It's official. The Catholic Knight is retired.  I'm hanging up the helmet and passing the torch. There will be no more articles, no more commentaries, no more calls to action. THIS BLOG IS CLOSED. I've spent a very long time thinking about this, I believe the time has come, and is a bit overdue.  I want to thank my readers for everything, but most especially for your encouragement and your willingness to go out there and fight the good fight. So, that being the case, I've spend the last several weeks looking for bloggers who are fairly active, and best represent something akin to the way I think and what I believe.  I recommend the following blogs for my readers to bookmark and check on regularly. Pick one as your favourite, or pick them all. They are all great..... In His Majesty's Service, THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Obamacare Prompts Missouri To Declare Legal War On Federal Government

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  The measure was quietly introduced to the Missouri State Legislature earlier this year, but now that Obamacare has been rubber stamped by the Supreme Court, it could see a surge of support in coming weeks.  Missouri is now weighing a state constitutional amendment that would would effectively declare a legal war on the United States Federal Government.

It's called "Nullification" and what that basically means is the states (not the federal courts) are the final arbitrators on all federal laws. It's a very Jeffersonian idea that goes back to the Anti-Federalist arguments during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. America's founding fathers envisioned the United States as a compact of independent and sovereign states (countries) that each agree to loan some of their powers to a centralised federal government. These powers are on loan, which means they are not absolute, and so when the federal government abuses these powers, the states can simply refuse to enforce whatever abusive laws they pass. It's not secession, like what happened in 1860, but it is one step short of that. SJR 45 would effectively keep Missouri within the Union of the United States of America, but would simultaneously create a stalemate between the federal government and the Missouri state government. In other words, the only way the federal government would be able to enforce federal laws that Missouri opposes would be to send in federal troops and do it themselves! Such a proposition would be highly embarrassing to Washington DC in the international press. The text of SJR 45 currently reads as follows...
SJR 45 - Upon approval by the voters, this constitutional amendment prohibits the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.

The state also shall not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of any federal actions that: restrict the right to bear arms; legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage; require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions; involve certain health care issues; mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions; increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator's thoughts or designate a crime as a hate crime; interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state; or restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.

The state is also required to interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution shall be interpreted based on their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment.

The amendment also declares that Missouri citizens have standing to enforce the provisions of the amendment and that enforcement of the amendment applies to federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters, federal actions specified in the amendment, and any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the general assembly or the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
The potential amendment reflects the level of frustration that American citizens (especially in the South and Midwest) have felt toward the federal government in recent decades. Regardless of its success or failure in the legislature, the very notion that such a resolution could successfully be introduced to the legislature in the first place is a symptom of just how badly the situation has deteriorated between the American people and their federal government in Washington DC.

Other states across the Union are considering similar legislation and constitutional amendments. Increasingly, the people of the United States are turning to their state governments to save them from the encroaching tyranny of the federal government on virtually all legal fronts. It would appear Washington DC has grown too big and too powerful for a a sizeable portion of the U.S. population. The backlash has begun and there is no end in sight.

Missouri supporters of SJR 45 should contact their Missouri state representative and senator to encourage further support of this resolution. Your Missouri representatives can be found HERE.

Obamacare Surpreme Court Ruling Has Positioned States To Take On Federal Government

The Supreme Court of the United States
(IJReveiew.Com) - Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  A deeper analysis of the Supreme Court ruling, particularly focused on Chief Justice John Roberts, reveals a deeper meaning that was not previously reported on Thursday.  It would appear that Chief Justice Robert's careful wording of the ruling that saved Obama's healthcare law, reveals that the court has effectively taken the teeth out of it.  On the one hand, the court has decisively ruled that the people cannot be made to pay a "penalty" for refusing to buy medical insurance.  They can be taxed, but they cannot be forced by a penalty.  Now this seems like semantics at first, and as far as the individual taxpayer goes, it is semantics, but in a legal sense, this is very important.  It means the federal government cannot force you to buy a product.  It can tax the hell out of you (we already knew that) but it cannot force you to buy something you don't want.  Now I realise that on an individual level that is empty consolation.  However, it's not the individual level that is remarkable about this ruling.

What is remarkable is how this ruling effects the states.  The penalty for states not complying with Obamacare has effectively been wiped out as unconstitutional.  So what does this mean?  It means states need not comply with Obamacare.  They can simply opt out!  Now that doesn't mean that such an opting out will go smoothly.  In fact, I'm sure the federal government will do everything within its power to fight it, but the states have effectively been given the upper hand with this ruling.  They can now tell Obamacare where to go, without having to worry about any penalties.  Currently, there are over a dozen states that have already pledged to do this.  This is nothing short of empowering those states to utilise their power of nullification.

At this juncture, as bad as this ruling is, I can't think of anything more redeeming.  Namely because it opens the door for the states to finish some unsettled business left over from the Civil War.  During the War for Southern Independence, the Dixie-American War, the states were left with the cruel reality that their will no longer matters.  While that paradigm still exists to a large degree, there is now a crack, an opening in the wall.  States can effectively nullify a federal law, and in this case, the federal government can do nothing to stop them.  It means the battle cry against Obamacare has just turned into a states-rights cry, and it is defined 100% as states-rights.  It is now a pure battle between the states and the federal government, that is fit to play out in the years ahead.  Granted, the federal government will do everything within its power to crush state resistance against Obamacare, but now it will all be out in the open for what it truly is -- a continuation of the Civil War and Reconstruction.  Now is the time for all of us to rally behind states-rights, especially if you live in any of the Southern states.  I encourage all of my readers now to join and/or support THE LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Only One Solution to Obamacare

The Supreme Court of the United States Ruled Today that the
Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) is Constitutional.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Okay everyone I know Obamacare was upheld today, and quite frankly, I expected it to be. Now for all this talk about the "constitutionality" of it, and the so-called "betrayal" of Justice Roberts, allow me to remind my readers of a few things...
  1. The United States are the last of all the English-speaking countries to not have some form of socialised medicine. Under Obamacare, it remains that way, at least for the short-term.
  2. This is a very old debate. After World War II, European nations went over to socialised medicine, and at the same time the United States government had planned to do the same. Considering that MOST Americans did not have medical coverage at that time, this would have been supported by MOST of the American people at that time. Remember, we are talking about the generation that elected Franklin Roosevelt four times and largely approved of the New Deal. The US congress of that time reluctantly agreed to not enact socialised medicine in the United States only after large corporations begged them not to and promised to cover all their employees with affordable medical insurance. Over the decades, many of these corporations have failed to live up to that promise. So that is why the federal government nearly passed Hillarycare back in the early 1990s and finally passed Obamacare two years ago. This is more than a one-sided story. This is a fascist power struggle between the federal government and the corporate elites in this Union.
  3. Obamacare is the result of the federal government assuming imperial powers. This is why the Chief Justice (love him or hate him) ruled the way he did. It's the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to discuss. For all this talk about the Constitution, separation of powers, original intent, etc.; the one thing that nobody wants to discuss, but happens to be the singular most relevant issue, is the fact that the United States are no longer a federation of independent states and haven't been for some 150 years! The United States are united only by the threat of force, and must comply with a centralised imperial regime. This has been the case since 1865, and will remain the case until the federal government finally implodes under its own weight. Everything the congress, president and supreme court has done up to this point on Obamacare is perfectly consistent with this paradigm. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is folks.
So, what is to be done about this? Well, for starters you should know that Obamacare was primarily modelled after Massachusetts Romneycare.  That's right, the man who is telling you to elect him to get rid of Obamacare is none other than the man who unwittingly helped craft it.  So you can fall for that line of manurer I heard Romney spew this morning, and blindly believe that electing him is somehow going to overturn this mess, or you can deal with reality.

The reality is that regardless of the future success or failure of Obamacare, and regardless of who wins the election this November, nothing but rhetoric is really going to change in regards to the healthcare debate.  Even if Romney wins, he can do nothing without a clear Republican majority in both houses of the Congress, and even if he gets that (which he won't), then based on Romney's record alone, it is more plausible to believe he will simply tweak Obamacare rather than repeal it entirely.  You see, the new reality is that the entire debate on healthcare in this Union has just changed.  Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling today, no longer will federal politicians (especially Romney) dare to even suggest that healthcare is not a right. Nor will they dare to suggest that their "alternatives" to Obamacare will result in less people being covered by healthcare insurance. No, from now on (and forevermore) the debate in this Union will be about how to get more Americans covered and how much of this role shall be carried out by the federal government verses the states. Liberals will argue for a larger federal role of course, while the conservatives will argue for the states, but everyone (and I do mean every mainstream politician) will henceforth argue for more government control. They will just disagree on which government gets more (the fed or the state).  Any talk of "turning things over to the private sector," or "getting people into medial savings accounts," is just political fodder for the Neocons.  Republicans have no intention of going this route anymore.  They're just fishing for more votes.

So with this new reality in place, what are we to do? Well, if you like Obamacare, or want to replace it with something a little different, but very similar, just do what you've always been doing. Vote Democrat or Republican and you'll get what you want. However, if you don't like Obamacare, and want no part of it in any form, then on a personal level, there is nothing you can do other than get on board with one of the private Healthshare cooperatives (such as Catholic Solidarity or Evangelical Medishare) which are exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate.  Beyond that the only thing to do is to elect strong state politicians who are not afraid to secede from the Union and start a new independent country. Keep in mind however, that even if successful in such an uphill battle, that new country would likely have to deal with the same type of healthcare debate anyway. Though it is possible that its solution might be entirely different. I personally recommend the Distributist model of healthcare guilds and cooperative ownership.

One thing is for sure and guaranteed. So long as the United States remain in an imperial union under Washington DC, we will continue to get imperial solutions to the problems that face us. There is only one way out of this, and until the American people are willing to take up again the spirit of 1776 and 1860, seeking independence from this imperial Union, we will continue to have to deal with the mentality associated with all empires. One size fits all!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Heresy of Protestantism

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  As a former Protestant myself, many of my readers know that I often treat our Protestant brethren in Christ with kid gloves.  I try not to come down too hard on them, because after all, I too was one.  So in dealing with Protestants I must always remind myself, there by the grace of God go I.

I want to make something perfectly clear before I delve into this topic, because it's a topic that is going to keep coming up for the next five to eight years as we approach the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I am NOT attacking the faith of Protestants.  I know the faith of Protestants.  I know their zeal.  I know how much they love our Lord Jesus Christ, and so I am not in any way attacking their personal faith, fidelity or sincerity.  I do not doubt these things at all.  In fact, if I did doubt them, I wouldn't even be writing this article, because I wouldn't consider it worth my time.  It is precisely BECAUSE of Protestant faith, zeal and sincerity, that I write this article and others like it.  It is because I know they love Jesus Christ, and because I know they love him, I believe there is a chance they will listen to reason.

Now before I go on, let's pause for a word from Michael Voris, who has so succinctly laid out the foundation of this article for me in two Vortex videos...

NOTICE: is now in case you didn't know.

What Michael has set up for us here is the underlying foundation of what is wrong with Protestantism in general. To be clear, I'm not talking about Protestants the people. I'm talking about Protestantism the religious system. I want to make this crystal clear so everybody reading this understands. Protestants who still practice their faith are good people. They are Christians, and yes, they are our brethren, whether they accept that or not. In many cases, those Protestants who still practice often put us Catholics to shame. They often display more love, more compassion, more charity in general, as well as more zeal, more devotion (especially to Sacred Scripture) and in many cases more courage than we Catholics. Remember that next time you meet one. For this many Protestants should be admired, especially since their exemplary Christian lives are based on an understanding of the truth that is much more limited than the Catholic understanding, and they are missing many of the key truths that we Catholics not only have, but often take for granted. Yes, in many cases, they do put us to shame.

Having said that, there is a problem with the Protestant religious system that has been slowly playing out over the last 500 years, and most rapidly during the last 80 years. The problem with Protestantism is at the root of what it's all really about.

You see, there is basically only one thing that separates Catholics from Protestants, and from this one thing, every other issue that separates us can find its origin. That one thing is the doctrine uttered by Martin Luther in 1520 -- Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is Latin for "Scripture Alone," and what that means has been interpreted a little differently by different Protestants throughout the ages. After all is said and done though, the final definition is what many Protestants today think it means. That is simply this. If a Christian teaching cannot be found written plainly in the black and white pages of the Bible, then it need not be believed or accepted by Christians. Furthermore, Christians themselves have the authority to interpret the Scriptures for themselves without need of any authority outside of Scripture. Now some Protestants take this principle more seriously than others. Some take it more literally than others, but at the end of the day, all of them embrace this principle in some form. Therein lies the problem.

Now I could waste a lot of space here disproving the principle doctrine of Protestantism -- Sola Scriptura -- but alas I've done it before, and many others have done it too.  So it will just have to suffice to say that Sola Scriptura is both un-Biblical and illogical.  The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible, therefore based on its own premise, it disproves itself.  Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture (1st Corinthians 11:2; 2nd Thessalonians 2:25; 2nd Thessalonians 3:6; John 21:25).  The Scriptures plainly condemn personal and private interpretation of the Bible apart from the established Tradition of the Church (2nd Peter 1:20; 2nd Peter 3:15-16).  Finally, it is the Bible itself that calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1st Timothy 3:15).  This should be enough for any level-headed Protestant, not emotionally attached to Martin Luther or his teachings, to see that something is wrong with Sola Scriptura.  However, it is rare to find such a Protestant, for most will become highly defensive before getting this far into this article.  We have to remember that Protestantism is also at its core a very emotional religion.  It is founded on the highly emotional and prideful state of "who are you to tell me what to believe!" and "no man but Christ Himself has spiritual authority over me!"  This is the emotional state it takes to embrace Sola Scriptura.  In the end, Protestantism is a highly individualist religion, and it is this very thing that gave it birth, that will ultimately be it's end.  For I do not believe Protestantism will survive the 21st century.

Not survive the 21st century!?!  How could Protestantism be dead within 88 years?  Yes, that is what I am saying.  Within 88 years, by January 1st, 2100, there will be nothing left of the Protestantism we know today.  It will essentially be extinct.  What will have killed it?  The answer is simple -- moral relativism.  You see, in a religion where there is no real authority other than an inanimate object (a book) that can no more interpret itself than it can read itself, the final authority on any religious matter is none other than the individual practitioner himself.  In previous centuries, Protestants primarily fought over doctrinal issues, related to such things as: salvation, predestination, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.  But as Michael Voris pointed out in the second video above, something happened in 1930 that shaped the rapid decline of Protestantism, and in my opinion, ultimately sealed its fate.  That something was artificial birth control.  In 1930, the Anglican Communion led the way toward accepting what had previously been condemned by all Protestant denominations as a moral evil -- contraception.  Within just 30 years, every single Protestant denomination had followed suit, and artificial birth control became accepted within the Protestant world. 

On a personal note; my own Evangelical tradition in Calvary Chapel had a very profound teaching on this.  My wife and I, as Calvary Chapel Evangelicals, were actually taught that God WANTED us to use contraception in our marriage.  We were taught that God wanted us to be "good stewards" of our finances, and that meant that we had to limit our family to what we could afford.  We were told to "act our wage" and not have more babies than we knew we could financially care for.  Thus we were encouraged to use whatever form of contraception was available to us, and failure to do this would be a sin.  Now I'm not saying that every Calvary Chapel teaches this, because not every Calvary Chapel is the same.  I am however saying that my wife and I were taught this, and so were hundreds of other couples (if not thousands) at the Calvary Chapel we attended.  This had a profound effect on our marriage, and resulted in us delaying a family for ten years.  It was only after we became Catholic that we finally began to appreciate the value of children in a marriage.  We are still trying to overcome the heretical poison of this teaching that was implanted into our minds by Calvary Chapel Evangelicalism.  (Your prayers would be appreciated on this.)

Even the most conservative Protestant denominations (the Evangelical Fundamentalists) have fully embraced artificial contraception, and this is the beginning of their downward spiral toward oblivion.  Remember, Christianity existed for 1,500 years before Protestantism, and Christianity will do just fine after it's gone.  Evangelical youth are already beginning to see the hypocrisy of the Sola Scriptura argument, which is why a growing number of them are beginning to rationalise the acceptance of pre-marital sex (fornication) and homosexuality (sodomy).  Of all the Protestant movements throughout history, Evangelicalism seems to have enjoyed the fastest rise and the highest success.  I predict this will be complemented by the fastest fall and the hardest failure in the not-too-distant future.  By the time it is complete, Evangelicals will be left with nothing but bad sermons and drums in the sanctuary.  They will be crying out for something with more substance.  Few, if any, will turn back to mainline Protestantism.  Some will return to Catholicism.  Most will give up on religion entirely, or else embrace some other form of spirituality, such as the Occult, Buddhism or Islam.  Before Protestantism fades away however, there will be one final gasp that will shock the world.

What is the last gasp of Protestantism?  Well, it's a form of Evangelicalism that has enjoyed wide popularity in recent years.  It is called the Messianic Jewish Movement, or just Messianic Judaism.  What is this?  It is nothing short of Protestantism's dying gasp.  You see, modern Evangelicalism is the pinnacle of the Protestant religion.  It is the final stripping away of all Catholic traditions and customs.  In fact, Evangelical Protestants have a near phobia about traditions, which they view to be "dangerous and mindless rituals" that have no redeeming quality.  Simply pull out a rosary and show it to any Evangelical and watch their response to it.  To them, it represents everything that is wrong in the world.  However, in this phobia against tradition, they do in turn make their own traditions, which they keep quite ritualistically.  They pray a certain way.  They worship a certain way.  Sometimes worship services follow a very set and defined order, which can only be described as ritualistic.  Nevertheless, you'll be fortunate of you ever get one of them to see it for what it is.  However, there is a growing number of younger Evangelicals who recognise the emptiness of a tradition phobia.  They know there is more to Christianity than just a praise and worship band with drums and a base guitar.  They recognise that something went wrong with the Reformation, and perhaps the proverbial "baby was thrown out with the bath water."  Maybe there is something to say for tradition, identity and custom.  So in keeping with the Protestant code of rejecting all things Catholic, they have instead turned to modern Judaism for the answer.  They have embraced modern Jewish culture, rituals, prayers and dress and commandeered them for themselves.  They have created a new form of Protestantism, the last and final form, before it fades way from the earth.  They don't even call it Protestantism, nor to they even call it Christianity.  It is Messianic Judaism!  Simply take all of the culture and traditions of modern Rabbinical Judaism, and artificially insert an Evangelical Protestant theology, and poof!  You have a whole new religion!  In the coming weeks I hope to give you some examples of this, and demonstrate just how popular it is becoming.  It is in every sense the final conclusion of Protestantism, and it is ultimately the last gasp of Protestantism before it goes the way of the dinosaur.

In the end, Protestantism is madness.  It's a relatively new religious phenomenon, only 500 years old, and it will eventually go extinct, just as many other heretical movements before it.  The only hope for any Christian involved in Protestantism is to turn to the traditions of ancient Christianity, and there he will find the Catholic Church faithfully keeping them throughout the centuries, right up until the modern time.  As Michael Voris pointed out in his videos above, there must be sanity.  Christians need an authority outside of Scripture to teach us what the Scriptures mean, and Jesus Christ set up that authority for us in the Catholic Church.  Either we accept it, or we reject it, but we will find no stability in our Christian lives until it is fully embraced. 

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Islamic Caliphate Coming Soon - Thanks To USA

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Thanks to American sponsoring of uprisings (as in Egypt), training and arming rebels (as in Libya and Syria), and coordinating bombing campaigns as well as invasions (as in Libya and Iraq), the dream of a radical Islamic caliphate may soon come to pass.

Remember how in previous entries, I told you how the United States is working to organise the world into economic trading blocks? This is the mechanism of the New World Order, which is really just Yankee Imperialism by another name. The orchestrated uprising against Middle Eastern powers began as covert CIA operations under the G.W. Bush administration. After years of hard work, they are now reaching their fruition under the Obama administration. The goal is to create a "United Arab States" or "Arabian Union" comparable to the United States of America and the European Union. Of course, while America had hoped to create a democracy, we all know this is to be replaced with a theocracy called a "caliphate" which will behave more like an empire than a confederacy.

The United States federal governments cares nothing about the Christians in the Middle East who will soon suffer under this new regime in Egypt, just as they already suffer in Iraq, and are beginning to suffer in Syria. Washington DC continues its plan to dominate the world through the United Nations, and the lives of Christians in the Middle East are but a small price to pay. Besides, most American Evangelicals aren't even aware of their existence.

UPDATE 6-26-2012...

It appears the UK, and possibly other western powers of the New World Order (NWO), in addition to the USA is now actively involved in Syria.  (read more here)  As a result of this, President Assad has declared an all-out war, which is a marked change in his rhetoric.  This indicates the situation in Syria has deteriorated out of control.  U.S. backed rebels (radical Islamist jihadists) have now made their way into the capitol and fighting has apparently broken out in the streets.  The recent news of involvement from the UK and other NWO powers indicates that phase two of an Assad regime-change has gone into effect.  In another interesting development, Russia has now pledged to back the Assad regime.  If Russian President Vladimir Putin makes good on this pledge, we are looking at a full scale proxy war between Russia and the NWO.  Should Syria fall to NWO forces, the radical Islamist jihadists will turn Syria into a mirror image of Egypt and Libya.  Completing a semi-circle of radical Islamic nations from North Africa to Turkey (which is slowly becoming radical).  The only nations that will stand in the way will be Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Iran.  King Abdullah II of Jordan will likely turn to radicalism quickly in the face of such a situation, or else face the threat of "regime-change" himself.  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, already friendly with the NWO, has just pledged support to the radical Syrian rebels.  Lebanon will quickly fall shortly after Syria does.  So all that really stands in the way of the NWO is Israel and Iran.  We know the NWO's plans for Iran.  The only question then is what role does Israel play in the NWO?  And will it be allowed to continue to exist?  It would appear the NWO has promised the Sunni Arabs a Caliphate.  I cannot imagine a Caliphate and Zionists living together peacefully.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Pope Sends Hint To U.S. Government About Syria

Pope Benedict XVI
(Vatican Insider) - “May our prayer, our commitment and our active brotherhood in Christ, - the Pope said - as an oil of consolation, help them not to lose sight of the light of hope in this moment of darkness, and obtain from God wisdom of heart for all in positions of responsibility so that bloodshed and violence, that only bring pain and death, may cease and give way to reconciliation, harmony and peace.”

Benedict XVI then addressed the international community: “Every effort should be made, including by the international community, to bring Syria out of the present situation of violence and crisis, which has already lasted a long time and risks becoming a wider conflict that would have highly negative consequences for the country and the whole region...

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Hint... Hint... This is a great big hint, and it's aimed directly toward Washington DC. It's impossible to believe that the pope is unaware of American involvement in supporting, arming and training the Islamist rebels in Syria (read more here) who are entirely responsible for this bloodshed against Syrian Christians.

Vatican Prepares to Oust LCWR

Many Liberal Sisters Gave Up Their Habits Long Ago
( – If they are not prepared to assert a more distinctly Catholic identity, the Vatican is prepared to oust the largest umbrella group of American nuns and sisters as the official representative and liaison with Rome, one of the pope’s closest advisors said in a rare interview.

If the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) refuses absolutely to cooperate with the Vatican’s attempt at reform, said William Levada, the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, they will force Rome to reconsider their position in the Church...

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: While nothing is in the works just yet, the head of the CDF is making it crystal clear that the option is on the table. The message is "shape up or ship out!" It's been a very long time coming....

Enough Said.

Friday, June 22, 2012

ACTION ALERT - Missouri Christians

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I received word from a friend this afternoon that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has still not signed SB 749. For those of you not familiar, this legislation was passed by both houses of the Missouri legislature, and if signed into law by Governor Nixon, it would effectively nullify Obama's HHS mandate in the State of Missouri.

Obama's HHS mandate is a presidential diktat (executive order) that will require all religious institutions and employers to pay for contraception, sterilisation, and chemical abortions. SB 749 will nullify this in the state of Missouri, effectively insuring religious freedom for the people of the state.  This bill represents literally EVERYTHING the U.S. Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and other religious institutions have been calling for.  If Missouri does this, other states will soon follow. If the governor fails to sign it, or vetoes it, other states will be more reluctant to follow suit with similar legislation. This really is a bellwether test for all of the states in the union.

The Catholic Knight is calling upon all Missouri Christians (of all types) to contact the Governor's office and tell him to SIGN SB 749 immediately! If you are not a Missourian, and you know somebody who is, please forward this information to them as quickly as possible.

This is serious! Please act immediately!!!

Governor Jay Nixon's office may be reached at...

Telephone: (573) 751-3222


Thursday, June 21, 2012

U.S. Catholic Church Takes On Obama Administration

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  So it begins...

The United States Catholic Church is taking on the most powerful man in the world -- President Barack Hussein Obama. Nobody can say this was a fight the Church asked for, because if anything, the U.S. Catholic bishops did too much to help get Obamacare passed in the first place. Obama had in the bishops a powerful ally, which he stabbed in the back with his HHS mandate, and now he has made of them a powerful enemy. The U.S. Catholic Church is not powerful because of its numbers or influence. It is powerful because of Who we call upon to fight for us. It is none other than the Creator of the Universe Himself. Many world leaders have made their careers shipwrecked on this Rock of St. Peter, and there is no reason to believe that this one will be any different. If God should will to have mercy upon us, forgive us our sins, and return to our aid, there is nothing Obama or his minions can do. His reign of terror will soon come to an end.

Now we can debate whether or not the bishops' deserve this. (I personally think they do.) They did after all make a deal with the devil over Obamacare. They forgot their first calling, which is to sanctify men and bring their souls to salvation. They instead embraced the banner of "social justice" which wouldn't be a problem in itself, except that they also rejected its core teaching -- which is SUBSIDIARITY -- without which there can be no social justice. It is a lesson they are painfully learning first hand, as they themselves become the first victims of the Obamacare juggernaut. (I believe this is fitting and poetic.) That however, doesn't mean that we the faithful should ever turn our backs on them and let them fall. On the contrary, they got themselves into this mess, but we have a God who can get them out. We can only hope and pray they will have learned their lesson in the process. What is that lesson? It is simply this. Whenever the topic of Social Justice is raised -- SUBSIDIARITY ALWAYS COMES FIRST !!!!   Had the bishops followed this model, they wouldn't be in this mess today.

So let's get involved people, and let us learn, pray and demonstrate. Let us stand by our flawed bishops and fight with them. Through it all however, let us first and foremost, call upon God to deliver us from this evil, and let our leaders never again be led into similar temptation. RISE UP O' LORD !!!


Monday, June 18, 2012

Euro-Egypt Elections = Worst Possible Results

Europe's Islamic Future Is Nearly Sealed
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Around the entire Mediterranean, the elections produced the worst possible result. France has gone totally Socialist – again – but that should be no surprise. Then of course the election results in Greece breathed new life into the Eurozone, at least temporarily, at the price of Greek sovereignty. Finally, we have the latest election results in Egypt which put the Muslim Brotherhood firmly in charge of the nation, again no surprise there, but the whole thing is a recipe for an epic catastrophe in the future. Just about everything that could go wrong has, and now we have the upcoming U.S. elections in November. Weeee!

It seems the only people in the world who have any pride in their cultural identity and national sovereignty these days are the Arab Muslims. So long as Europeans and Americans (particularly Southerners or “Dixians”) continue to ignore their cultural heritage and sacrifice their national sovereignty, things will only continue to get worse. There must be a cultural renewal. There must be the resurgence of nationalism (particularly in Dixie) or else we are finished. What will it take to wake people up?

We can point to the increasing dominance of the New World Order, which is simply a front for Secularised Yankee imperialism, governed by the financial cartels in New York. As the New World Order expands, it becomes less American (New England American that is) and more global in nature. It's defining characteristic is Secularism, which seeks to erase all traces of religion from public life, thus creating a sterile society which cannot stand on its own. We have seen the results of this most dramatically in Europe, where Christian religion is practically extinct, even it if still exists for tourists in art, history and museums. Europe is spiritually dead, and it has been for some time. Initially this resulted in the rise of occultism among European youth searching for meaning in life, but that quickly gave way to the organised encroachment of Islam. In addition to Muslim immigrants coming into Europe from the third world, and rapidly reproducing at a rate much faster than native Europeans, there is a growing number of white converts to Islam as well on the Eurozone continent. This is what happens when you deprive youth of their Christian heritage and raise them in a non-religious environment. First they experiment in the occult, then they turn to the most aggressive organised religion available. In this case it is Islam. Europeans are now midway between exchanging their Christian heritage for a Muslim future.

What of the United States and Canada? The story is pretty much the same, though thankfully, it is occurring at a much slower pace. Culturally speaking; Canada only trails Europe by about a decade, and the United States trails Europe by about two to two-and-a-half decades. However, the trend is similar. There are already Islamic "colonies" being erected in various Canadian cities, as well as Northern U.S. cities such as Dearborn Michigan for example. While the North American continent has not yet seen widespread white conversion to Islam, it has already experienced a fairly large black conversion to "Islam" during the 1960s and 70s. White Americans are still in the experimental occult stage, as we've seen evidenced by the overwhelming popularity of the Harry Potter franchise and "teenage witch" books and television shows. The rising popularity of vampire and werewolf tales is another sign of this. American youth have been deprived of their Christian religious heritage for too long, and they are now turning to the occult, just as their European counterparts did a few decades ago. Unorganised pagan religions always fail. History has demonstrated this time and time again. The best organisation Paganism has ever produced was under the Roman Empire, and of course history again tells us what a miserable failure that was. No, the occult and folk religions always give way to the eastern organised religions -- guaranteed -- and of the two eastern organised religions to choose from there is only Christianity or Islam. Rejection of one's Christian heritage can only mean one thing to a young person -- all there is left is Islam. I know Americans will have a hard time believing that such a thing could ever happen in America, but I tell you it is already happening, just on a small scale. That scale will grow in the years ahead.

There is only one way out of this. There is only one way to turn back the clock. There is only one way to regain what was lost, and yet it is the one thing so many people seems so unwilling to do. What is it? Go back to church!  However, you had better find a good Traditionalist one.

The problem here is that liberal Modernism has infected most American churches, as well as Canadian, and this is a cancer that destroys the Christian faith.  Among the Protestants, Modernism has fractured their denominations even more than previous centuries, as Traditionalist splinter groups spin off the mainline denominations.  Within the Catholic Church there is a war going on, between Modernists and Traditionalists, for the future of Catholicism.  The Traditionalists are currently the smaller group, but they are also the younger, as the Modernist wing of Catholicism grows old and grey.  Yet, in the face of what is happening in our culture, I would have to say the debate is over.  Traditionalism is the only course left, or else face eventual extinction.  Modernism just leads to Secularism, and Secularism leads to nowhere.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

U.S. Backed Syrian Rebels Killing Christians

(LRC) - Christians are being systematically targeted for genocide in Syria according to Vatican and other sources with contacts on the ground among the besieged Christian community. According to reports by the Vatican's Fides News Agency collected by the Centre for the Study of Interventionism, the US-backed Free Syrian Army rebels and ever more radical spin-off factions are sacking Christian churches, shooting Christians dead in the street, broadcasting ultimatums that all Christians must be cleansed from the rebel-held villages, and even shooting priests....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: That's right, you read the headline and story correctly.  The United States federal government, seated in Washington D.C., is backing Syrian rebels who are systematically executing (murdering) Christians in the streets, in their homes, and in their churches.  They are killing priests and nuns, women and children, and all funded with American tax dollars.  That's right America, the money we paid Uncle Sam last April is blood money.  A portion of it is being used to help radical Muslims kill Christians.  How does that make you feel?

What have we heard from the mainstream news media in the United States on this issue?  Silence!  Nothing!  Their lips are sealed!!!  Allow the Knight to bring you up to speed if you haven't been reading lately.  The United States federal government is working with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why?  Well, here it is in a nutshell.  Large international corporations (particularly energy firms) want to get their hands on Middle Eastern oil.  Now to make a long story short, Muslim nations that work with these corporations are lavishly rewarded with more money than they know what to do with.  Think Saudi Arabia for example, or Kuwait, or the U.A.E.  Nations that refuse to cooperate go on these corporation's black list, and once they are on the corporate black list, it isn't long before they end up on Uncle Sam's black list.  Think Iraq for example, Libya, Syria and Iran.  Now here is how Uncle Sam works.  First, he sends in the C.I.A. to covertly train and arm rebels to attempt "regime change" through a coup or civil war.  Second, should that fail to work, he turns to N.A.T.O. or the U.N. to do the dirty work for him via a bombing campaign.  Third, if that doesn't work, or if either of these two organisations fails to cooperate with Uncle Sam, he just "goes it alone" with a "coalition of the willing" and launches an American led bombing campaign or all out invasion.  If you look at U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy over the last 20 years, this is pretty much how it always plays out.  It's a three step approach; one, two and three.  Hopefully, step one gets the job done.  If not, it's on to step two, and if that doesn't work, well, you know what happens next.

The terrorist attack on 9-11-2001 was a turning point in America's Middle Eastern foreign policy.  After the radical jihadist attack on American soil that claimed thousands of lives, the G.W. Bush administration continued the same Middle Eastern policy started by his father back in 1990, but altered it slightly.  As his Defence Secretary Condoleezza Rice put it; for years American Middle Eastern foreign policy was marked by the pursuit of stability over freedom, and what we got was neither.  She followed by stating that from 9-11 forward, American Middle Eastern foreign policy is marked by freedom over stability.  Allow me to translate.  What this means is the United States will actively destabilise the Middle East in the pursuit of "freedom," but by "freedom" she doesn't mean freedom in the sense that you and I understand freedom.  She means "freedom" in the sense of letting the Islamic radicals take over and rule their countries according to whatever their religious zeal calls for.  It was under the G.W. Bush administration that the decision was made to ally with the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother of all terrorist organisations in the Middle East.  The idea was to "switch sides" so to speak, help the Muslims get what they want, and in exchange they hope to curb Islamic terrorism in America while simultaneously gain favour in oil deals with American-led international corporations.  Pressure on Israel to give up occupied land for peace was started in earnest under the G.W. Bush administration, and continues under the current Obama administration.

Let me make this perfectly clear.  This problem is not an Obama thing.  Nor is it a G.W. Bush thing.  Believe me, if Mitt Romney gets elected, he won't do a damn thing to change it either.  No, this problem is a Washington D.C. thing!!!  It's called "Yankee Imperialism," and it goes back a long long way.  Yankee Imperialism is nothing new, and it has a long history of being sponsored by big money in New York and the corporations that span the globe from there.  This is why the 9-11 terrorists targeted New York and Washington DC, specifically the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.  It was to send a message, and that message was that they no longer care for the way the financial-military complex is running things in the Middle East.  That's why the Bush administration pivoted to favour the Muslim extremists, and that's why Uncle Sam is essentially giving Osama Bin Laden much of what he wanted, even after putting a bullet through his head.  "Thanks for the course correction, now here's your reward.... BANG!!!"  Make no mistake about it, this is exactly the kind of people we have running the American government.

Presidential elections won't change this.  Putting Mitt Romney in office won't stop this.  He will do it too, and possibly with more fervour than Obama and Bush put together.  Who are the sacrificial lambs?  Well, Middle Eastern Christians of course!  More Christians have been murdered in the Middle East since this new American policy was initiated, than since the crusades.  In Iraq, Americans were assured that Christians would be safe under U.S. led democracy.  Instead, they were murdered by the thousands, their churches were bombed (while they were inside), and there has since been a mass exodus of Christians from Iraq.  In Egypt, the C.I.A. was instrumental in orchestrating the protests and overthrow of that regime.  Since, bringing in U.S. led democracy, Egypt became a slaughtering house for Christians.  Thankfully, there weren't many Christians in Libya to be affected by the U.S. supported rebels and N.A.T.O. bombing campaign.  Now Uncle Sam turns his sights on Syria, arming the rebels, and no doubt using the C.I.A. to train them and coordinate their attacks.  What follows in their wake?  The Assad regime has not even fallen yet, and Christians are already being slaughtered in Syria.  We all know who is next on Uncle Sam's hit list -- Iran.  How many Christians will die there now as a result of Yankee Imperialism?

American Evangelicals, you should be ashamed of yourselves.  You helped support this, with your prophecy-crazy Zionism.  Each year you send millions of U.S. dollars to Israel, for everything from helping Jews settle occupied territory, to rebuilding the Temple Mount.  You ignore the plight of your Christian brethren in Palestine, and now you ignore their suffering in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria.  You say, "throw Obama out of office and elect Romney!"  Caring less about the real probability that Romney will do everything Bush and Obama did in the Middle East, and likely so much more!  Shame on any U.S. Catholic who has dared to support the Evangelical Zionist (Israel-first) vision of the Middle East.  For in doing so, you turn a blind eye to what Washington DC is doing to your Christian brethren over there.

The Catholic Knight has disowned the United States federal government.  I no longer recognise it as legitimate.  It is a tyrannical dictatorship that began in 1861 and continues to this day.  It occupies my nation (Dixie) and uses our resources and young men to further its imperial designs.  Now it persecutes Christians at home, by telling their children they cannot pray in school and their charities they must provide abortions and contraception.  All the while it supports the wholesale murder (indeed GENOCIDE) of Christians overseas.  There is nothing anyone can say that will get me to support this government ever again.  It is an anathema.  May God save my Christian brethren in the Middle East from its wicked ambitions.


An Authenic Catholic Vision on Immigration

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The problem with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is twofold. The first is that it sends conflicting messages and signals. The second is that it is really not a "governing" body in the Church at all.

Let's deal with the second problem first. The USCCB is a "conference" organised by the bishops of the United States under the terms outlined by Canon Law. Canon Law comes from Rome. So that should tell you something right there. The USCCB itself is subordinate to Canon Law. It cannot make canon law. It cannot change Canon Law. It cannot even define or interpret Canon Law. It's very existence is dependent entirely on Canon Law. As I said, Canon Law comes from Rome. So where is the real authority here? Obviously, it's Rome not the USCCB. That in and of itself should cause every U.S. Catholic to sit up straight. Yes, the USCCB exists, and yes, it does have some control of things, but it is ROME and ONLY IN ROME where the real authority resides. There is another thing every U.S. Catholic should know.  Diocesan bishops are not required to follow the regulations of the USCCB.  So for example, should a particular diocesan bishop vehemently object to a particular resolution passed by the USCCB, he is not required by Canon Law to implement that regulation in his diocese.  He can ignore it.  Or he can come out with his own policy that deals with the same issue in a different way.  So let's examine the REAL authority structure here.  Catholics are to be obedient to their local priests, insofar as that priest is in alignment with the policies of the local bishop.  The priests are obedient to the bishop.  The bishop is responsive to the metropolitan archbishop and the pope of Rome (including those administrative congregations working for him).  That's it!   That is the authority structure of the Catholic Church.  You'll notice the USCCB is not in that chain.  Hmmm.

So what is the USCCB and why does it exist at all? The USCCB is an organisational body that is designed to coordinate general rules of administration between dioceses. In other words, it is designed to help bishops coordinate things together, so that things are not run radically different from one diocese to the next within the United States. That means that U.S. Catholics can reasonably expect things to be run pretty much the same way when moving from one diocese to another within the United States. For example; if you live in the Diocese of Southern Missouri, as I do, and you happen to be visiting the Diocese of Charleston as I frequently do, you know the liturgy will be 100% identical, and none of the prayers or responses will have changed. You also know that whatever Scripture readings you were on last Sunday, will be continued next Sunday seamlessly, regardless of the fact that you are attending two parishes over a thousand miles apart.  This is the reason why we have the USCCB, and so long as the USCCB sticks to matters dealing directly with the administration and function of the U.S. Catholic Church, it does a fairly good job -- most of the time.  However, when the USCCB ventures out into areas such as third-party charities, or political matters, its message and mission gets a little fuzzy.  That leads us to the other problem.

For some strange reason, beyond my ability to comprehend, the USCCB as seen fit to make comment on just about every political issue under the sun, even if it really has nothing to do with Church administration or the function of the U.S. Catholic Church in society.  This has the result of sending mixed messages and is confusing to a lot of U.S. Catholics.  For example, President Barack Obama, our illustrious emperor in Washington DC, has decided to rewrite U.S. immigration law by executive order.  Almost immediately, the USCCB came out with an opinion statement supporting this decision and praising the president for making it.  I must ask WHY?  Since when is it the role of the USCCB to congratulate the president on a political decision (a tyrannical one at that) that really has nothing to do with Church administration or function???

This is what I'm talking about.  The message the USCCB has just sent is not only confusing but contradicting to statements made by the popes...
Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that "[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. "The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life" (World Day of Peace 2001, 13).
From Castel Gandolfo, 27 September 2010
So the papal message on immigration is a twofold balanced approach.  On the one hand, governments should try to be kind and generous to immigrants seeking a new life in their country.  On the other hand, governments have a right (indeed a duty) to regulate and limit immigration to preserve and protect a nation's security and indigenous identity.  At the same time, immigrants are charged with the responsibility and obligation to fully ASSIMILATE into the culture of the country they are immigrating to.  This means everything from learning the language, to honouring the culture and obeying the laws.  We don't immigrate to another country in order to turn it into a mini-version of our own country!  We don't enclave into regions and try to force the local governments to change their laws and street signs to accommodate us.  When you immigrate to another nation, you become the "guest" of that nation, and that means you are to behave as good guests do, trying not to be a burden and work on fitting in.  If I were to immigrate to Ireland for example, I would recognise that I'm going to have to change quite a few things about myself.  First and foremost, I am going to have to change my attitudes about some things, so as to not offend the people of my host country.  Second, I am going to have to learn Irish laws and obey them.  Third, I am going to have to learn to respect and appreciate Irish culture.  That doesn't mean I'm going to learn how to play a harp and river dance, but it does mean I am going to appreciate these things and be respectful of them.  Fourth, though I am Catholic, I would naturally fit in Irish culture that way, but if I were not Catholic, I would not seek to change everyone else to accommodate my religion.  Fifth and lastly, but not least, I am going to have to learn some Irish-speak, maybe not the native of Gaelic, but I most certainly will have to learn and understand Irish idioms and figures of speech, as well as how to pronounce and spell various Irish names and phrases.  These would be my responsibilities and obligations as an immigrant.

The problem the United States is currently having with Latino immigrants, particularly those coming from Mexico in large numbers, is that they rarely ever assimilate into American culture.  Instead they enclave and create their own Mex-American culture, that is neither Mexican nor American.  In many cases, they have created their own subculture, and this is the fault of the United States government for failing to enforce the immigration laws that were on the books up until Obama recently "erased" them by presidential fiat.  Is this what the popes have called for?  Hardly.  But you would never know that by listening to the USCCB.  This is why I'm not entirely convinced the USCCB is accurately representing Catholic teaching on immigration when it makes such comments on political matters.  U.S. Catholics generally don't listen to the USCCB any more, and there is good reason why.  The organisation is nearly defunct as it is, and continual comments on political matters such as this only makes the matter worse.  I look forward to the day when my own nation of Dixie will regain her independence and the Catholic bishops therein can form the Dixie Conference of Catholic Bishops (DCCB).  Perhaps then, we can only hope, that bishops of a Southern heritage will have more sense about them as to what a bishop's conference is for and how to run it correctly.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Road To Schism - The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests

A liberal "Catholic" mass in which a female "priestess" presides.
This is a vision of Vatican II shared by many Modernist Catholics.
(TBO) - But with the tradition-minded Pope Benedict XVI at the helm of the 1 billion-member church, there's been a slow shift toward returning to some of the old practices and structure.

That's a concern for some clergy.

This week, about 240 priests from around the country are meeting at Saint Leo University in St. Leo for the inaugural assembly of the newly formed Association of U.S. Catholic Priests. Among its goals: To be a "voice of hope" and to "celebrate and implement the visionary concepts of Vatican Council II."

The Rev. David Cooper, a Milwaukee pastor and board chairman, says keeping the spirit of what was intended by the council — which opened in October 1962 and concluded in December 1965 — is urgent, given the direction the church seems to be taking.

"We're not positioning ourselves to be a controversial voice, but a collaborative one," he says. "With fewer priests and smaller dioceses spread out, you can feel isolated. This gives us a place to gather and share our concerns and goals....

....So the association will adopt a resolution asking that the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University do a nationwide survey on the reception of the new missal.

Besides providing a forum for priests and serving as a "spiritual and psychological advocate," the association also intends to support female church colleagues, some of whom are now under scrutiny by Rome.

This week, representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious met with Vatican officials to discuss the growing tension between the two sides. Church hierarchy has accused American nuns of flouting core doctrine and taking an overly liberal "feminist" bent, and said it will reform the group — which represents 80 percent of Catholic sisters — to adhere to church teachings....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So begins phase 2 of the slow motion train wreck that is the U.S. Catholic Church. Phase 1 was completed last year with the "American Catholic Council" designed call into question the liturgical and doctrinal reforms of Pope Benedict XVI.  Now we enter phase 2, wherein Modernists priests are beginning to rally together and form their own group.  It's not that such a gathering of priests is bad -- far from it -- it is rather the issue they are gathering around.  Right from the start, the stated purpose is to foster a vision of Vatican II that is opposed to the pope's vision.  I have no hesitation in saying the pope's vision of Vatican II is the ONE AND ONLY AUTHENTIC VISION there is.  Everything opposed to it is rebellion, and while they certainly will not say it openly, this group "The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests" is indeed a rebellious organisation.  It is rebellious against the pope and every bishop in union with his vision of the Second Vatican Council.

Rebellious organisations can only produce one thing -- schism!  Now it may not happen overnight.  These things usually smoulder for a while before actually bursting into flames.  It may take years before we see this organisation for what it truly is -- in all its rebellious glory.   Nevertheless, the associations it is already making should raise a few red flags.  The LCWR is most certainly a rebellious organisation, beyond any shadow of a doubt, which will undoubtedly lead to schism of more than a few religious sisters (nuns).  The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests has already voiced its support of this organisation over the Vatican, as well as a vision of Vatican II that is opposed to the pope.  Can there be any doubt what this organisation is, and what it intends to do?  In the short-run it will attempt to strong-arm the U.S. Catholic Bishops into compliance with its will over and against the Vatican.  If however, they should fail in that objective, and they will for the most part, then they will pave the way for phase 3 of the impending schism in the U.S. Catholic Church.  What is phase 3?  Simple, it will be the alignment of a few bishops with the intentions of The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests over and against the Vatican and the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.  Once that happens, all the pieces will be in place, and schism will be inevitable.  We only need sit back and watch the whole thing unfold.  I say just give it a three to five years.  That's all the time they really need.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Radical Feminist Anti-Catholic LCWR

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Okay, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this unfold for too long. Here is how I see it...
  1. The LCWR is an umbrella organisation commissioned by the Vatican with the responsibility of overseeing and coordinating most (approximately 80%) of the religious sisters orders (convents, monasteries, etc.) in the United States.
  2. For the last 20 years or so, the LCWR has violated this sacred trust by sponsoring and promoting speakers and ideas that are pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-feminist, and anti-Church doctrine.  This is not to mention the tendency of many American nuns under the LCWR to refuse religious habits and ally themselves with known heretics and apostates who have outright rejected fundamental Christian teachings about the nature of God.
  3. After years of complaints, many of which came from religious sisters (nuns) under the LCWR, the Vatican CDF finally launched an investigation into the organisation.
  4. That investigation was instantly met with hostility on the part of the LCWR and some of its sub-divisions.
  5. When the report was finally given, chronicling what had been found, and what almost everybody knew already, the LCWR rejected the findings and implied that it would fight the Vatican's course of corrective action.
  6. The LCWR then followed up with a news media negative PR blitz, directed against the Vatican in particular, and the Catholic hierarchy (priests and bishops) in general.  The American news media immediately jumped on board by asking rhetorically - "Is the Vatican waging a war on women?"  This of course provoked demonstrations and protests in various places, against the Church hierarchy, supporting this heretical organisation blindly.
I have had it with the LCWR and every other organisation like it, infiltrated and infested with radical Modernist LIBERALS hell-bent on destroying traditional Catholic teaching.  I realise the Vatican is trying to be patient and charitable with this group, but I'm going to give the CDF a little word of advice.  DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!!!  I know these Liberal Modernist types like the back of my hand.  They will NOT repent.  Their strategy will be to simply stall as long as possible, hoping to wait out this pope, and give themselves enough time to formulate a new strategy of resistance.  They are hardened Liberal Modernists who will not relent.  The best thing you can do is try to save the religious orders they supposedly "represent" before it's too late.  Please, your excellencies, before it's too late.  DISSOLVE THE LCWR !!!!  And place the religious orders they "represented" under the care of another umbrella organisation that will actually be obedient to the Holy See.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Catholicism Returns To Dixie

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: One hundred and fifty years after the war that devastated the Nation of Dixie, the economy of the Antebellum South is returning, even in the midsts of this terrible recession/depression.  With this economic revival comes a call to look back to the antebellum heritage of Dixie and what it means for us today.  Through it all, more evidence is mounting that the American Southeast (Dixie) is becoming the fastest growing region for Catholicism in the United States (read more here, here, here and here).

The Antebellum South was built almost exclusively on Western European Christianity. The only Pagans that existed were among the Native American tribes, many of whom voluntarily converted to Christianity eventually. The only Muslims that existed were among some of the slaves who were imported from Africa, but these gave way to Christianity within a generation or two. Of course, there are always a smattering of Jews in every culture, but they are always a tiny minority. Without question, Christianity created the dominant culture of the South, regardless of how well people practised it. The dominant form of Christianity in the Antebellum South was Anglican Protestantism (Protestant Episcopal Church USA), and if you investigate the trends of North American Anglican Protestantism in the late 1700s to early 1800s, you will find they were overwhelmingly Anglo-Catholic (or what many called "high church") in practice and liturgy. This "high church" Anglo-Catholic movement was practically invented by the Protestant Episcopal Church USA after the American Revolution, and later spread to England where it became known as the Oxford Movement. The English contributed to the intellectual side of Anglo-Catholicism, while the Americans contributed to the practical side of it. The mindset of "high church" Anglo-Catholicism is what many referred to as the “third way” — or an organic bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism. Church services were highly liturgical, mirroring the Catholic mass in almost every way, with subtle changes in the wording of prayers to fit traditional Protestant theology. Anglicans (Episcopalians) were sympathetic to Catholic sensibilities, and while their devotion to Mary and the Saints was not nearly as profound as among Catholics, it did nevertheless exist in some small forms. Visit any Episcopal Church of the time period, and this will be apparent in the iconography and architecture. This was the religion of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, as well as countless other Confederate founders.

Catholicism also played a significant role in the Antebellum South, especially in Louisiana, Texas and the urban portions of Atlanta, Charleston, Richmond and Baltimore. One simply cannot understand the Antebellum South without appreciating this religious influence on the culture of the period. Of course that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, far from it, but you do have to understand it and appreciate it. The War of Southern Independence (what I would like to call the "Dixie-American War") brought with it radical changes in religion both during and after. Because of the horrors of battle, many soldiers and their families sought a religious message that offered them immediate comfort and a personal relationship with God. The evangelical message of the Baptists fit the bill for the time, and later (in the 20th century) the Pentecostals expanded on this. That’s not to say you can’t find the same message within Anglicanism and Catholicism, you can, but it shows that the Baptists and Pentecostals did a much better job marketing it. That is indisputable.  After this evangelical awakening in Dixie, both Anglicanism and Catholicism virtually disappeared from the mainstream of Southern religion.  This would remain the case until the early 21st century.

As we enter the 21st century, we are beginning to see a convergence of these two religious systems, especially in the South. The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church is moving back toward Catholicism as many of them take advantage of the pope’s ordinariate program. A large number of general Evangelicals, from various denominations, are converting to Catholicism as well.  Meanwhile a growing number of Baptists have seen the advantages of practising Lent, and some congregations have formerly adopted the season starting with Ash Wednesday. There is also a small contingency of Pentecostals who have seen the advantages of Anglican liturgy, and have created for themselves the Charismatic-Episcopal Church. All of these movements are still in their infancy stage, but I see in them a great deal of hope, in that they recognise the advantages of both Evangelical and Catholic traditions, attempting to draw from the best of both worlds. I see something strikingly “Southern” in this mindset. This not only opens the door for renewal of Dixie's antebellum culture in a much grander form than ever previously existed, but it likewise paves a road forward toward greater ecumenical relations between Southern Christians and Rome.  By that I mean authentic ecumenism which results in eventual doctrinal unity, not the phoney liberal ecumenism which just dreams of unity without any real substance.

As the system of Yankee and British capitalism implodes all around us, we are sure to see a resurgence in everything from micro-currencies, to sovereignty movements (including Dixie independence), to a resurgence in Distributist thinking.  Catholicism basically rejects the Northern ideal of industrialism and materialism. This is most clearly seen in Pope Leo XIII encyclical “Rerum Novarum” which flat out rejects Yankee (and English) Capitalism and the growing Marxist (Socialist) theories of the time. In response, the pope proposed the remedy of a return to rural self-sufficiency and cooperative (instead of corporate) industry -- or Distributism -- which is a very Antebellum Southern ideal. Since then, all social encyclicals of the popes have followed this model.

When it comes to the issue of Catholicism in general, it is interesting to note that the Catholic Church in America seems to follow the cultural trends of the North and South. In the North, Catholicism is in trouble, as more Catholics embrace the liberal Yankee mentality of modernism and relativism ("Cafeteria Catholicism"), they move further and further away from Rome. Thus the Church is retreating in the North, as parishes are forced to close, parochial schools are shutting down, and dioceses are going bankrupt. This is not to mention the priest shortage in those regions. Meanwhile, the exact opposite is true in the South. Dioceses in the South are booming, as the prevailing culture in the South is more in line with traditional Catholic thinking. Instead of closing, new Catholic parishes are opening, and old ones are expanding with new building projects. Parochial schools are thriving in the South as well, just as they did in antebellum times. While priestly seminaries are busting at the seams, as well as convents and monasteries. Catholicism is finding a natural home in Dixie, just as it did before the War, and with the rise in Catholicism, the South will see the social teachings of the popes played out here, as rural independence and cooperative industry is encouraged by Catholic bishops and priests. There are of course bastions of liberal Catholicism in the South as well, but they are dying fast, as they have two things working against them, both in the renewal movement of Pope Benedict XVI and the prevailing Southern culture which is anti-liberal.  In my opinion, Catholicism (authentic traditional Catholicism that is, not the Modernist version up North) will be the key to the cultural revival of the Antebellum South, and insofar as the convergence of Evangelicalism and Anglicanism goes, that will play a very big role for the South too. 

Monday, June 11, 2012

US Bishops' HHS Strategy May Fail

Religious Freedom Rally on June 8, 2012
Virtually Ignored by the Mainstream News Media
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT has analysed the strategy of the U.S. bishops in their fight against the HHS mandate and I do see a flaw.  They are relying heavily on lawsuits and public demonstrations to force the Obama administration to back off his presidential diktat requiring all religious employers to provide insurance coverage for artificial contraception and chemical abortions.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration is relying heavily on the fact that the U.S. Catholic Church is weak, having failed to give proper religious education to at least half of its members, resulting in at least 50% of Catholics who are "cafeteria" in nature, meaning they no longer follow the teachings of the Church.  In addition, the remainder of Protestant churches in the United States are so fractured and divided amongst themselves that forming an effective coalition among them will be difficult if not impossible.  Obama has another ace up his sleeve as well -- the mainstream news media -- which will cover for him as much as possible to ensure his re-election.  Finally, there is one more factor to consider, the Republican presidential alternative (Willard "Mitt" Romney) is weak and not well liked, even by members within his own party.  Currently, Obama is trailing in the polls behind Romney, but it is still five months until the election, and in political terms, that is an eternity -- plenty of time for Obama to catch up.  The Obama campaign has patiently held back all the damaging negative ads until the right time.  When they are released, it will be devastating to the Romney campaign.  Warning!  Romney will not perform well on the defensive.  Once he goes on the defensive, it's over for him.

As it stands right now between the U.S. Bishops and President Obama, it is Obama that has the stronger strategy based on a proven track record of what he knows will work.  The U.S. Bishops have twenty years of catchup work to do in educating their flock, and that's not going to happen in six months.  Just getting their own people in line will be a major accomplishment which is not likely to happen quickly enough.  Furthermore, as the U.S. Bishops have relied heavily on public demonstrations to attract attention to the cause, the mainstream news media has repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to report on it (obviously cover for Obama), despite how large those demonstrations may be.  Thus the majority of the general population is clueless that such demonstrations are even going on, and still more do not even realise that Obama's HHS mandate even exists.  (I am still running across numerous Evangelicals who have not yet even heard of the HHS mandate, let alone the Catholic backlash against it.)  The lawsuit strategy is the bishop's backup plan should the demonstrations fail, and quite frankly, I see about a 50% chance this mandate will be upheld by the courts.  If not, we can be certain that the Obama administration will keep it tied up in the courts for as long as possible so as to delay any damaging outcome until after the election.  By then the administration will have had plenty of time to come up with an alternate way to force abortion and contraception on religious employers.

I have consistently reminded my readers that while the Obamacare individual insurance mandate may not be constitutional, the ability of the federal government to simply tax the populace and force them into a healthcare program against their will IS PERFECTLY constitutional, as a similar thing has already been done with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention general taxes used for welfare services and food stamps.  In the event of an Obamacare loss in the Supreme Court, the president could simply declare a crisis, seize control of the medical insurance industry and by executive order place everyone on Medicare during such a "national emergency."  Then all he would need do is ask Congress to back his actions with the appropriate legislation.  All of this is hypothetical and speculative of course, as we have no idea what Obama will do with a second term.  What we do know is he will do everything within his power to postpone any damaging court rulings until after the election.

The long and short of it is this.  In spite of how poorly Obama is doing in the polls, no matter how you slice it, he still has a 50% chance of winning re-election.  I would say his chances are stronger than that provided the economy and financial markets don't tank before election day.  (Which could happen!)

I think the bishop's current strategy will produce less than desirable results.  I think they would be better served by a strategy of putting away the hippy-Catholicism of the 1970s, retiring old priests who refuse to wake up and smell the coffee, and bring back an older more organised form of Catholicism we haven't seen in the states in 40 years!  This would involve serious catechism of the people and traditional reform of the liturgy, coupled with formal excommunications for those politicians and public figures who scandalise the Church by their public support of abortion and sodomy.  This should be accompanied by a flat-out refusal to comply with the president's diktat.  Lastly, if the bishops really want to take this thing on both legally and politically, they should appeal to the state governments, not the fed.  States have a little known and seldom used legal ability to nullify federal laws.  This is where the battle can be won on a much more serious level.  Already there is a bill that has been passed by the Missouri state legislature effectively nullifying the president's HHS mandate.  It awaits on Governor Jay Nixon's desk for signature.  (contact here to pressure him to sign

The strategy I've outlined in the paragraph above is much more comprehensive and long term.  It does more to address the long-term problems faced by the U.S. bishops as well as the problems faced by states dealing with this tyrannical bureaucracy in Washington DC.  I'm not saying the bishops should abandon their current strategy.  For since this is the way they've decided to go so far, they should see it through.  However, I am saying they should consider what I've outlined above as a viable backup plan to run in tandem with what they are already doing.  The plan I propose is not dependent on presidential elections or Supreme Court rulings, and goes a long way toward addressing the REAL problems both within the Church and within the nation.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Divided We Stand - Together

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Roughly a quarter (1 in 4) of all Americans believe individual states have a right to secede and become independent countries according to a recent Rasmussen Poll (see here). This is up significantly from just four years ago. Catholics have a duty and an obligation to support the rights of individual communities and states to govern themselves according to the Church teaching of SUBSIDIARITY. That includes the right to peacefully and democratically secede from a larger tyranical government that consistently undermines the principle of Subsidiarity. Such has been the case with Washington DC ever since the Civil War.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

A Schismatic's Manifesto

Every Catholic should know that it is an INFALLIBLE DOGMA of
Catholic Faith that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
see here for details
(National Catholic Reporter) - Under the guise of a "Year of Faith," the Vatican has launched an all-out assault on any theology or interpretation of Vatican II based on what it calls a "Hermeneutic (Interpretation) of Rupture." This theological assault is articulated in the document known as "Porta Fidei" written by Benedict XVI and further specified in a document titled "Note on Recommendations for the Implementation of the Year of Faith" which was developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Both of these documents are cited by Cardinal Levada in his statement on the doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). The rationale for that assessment and other punitive moves that have been made in recent months (Caritas International, educational institutes, and the Girl Scouts) must be understood in the broader context of this special "year of assault."

The real crux of the issue according to the "Note" is a "correct understanding" of Vatican II over against "erroneous interpretations." Benedict likes to refer to these interpretations as being based on a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" while referring to his own interpretation as being based on a "hermeneutic of renewal." In truth, better labels for these respectively, are a "hermeneutic of mission" over against Benedict's "hermeneutic of retrenchment...

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So, if the pope is not supposed to interpret such things as the Council and the faith, then what pray tell is his job in the first place? Is it simply to look pretty during mass, keep the Chair of Peter warm, and of course appoint successors (cardinals) who will do the same? You can read the rest of this screed from "Fr." John C. Sivalon if you like, but I must confess that I found it repulsive and difficult to finish. I hear in this man a familiar voice, one that I've heard many times before, both from the mouths of Secular Atheists in the government and Modernists Liberals among the Protestants. It is a very familiar voice indeed. It is the voice of rebellion. It is a deep and hissing voice. It is the voice of a dragon.

The stage is being set for a major schism within the Catholic Church, not just the U.S. Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church worldwide. These people do not want to break with Rome, no, they want to control it, manipulate the pope, and bully him into silence if they have to. Their ultimate goal is not to break with the Catholic Church, but to transform it into something very different -- something very Protestant and something very Liberal. Look to the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as the model of what they want. That is precisely what they want, as stated in many of their own writings going back to the 1970s, and make no mistake about it, this is an old movement. The movers and shakers of this movement are senior citizens now, and that is the good news. They have virtually nobody left to pass the torch on to. Young people don't generally fall for this "liberal Christianity" nonsense. They would rather just leave the Church and get involved in some other religion, if they want to practice any religion at all. Most do not. So this movement truly is a generational thing, and it is nearing the end of the road. This is indeed the "grey rebellion," and by that I don't mean the colour of a uniform, but rather the dominant colour of their hair. Their movement is steadily approaching its twilight, and they know it, which is why they have come out so ferociously in recent years. It is their last stand. They view Pope Benedict XVI as a traitor, a priest of Vatican II who dared to interpret the Council within the context of historic Church tradition. They hate him. Oh, they'll never admit that of course, what with is sounding so "uncharitable" and all, but they despise everything he does. They seek to bully him into silence, if they can, using the Secular press and liberal organisations that have openly declared themselves enemies of the Church. (It should cause us to pause and reflect when we consider that the LCWR's biggest supporters are in the mainstream Secular press and Democratic Party.) If however, they cannot bully the pope into silence. If they cannot stop him from doing his job, then they seek to obstruct his efforts any way possible, and eagerly await his death. For with them, they hope a new pope will bring with him new doctrine, and I guarantee they will pop some champagne bottles upon hearing the news of Pope Benedict's death, just as they did upon hearing of John Paul II's death.

Because their days are limited, as they see their priests retiring, and their members slowly dying off, they know there is not much time left to act. The grey rebels do not wish to break with the Church, but they will if they must, and they will do so with the help of the mainstream Secular press. They only need a few bishops in the United States to go along with it, and they should have no problem getting at least a few in Europe. When it happens (and it likely will happen) it is Pope Benedict XVI they will portray as the "radical" and of course the Secular press will go right along with that. Their schism will be successful, but it is debatable how successful, or what "success" actually means. For their largest following will be "Catholics" over age 50 and their most loyal followers under 50 will be equally loyal to other churches and religious traditions.  Most of them will be sodomites and lesbians, and the schismatic "Church" they create will follow the same course as the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion into irrelevancy and ultimately obscurity.  Inwardly, they know this, which is why they seek to bully the pope instead, and force their agenda on the entire Catholic world, rather than "go it alone."  They know the only way for their ideas to survive for any reasonable period of time is to force them upon the faithful.

The good news is they will fail, as all such movements in the past have failed.  We only need to endure their death throws, and unfortunately for us, these will be violent in an ecclesiastical sense.  Now more than ever we must rally behind the pope and the reforms he proposes.  He (and we) will prevail, that is certain, but the battle will also be hard.  That too is certain.