatefully for America, when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled - - and reestablished itself in New York City. There, it shifted its focus from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to destroying it in the United States. To do so, it invented “Critical Theory.” What is the theory? To criticize every traditional institution, starting with the family, brutally and unremittingly, in order to bring them down. It wrote a series of 'studies in prejudice,' which said that anyone who believes in traditional Western culture is prejudiced, a 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'fascist' - - and is also mentally ill.
“Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like 'normalize' homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood).
“After World War II ended, most members of the Frankfurt School went back to Germany. But Herbert Marcuse stayed in America. He took the highly abstract works of other Frankfurt School members and repackaged them in ways college students could read and understand. In his book 'Eros and Civilization,' he argued that by freeing sex from any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the reality principle and create a society with no work, only play (Marcuse coined the phrase, 'Make love, not war'). Marcuse also argued for what he called 'liberating tolerance,' which he defined as tolerance for all ideas coming from the Left and intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right. In the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief 'guru' of the New Left, and he injected the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now America’s state ideology.
“The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself.” 4
Let us conclude with our opening words, “No observant person questions the need of a Christian Front in America – a Christian Front for Jew and Gentile – lest there be imposed upon all of us a Popular Marxian Front. No informed person denies that the day for tolerance towards the Communist Front has passed. In our days we have seen Christ scourged from our schools, His principles mocked in our courts, His enemies applauded in our labor unions, His counsels rejected in our industries and His enemies defended by our Government.” Born in Hamilton, Ontario, Father Charles Coughlin is a role model for the strong leadership Canada needs today!
1. Ecclesiastes 1: 9-14.
2. Father Charles Coughlin, “I Take My Stand,” Social Justice Weekly, January 29, 1940, p. 15.
3. “Brave Bishop Calls For a Christian Front,” Social Justice Weekly, January 29, 1940, p. 4.
4. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9193.html
Stephen Volk | March 6, 2007 |
print this post |
email this post
In Battle…
Father Patrick Rohen, Chaplain (Captain) U.S. Army was interviewed on EWTN's Journey Home March 5, 2007. Strongly recommending the Wartime Prayer Book by Fulton Sheen now being reprinted and available at the ETWN catalog, Fr. Rohen added, "We soldiers cannot survive spiritually without our chaplains." A caller, Cindy, then asked, "What are the greatest spiritual struggles for our troops?" Fr. Rohen answered, "The importance of coming into contact with one's own suffering. It's very easy not to pray. Ours is a day-to-day battle in simply putting first things first."
A former soldier then called in to say he "prays for the U.S. Army chaplains all of the time." Soon, another caller asked when Fr. (Captain) Rohen first became a soldier, "I'd always been a soldier from the time I was young," revealed Fr. (Captain) Rohen. "Remember, we have the great Archangel Michael looking after us." These last thoughts were reminders many Americans are naturally born and are called to be and, indeed, are annointed as soldiers…
The EWTN interview brought to mind the classic Catholic work, A Fight For God, by H. Daniel Rops. Rops revealed, "The 'death of God', proclaimed by Nietzche, would be found without dispute in Karl Marx." Rops adds, "Scientism, the myth of progress and inevitable evolution were all assumed and extrapolated in Marxism. There the Luciferian optimism of Godless man reached its fulfillment." Today, while we show little concern for traditional Marxism, it is cultural Marxism in the form of “political correctness” needing to be strong addressed locally. While our soldiers are fighting overseas, should we just allow things to decay within the USA? If so, through sins of omission and things we fail to confront, American Catholics make a mockery of the daily sacrifices of soldiers…
Liberalism is any enemy “just taking over” in the USA. Who trusts Jesus Christ enough to address it? Liberalism is the fountain from which all heresies gush its venom. In the form of “political correctness,” Marxism and an infiltrative drive to atheistic world socialism, still is a grave threat to Christianity and to the Church. Look around your neighborhood, your city. While American soldiers are fighting and suffering overseas, is there any Catholic here who does not have at least the courage to conquer the local, ideological battles?
One book I highly recommend is Museum of Heretics available at Lulu.com. While the infiltrative programs of abortion, euthanasia, divorce and more recently samesex marriage have been on the systematic cultural-Marxist “politically correct” agenda – continuing to pervade the USA – such books as Museum of Heretics provides a strong sense of the domestic battles we daily need to be reminded of. I implore each one reading this to come to grips with this question: Are you a Catholic… or an ostrich with your head in Marxist mud? How would you answer this if Bishop Sheen were standing before you? Indeed, if Christ were standing before you? We all need to start being like General Patton who boldly shouted, “The whole world’s at war… and I’m not in it?”
Next Page »
