Right from the beginning I had severe reservations about the measures Australia was adopting to deal with the Corona virus. Most governments have adopted the same measures. As time passed, I became increasingly apprehensive about two aspects of the government’s actions.
First, Australia ran the risk of applying measures that would turn out to be much worse than the virus itself. The effects – social and economic collapse with the harm they would produce – would not be short but long term.
Second, it became obvious that the complete shutdown of society was a form of social and political control that could be exploited. There have been no objections from the left who let us know when things are not going their way. Indeed, such widespread control is the aim of all Marxist groups.
A group of high ranking Catholic clergy together with laypeople of similar rank have produced a video which verbalises my growing feelings about the present circumstances.
I recently came across a link on FB to an Andrew Bolt blog post of 27 May 2016. It was about former priest and now leftist scribbler Paul Bongiorno. Bolt was writing about a post by Gerard Henderson on his Media Watch Dog that connected Bongiorno with Fr Gerald Ridsdale now in jail for multiple sexual assaults on pubescent males. It is interesting to read the post in the aftermath of the High Court’s decision on Cardinal Pell.
First, Bolt refers to a string of damaging accusations against Cardinal Pell for acts he allegedly committed when a priest in Ballarat in the 1970s. On inspection the charges turned out to be groundless. It would not deter others from having a go at pinning something on Cardinal Pell. Twenty-seven charges came before a magistrate for a committal hearing in 2018. Twenty-six were dismissed on the spot. Would it be far off base to suggest the cardinal’s enemies were breaking the 9th Commandment?
More interesting was Bongiorno’s connection with Gerald Ridsdale, namely that Fr Bongiorno shared accommodation with Ridsdale in Warrnambool. Not only that. A witness at the royal commission into child sexual abuse said he reported a nasty incidence with Ridsdale to Fr Bongiorno that went nowhere. I ask the reader to read carefully what this witness claimed and then replace the name Bongiorno with Pell. This exercise would show that a witch hunt was got up against Cardinal Pell, a hunt that went deep into the royal commission.
Why is Bongiorno not vilified as was Pell? Why is Pell the scapegoat?
Gerard Henderson has uncovered an astonishing case of double standards involving George Pell and Paul Bongiorno. I urge you to read it all. In summary… Attending Cardinal George Pell’s appearance in Rome before the royal commission into child sexual abuse, I was struck by how thin the evidence was against him. None of the claims against him of ignoring warnings of pedophile priests stacked up. One witness claimed he’d knocked at the door of Pell’s Ballarat presbytery one early afternoon to warn him. It turned out Pell actually lived miles away, and almost invariably worked in his college office at that time of day. Another witness claimed he’d told him in Ballarat of an abusive priest. Pell’s passport showed he was living and studying in Europe that year. Yet another witness claimed he’d heard Pell laughing as he told another priest at a memorial mass in Ballarat that notorious pedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale was “rooting” boys again. Church records show no such mass took place, and the other priest said he was serving at another parish many miles away so would not have served at such a mass anyway. And on it went. Pell also denies hearing or suspecting any crimes by Ridsdale while living for a while in the same presbytery. That should not be surprising: pedophiles rarely boast of what they’ve done, and many are not just extremely secretive, but plausible. Yet many the media refused to accept Pell’s denials. On the other hand, they sure accepted those of Paul Bongiorno, the Left-wing ABC commentator and former priest, who eventually – last year – blurted this out on the ABC:
FRANCE’S MICHEL HOUELLEBECQ leads something of a double career. A novelist of Prix Goncourt–winning distinction, Houellebecq is also his country’s best-selling author abroad and, on many accounts, currently its best. He is also reliably a prophet of current events: his third novel, Platform, featured an Islamist attack on a Thai sex resort and was published just days before 9/11; a later novel, Submission, which imagined France’s election of a Muslim party president, appeared the day of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and seemed a novelistic auger of the gruesome wave of terrorism that roiled France during the next few years. Whatever, Houellebecq’s 1994 debut novel, turned out to be equally prescient, though it took more than two decades for its prophecies to take shape. A commentary on male sexual frustration, Whatever, as the author of a New York Times essay argued in 2018, is a psychological account of involuntary celibacy and the violence that erotic isolation breeds.
As the Synod of Bishops from the Amazon continues to make headlines, many are curious about the contents of its forthcoming report. According to Pope Francis, the synod’s goal is “to identify new paths for the evangelization of God’s people in that region,” with a particular emphasis on the region’s indigenous people, who are “often forgotten and without the prospect of a serene future.”
Unfortunately, given the working document that’s already been released, as well as the various participants involved, many expect these “new paths” to include the Roman Catholic Church’s ongoing flirtations with liberation theology. As Kishore Jayabalan recently wrote here on the blog, “The tendency to blame capitalism for the ills of the region, the animus against a hierarchical Church, and the hopes for a socialist utopia are alive and well in the synod preparations.”
After years of inaccurate and negative treatment of Tony Abbotts political career and image, both by the media and in assorted writings, a positive corrective is long overdue.
Many Australians accept as fact the crude
caricatures and inaccuracies regarding Abbott: that he is a
“wrecker”, a religious fanatic, a bully, anti-women, a far-right
Gerard Wilson’s latest book, Tony Abbott
and the Times of Revolution, will be welcomed by those who, despite all the
media misinformation, continue to admire the former prime minister and parliamentarian
as a thoroughly decent individual as well as a fearless, forthright champion of
mainstream conservative values and the positive role of Western civilisation.
Wilson’s book comprises four sections: Abbotts school years and the 1960s cultural revolution; student radicalism at Sydney University 1973-75, the prelude to Abbott’s arrival on campus; Abbott’s pushback against the far-left monopoly of student politics, 1976-80; and the media and Abbott.
‘The Catholics of the world are on to you and we stand with these new Maccabees [who threw the Pachamama idols into the Tiber] and we say to you Holy Father at this darkest moment in the history of our Church, we say to you: for God’s sake pack up your pagan goodies and you and your globalist pals get the literal hell out of our Church because we’ve had enough. Our Lady of Para Cieta, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us. Viva Cristo Rey!’
I am in full support of Michael Matt and his declaration. There can be no doubt that Bergoglio and his treacherous fellow prelates are in the process of forcing a pantheistic immanentist pagan religion on the Catholic faithful. The Vatican had admitted that Pachamama, the deity at the centre of the pagan ritual in the Vatican gardens, is ‘Mother Earth’.
It is a immanentist ‘Goddess’ religion’ opposed to the transcendent religion of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
By this act of acknowledging the immanentist pantheistic religion, Bergoglio and his prelates have automatically excommunicated themselves. That’s Catholic teaching.
VATICAN (ChurchMilitant.com) – Synod fathers are proposing the creation of an “Amazonian Rite” that will allow the ordination of women to the diaconate and married men to the priesthood.
On Friday, the Vatican published summaries of the synod fathers’ small circle working groups, with cardinals grouped according to language. The majority of working groups did not mention an Amazonian rite, female ordination or married priests, but a vocal minority, involving Italian Groups A and B, Portuguese Groups A and B and Spanish Groups C and D, promoted some or all of these ideas.
Italian Group A, moderated by Bp. Flavio Giovenale, proposed ordaining women as acolytes: “We propose that the ministry of lector and acolyte also be conferred to women, religious or lay, adequately trained and prepared.”
Portuguese Group A stressed that new paths for ordained ministries are “necessary and urgent” and the ordination of women would give “a feminine and maternal face to the Church.”
Italian Group B stressed that the new rite should be allowed to develop its own spirituality, theology, liturgy and discipline based on the “singular richness of the Catholic Church in the Amazonia.”
“These liberation theologians are promoting the idea that the Indians who still live in a primitive way are very happy, living in paradise,” said Macuxi tribal chief Jonas Marcolino Macuxí, referring to bishops at the pan-Amazon synod. “But that’s not true.”
He’s right. The myth of the noble savage is alive and well at the synod, as the assembly of bishops discuss how best to evangelize the indigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest, as well as “let ourselves be evangelized by them,” in the words of Pope Francis. The Pope wants the Catholic Church to listen to and learn from those peoples who live in “harmony with oneself, with nature, with human beings and with the supreme being,” as quoted in the synod’s working document.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau would be proud. That leading light of the French Enlightenment imagined people living in a state of nature untouched by Western civilization to be ensconced in an idyllic world of peace and kindness. “Nothing could be more gentle than man in his primitive state,” he proclaimed.
Compare Rousseau’s view to that of his intellectual arch-rival Thomas Hobbes, who held that life in a state of nature involved endless war and “continual fear of danger and violent death,” famously writing of primeval man’s existence being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”