A false dichotomy

Video transcript:

The Pope’s Interview

Many words have been spoken and much ink has been spilled these past few days about the Pope’s recent interview that the media ran wild with.

But something to keep in mind is this – there is a tension in living out of Catholic life. Every Catholic who cares for and loves the faith knows this and has experienced it.

The tension is brought about by trying to hold two (or more) SEEMING contradictions in balance with one another. The faith is rife with these things – Three Persons in One God; two natures in One person; the Immaculate Conception; Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine; victory through death and so forth.

None of these is a contradiction – they just need deep deep reflection because they are difficult to get our little finite minds around. They are paradoxes – not contradictions.

Today, the Church finds Herself in a state of paradox that many wrongfully claim is a contradiction. It is the tension between the DOCTRINAL approach and the PASTORAL approach.

At the heart of all the heartache by faithful Catholics VERSUS the celebration and party atmosphere of unfaithful Catholics over the Pope’s interview is the failure to fully appreciate this tension between pastoral and doctrinal.

They have been set in opposition to each other – almost as if, one is right and the other is wrong. That is not only stupid, it’s also un-Christlike. Did the good shepherd not come to earth and impart sound teaching THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED for our salvation?

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments (there’s the doctrinal part) and my Father and I will come to you and We will make Our home in you (there’s the pastoral part).

This pastoral vs. doctrinal false dichotomy that first arose in the seminaries near the end of the 19th century has rained down mass confusion on the Church by being exploited by many clergy.

Down here … on the street level where the ground troops are … it has resulted in the falsely expressed notion that, God is so loving that he would never throw anyone in Hell forever – and of course, the quite logical extension of that premise is therefore, leading an immoral life, while regrettable isn’t THAT big a problem.

The Pastoral VERSUS Doctrinal battle has created the further erroneous perception that there is opposition between God’s Mercy and His Justice. Again .. a massively absurd and ill-conceived proposition.

It is the tension between Pastoral and Doctrinal dimensions of the Church that we find so very present in the Pope’s interview. Living with life’s tensions is part of life. Parents are most familiar with this in the case of raising their children.

When a child desperately wants something which MAY be harmful to him, MAY be … and a parent’s first reaction is to say no because of the POSSIBLE harm … then the protests or arguments of the child tend to have the effect of perhaps softening the parents initial sense.

They consider, for example, if perhaps their firmness might have the effect of alienating their son – which could be an even worse harm than the initial possible harm.

This is one of life’s millions of tensions, so we shouldn’t be surprised in seeing this exhibited in the Pope’s own thoughts – none of which by the way here are infallible – they are his considered opinions born of his life experience and circumstances expressed in an off the cuff kind of way.

For the media and many unfaithful Catholic and enemies of the Faith – they get great glee from these words and play them up incessantly because in many many cases, they live lives of gross depravity and sexual immorality and DON’T WANT TO CHANGE.

So to them, this feels like a triumph – “see, even the Pope agrees” they claim. “Stop telling me I can’t live with my same sex partner or my live in girlfriend.”

For the faithful beleaguered Catholic who is down in the trenches doing everything to fight the good fight and hold back the flood, the spin on the pope’s words is massively deflating.

It IS pastoral to tell someone they need to live a moral life. Is there a way to say it that such a person might respond to it better than another way it would be presented – sure, but that depends on the hearer.

Some people need to hear things bluntly. Others don’t like hearing things directly because they get their feelings hurt to easily and so forth.

The one thing that is curious about some of the Pope’s impressions is that the Church is always going on about abortion and same-sex marriage and contraception. REALLY?

When is the last time a priest strode into the pulpit and gave a fire and brimstone about contraception that you can remember? When is the last time a bishop – or a bishops’ conference issued any statement about the depravity of an unmarried couple living together.

It is the MEDIA which has painted this picture of a Church constantly hammering these themes.

The vast majority of faithful Catholics know these things are seldom, if ever mentioned in any substantive way on the parish level – they aren’t even talked about and requests TO talk about the doctrines is usually swept away with an excuse that it wouldn’t be pastoral.

So one does wonder where His Holiness’ perception comes from of a Church emphasizing doctrinal over pastoral care – obsessing about them.

Nonetheless, it is this false dichotomy between pastoral and doctrinal – set up by the media and by many in the Church who want to undo Her moral teachings – that is to blame for much of the deep concern over the Pope’s interviews.

For example, for the intrepid souls of the 40 Days for Life Campaign, are they being too “doctrinal” “too obsessed” by standing outside abortion chambers – highlighting the sanctity of life AND the evil of child murder?

Or are they motivated by pastoral love and concern for the child and the mother – and the abortionist for that fact?

And what about the parents pleading with their homosexual son to not go down that path of giving into his passions – wherever they come from? Are they being doctrinal by warning him of Hell or are they being pastoral in wanting to help him choose the path to heaven. Again – a false dichotomy. They are being both!

For the past 50-60 years … there has been an effort on the part of many in the Church to play up pastoral care to such a degree that essentially ignore doctrine.

Many times, this is to make them feel good about their own moral failings – which often times are sexual and frequent. Sometimes, it is owing to a worshipping at the altar of feelings and emotions – where they place too much emphasis on these things to the detriment of truth.

But these things cannot be separated … anymore than you can separate the heads from the tails of a coin.

A perfect example of this is the very next day after the Pope’s interview was released and his words created headlines about abortion not being that big a deal .. His Holiness blasted abortion at a meeting with gynecologists who he told, that every child that is killed, that child bears the face of Our Blessed Lord and that every child aborted has been unjustly condemned.

What needs to be addressed in the Church today is this false notion that doctrine and pastoral care are opposed to each other and one is right, the other wrong.

If anything beyond headlines and excuses for peddling more immorality by the media comes from all uproar, hopefully it will be this.

The tension between doctrinal and pastoral has been abused and lived out in an unbalanced manner in the Church for two generations now – it’s time to right the ship and correct course.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to A false dichotomy

  1. Toad says:

    “The one thing that is curious about some of the Pope’s impressions is that the Church is always going on about abortion and same-sex marriage and contraception. REALLY?
    When is the last time a priest strode into the pulpit and gave a fire and brimstone about contraception that you can remember? …..It is the MEDIA which has painted this picture of a Church constantly hammering these themes.”

    Does the writer really expect us to believe that The Church is NOT “constantly hammering” the themes of abortion and same-sex marriage? Because it is. In my opinion.

    Contraception is a red herring these days. Different 60 years ago. They hammered about little else then.


  2. TerryC says:

    OF course the Church is weighing in on Abortion and same sex marriage. They are the great sins of our day. No on is worshiping the emperor or sacrificing virgins before golden idols shaped like bulls. Sex is their false god and so of course the Church is going to be speaking out against this false deity.


  3. Toad says:

    I’m not suggesting The Church is wrong to denounce gay marriage and abortion, Terry C – just that the writer here is being decidedly weasely about those topics in relation to contraception, which is, as the man rightly says, scarcely mentioned these days. (in polite society, as least.)

    It is a matter of opinion, like most things – but I very much doubt the media is more obsessed with gay marriage and contraception than The Church, which still froths and raves about the former – sky falling – end of civilised life as we know it, etc.

    And I personally see barely a mention of contraception these days, in the Media or anywhere.
    That battle’s over, seems the general attitude,


  4. Toad says:

    It seems Carl Anderson is The Supreme Knight.
    There’s posh, for yer!
    Not any old knight!
    What he says about the Media must be true, then.


  5. golden chersonnese says:

    That battle’s over, seems the general attitude

    Yes Toad. Interestingly, the situation in places like Singapore seems to be that the citizenry, both lads and lasses, have opted for voluntary holy virginity such that the government is relying on planned massive immigration to provide 50% of the population there in the coming years. In this way they hope to deal with the less than helpful effects of this astonishing self-denial practised by the local populace.


    Well, at least in Catholic countries it’s only about 0.2% of the peeps who prayerfully commit to chastity.


  6. golden chersonnese says:

    Toad, if interested you can find el supremo’s biography here:



  7. Toad says:

    Very impressive biog, Golden.
    And it must be fun constantly being assumed to be the leader of a South L.A. biker gang.
    Or maybe the title role of a singularly bloodthirsty video game: “The Supreme Knight: Mega-Kill on Highway 98!”

    I was once listening to an interview on NPR with someone from The Knights. “Where do you get your funding?” asked the interviewer.
    “Jews,” came the startling response. Blimey, I thought, that’s a good story.
    “Yes, all members pay their dues regular each month.” said The Knight with a pronounced Irish accent. (don’t know how Supreme he was. Very, maybe.)

    Never mind.
    It was interesting to savour the concept for a moment.

    (Can you imagine telling people, “I am The Supreme Knight,” with a straight face, when they ask you what you do?)


  8. golden chersonnese says:

    I think a recent statement made by Dr George Pell, Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, make Mr Voris’ point about the doctrinal and the pastoral quite well. It also seems to have had the effect of annoying the liberals there.

    See here also:



  9. golden chersonnese says:

    Toad, doesn’t the UK have the knights of St Columba?


    These Catholic “knights” aren’t as rare as you might think:



  10. Toad says:

    “These Catholic “knights” aren’t as rare as you (Toad) might think:”

    I must shamefacedly admit, Golden – that I often go for hours at a time without thinking
    about these Catholic “knights” at all.

    But surely The Supreme Ones can’t be all that common?


  11. golden chersonnese says:

    Yes indeed, O best of Toads (Supreme Toad?). I would much prefer something like the titles of the English-born boss of the Knights of Malta, Fra’ Matthew Festing:

    His Most Eminent Highness, the Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta

    I like the way it sort of trips off the tongue.


  12. For his insights into – and comments about – what really is “a false dichotomy,” Michael Voris deserves more respect than ever.


  13. Roger says:

    The Truth is simply. Heaven and Hell. Jerusalem or Bablyon. Our Lord is the great Lover of the poor Sinner. Those trapped in Sin and therefor part of Satan’s mystical Body. Satan is a spirit and he has a mystical body which is that of fallen flesh. This is the Doctrine of Original Sin and the Kingdom of Satan which was destroyed by the Immaculate Flesh.
    One of the reasons why Luther’s Mass was so opposed was because of the perception of worshipping unconsecrated bread. Which would be to worship, in fact, idolise pure bread and wine.
    But what Satan would really want is that bread and wine to be fallen flesh and blood.
    Satan knows he can’t destroy Doctrine, any attempt in the past has failed. But what if the Doctrine could be turned to support Fallen Flesh that would be to worship the Beast.
    Emmerich’s famous visions of the counterfeit Church are about retaining the appearance and shell, but turning the worship and especially the Mass to the adoring of the Beast. Sic the Flesh of Fallen Man because this is Satan’s Kingdom. The Kingdom of the Beast. This is why Emmerich says that the bread wouldn’t rise.
    The reason for the St Michael exorcist prayer composed by Leo XIII was to protect the Mass.
    Satan ideal would be to use the Pastoral and the Doctrine to promoted His mystical Body.
    Toad and others have commented on the stance of the Church in the past towards contraception, abortion, same sex etc. etc.. La Salette and the tears of Our Lady to the two shepherds spring to mind. Those tears and dire warnings and Prophecies. The reason points to the Pastoral and Doctrine being turned from Heaven to Hell.
    The greatest danger is of Satan using the Doctrine the Pastoral to worshiping the Fallen Flesh of His Kingdom (the Beasts flesh). The beast and beastility. Abortion gives him millions of victims (in Original Sin) does it not?


  14. Toad says:

    “Abortion gives (Satan) millions of victims (in Original Sin) does it not?

    Toad won’t argue that. Somebody else might.
    It sounds utterly preposterous and horrible. To him.
    And cannot possibly be true.
    But who knows?


  15. Roger says:

    Seems hard I know Toad but they are not baptised. We are ignorant of any means by which they can be incorporated into Christ. Its all about Original Sin being transmitted from parent to siblings. Our Lord is the only bridge. Sadly this is the Faith.


  16. The Raven says:

    Phew, just as well that the real teaching of the Church is different:

    The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

    Full text here.


  17. Toad says:

    Seems to be some dispute as to what the “real’ teaching of the Church is.
    When I was young, 60 years ago, it was loud and clear: Unbaptised people don’t go to Heaven. Sorry.
    Maybe it’s different now. I don’t know. Things change.

    But, even then, the idea that The Devil gets handed batches of unbaptised little babies to torment for all eternity was not bandied around as far as I recall.

    It’s all nuts. Nuts. Nuts. Idiotic and vicious nuts Possibly.

    And the bit Raven quotes above is pretty weaselly, in my opinion.
    All it can do is “hope” that hideous things “may” not happen to the poor little nippers.
    Not good enough.
    Doesn’t anyone on here have a clue?


  18. johnhenrycn says:

    The Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Part 2 (The Sacraments), Section 1 (Baptism) Paragraph 21 (Infant Baptism) states: “For infants there is no other way of attaining salvation but by sacramental Baptism.” The more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contradict that earlier formulation, and only goes to far as to say (at Paragraph 1261) “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.”

    The quotation given by The Raven also does not contradict the Trentian dictum. Nothing has changed, Toad, except perhaps your memory. Adult sacramental baptism, or lack thereof, is subject to some supplementary teachings.


  19. johnhenrycn says:

    Addendum: The Raven’s quotation can perhaps be said to put a gloss on the Trentian teaching to this extent: “For infants there is no other way of attaining salvation[that is known through Revelation] but by sacramental Baptism.“. Again, this is no contradiction.


  20. Roger says:

    Well Raven
    This is a positive encouragement to Abortion on the basis that they will be saved.
    They are dying under the stain of Original Sin and without sanctifying Grace and he will claim them as his.
    Actually what is happening is a generation of living corpses because although they are alive their souls are dead. They have killed their souls.
    The acceptance of contraception, population engineering, divorce, sexual sins, avarice is the sleep of Death.
    As for Abortion. What has “..The explosion of scientific understanding and technological capability in modern times has brought many advantages to the human race, ..” actually brought man but slavery to Satan.
    The priests, religious, scientists, politicians, doctors of the future are killed in their mothers womb and this is the death of these Nations. .

    Satan has always encourage the sacrificing of the innocent. this to destroy consciences and reap a harvest of souls for his domain Hell.
    But Toad notice these innocents die before the age of reason! That is where we must hope for Grace.
    Think of Sodom and the infants and babies there that were destroyed under God’s Justice. Science tells us a comet was the instrument of that justice.

    Grim and without comfort? My sorrows are for a generation who in God’s eyes are alive but spiritually Dead! Please that these living dead can be awakened before they die and are plunge into Hell. Of what use will their science be to them in Eternity?


  21. Toad says:

    “But Toad notice these innocents die before the age of reason! That is where we must hope for Grace.”
    I would suggest most people die before they reach the age of reason, Roger. Or at least before they get round to using it. Perhaps we all do. Some hope there.

    Yes, JH – it’s probably Toad’s memory that has also died.

    “Well Raven – This is a positive encouragement to Abortion on the basis that they will be saved.”
    This is surely positive, arrant nonsense, Roger. Are you suggesting women wouldn’t abort their babies if they thought the babies were going to Hell? Have you met any women?


  22. The Raven says:

    Don’t be ridiculous, Roger. There is no encouragement for abortion in the pious hope that the unbaptised will be saved by a merciful God.


  23. Roger says:

    Raven and Toad.
    Look at this double speak dumming down of the Faith.
    “..The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. ..”

    If the Aborted can (or may or we hope) be saved then the Abortionist and the Authorities could be construed as saving lives and populating Heaven, couldn’t they?

    e know the aith that no Sin can enter Heaven. We are concieved in Original Sin, inherited from Adam and Eve whilst the stain of this Sin remains we cannot enter Heaven.
    These victims of Abortion, their hands are empty, no choice, no free will, no merits. All we can say is that they are victims murdered in the State of Original Sin (which is under Satan’s domain).

    Doctrine was last added to with the Dogma Of The Assumption. It is worth remembering that Vatican II was a Pastoral only Council. Its important to understand that there has been No Dogma or Doctrine added since 1st Nov 1950. There is no such thing as Traditionalists and or Modernists there are only Catholics.


  24. Toad says:

    “If the Aborted can (or may or we hope) be saved then the Abortionist and the Authorities could be construed as saving lives and populating Heaven, couldn’t they?”

    Well, apparently Augustine talks of good coming out of evil.
    So you might be correct, Roger.
    Perhaps abortionists are doing us all – unborn babies especially – a favour.
    But then again, perhaps not.

    Populating Heaven can only be a “good” thing, though.

    “We know the faith that no Sin can enter Heaven. We are conceived in Original Sin, inherited from Adam and Eve whilst the stain of this Sin remains we cannot enter Heaven.”
    …Is Roger right or not? When I was a Toadpole, what he says was Gospel. No argument. (If I remember right.)
    Or so it seemed to me.
    Now it’s not.
    Or is it?


  25. The Raven says:

    Roger, that is contemptible guff.

    Your analysis is blind to the fact that abortion is murder – a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.


  26. johnhenrycn says:

    I’ve only had time to speed read (skim) Roger’s comments regarding abortion, but isn’t he just playing Devil’s Advocate by suggesting (a) there is hope that aborted babies will go to Heaven and that, therefore (b) abortionists are performing good deeds? Surely he doesn’t really believe that if (a) is true then (b) is also true? I thought he was trying to make the point, in a roundabout way, that if there is hope for aborted babies, which he does not believe, then abortionists are doing good work, which he also does not believe. There’s leap of logic in there somewhere, I guess. Anyroad, I place my bets firmly in Hope’s corner, but can go no further than that.


  27. Ponder Anew says:

    Could I suggest a “leap of logic” with the hope of bringing ‘hope’ more in sight?

    Now, this is not revelation, infallible doctrine or anything of the sort, but I heard Mother Angelica say once that she believed that aborted babies were modern day Holy Innocents. In other words, the aborted child is a martyr in that he or she was sacrificed on the worldly altar of self-gratification,against her or his will, under the mantle of Satan’s sway in the earth. Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy. But as Toad said, God can bring good out of evil.

    So here’s the point:These some 50,000,000+++ little disposed children who have been murdered are, as we speak, converting society to a Gospel of Life. Look at the stats in America, folks. Abortion is losing favor and clinics are tumbling like dominoes, from which those martyred babies paid with their lives for us to witness. A prolife America is coming into view.

    Like I said, this is not doctrine, but in every sense of the word, in my mind as well, they are innocent martyrs for the truth of the Gospel of life.

    oh well, here’s hoping that hope is more in view….


  28. Toad says:

    Ponder Anew again makes some excellent points.
    But is “hope” good enough?
    What have aborted babies done that we should be forced to rely on “hope” for their salvation?
    Nothing, it’s just Original Sin, it seems.
    This strikes me as pernicious and unchristian. Unconscionable, in a word.
    The whole idea of the exclusion of the unbaptised (never mind their very uncertain and unhopeful fate) has always seemed to me an apparent evil.
    And was a critical factor in my discarding of my own religious beliefs.
    Perhaps someone can explain why I am wrong.

    (I agree with JH’s kind analyis of Roger. He tells it as he sees it. Don’t we all?)


  29. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad: you say: “The whole idea of the exclusion of the unbaptised (never mind their very uncertain and unhopeful fate) has always seemed to me an apparent evil.”

    I don’t see it that way. The unbaptised child is *excluded* from Heaven by our understanding of scriptural teaching concerning what is necessary for salvation, but perhaps not by God. Bear with me: The Roman Catechism that I quoted at 21:04 yesterday is the product of the 16th century Council of Trent, when wiser minds than mine said: “For infants there is no other way of attaining salvation but by sacramental Baptism.” But the counsel [sic] of Trent is not the final word. Holy Writ – the Bible – is an evolutionary (sorry, Roger) document, in the sense that it demands each generation consider it anew – not to falsify, reinterpret or twist its original meaning into bizarre shapes – but to ask ourselves whether we really understand what the original words mean. Thus, the late 20th century Catechism of the Catholic Church explores a new frontier beyond Trent to express the hope, as regards children who have died without baptism, that the Church can entrust them to the mercy of God. That is ALL we can do right now, because of our limited understanding of Scripture. Who knows – a hundred years from now, new insights may emerge to permit an different shaping and sculpting of doctrine. But maybe not. In the meantime, it is not “evil” (yourword) to believe that the unbaptised may be excluded from Heaven. Conversely, it would be folly – to put it kindly – to believe that the unbaptised are definitely not excluded.


  30. Toad says:

    Point taken re “evil” JH.
    We just don’t know – as usual. It’s all a mystery.
    If we did know, we could then decide if it was “evil” or not.

    What I mean is, if we knew for certain that the unbaptised babies were all damned, or excluded, or Limboed or whatever, we could then conclude if that is a “good” thing.
    Or not.
    But we know nothing for certain. That’s for certain.


  31. golden chersonnese says:

    I’m sure I don’t know what the problem is. We presume that those who died without deadly sin before Christ, and thus without Baptism, were also delivered after Christ’s crucifixion. If not, why did Christ descend among them in the place of waiting (as is said here in the Malay/Indonesian version of the Apostle’s Creed). Just to say “hard luck” to them?

    If the above is so, what is the problem with unbaptised infants, and conscientious non-infants for that matter?


  32. Roger says:

    All I did was requote what Raven had put forward. My intent was to point out the Truth of the Faith over Original Sin.
    But also because Social Evolution, indeed Evolution and its mechanistic look at Man is precisely behind these Sins Abortion, Divorce, homo sexuality, gay marriage, euthansia . We even have Hinduism taught in Catholic primary schools! We have the errors of the Jews, Luther, Mohommet taught and discussed as if these were true.
    johnhenrycn Trent was ecumenical and can’t be wrong.
    Actually Vatican II was a Pastoral council meaning that matters of doctrine and faith were not on the agenda!
    Please understand that Trent’s doctrine isn’t negotiable its a revelation of the Deposit of The Faith. Neither can Scripture be wrong because its Author is the Word. Truth builds on Truth “..Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith. ..”
    Humani Generis is a very profound document and Pius XII expressly covered the complexity of Genesis. Our Lord on the road to Emmaus refered to the Messianic Prophecy’s in Moses book of the Law that starts in Genesis 3:15 ‘
    Man is comprised of three parts. (St Paul) Body, Spirit (spiritualised material in the form of the body) and Soul. What is this living matter refered to by Pius XII? Is this of the material or the spiritualised matter? Not an Ape that is for absolute certainty.

    Pius XII was the Pope Of Fatima since he promulgated Fatima and obeyed Lucy in a Papal Consecration Of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.
    Marxism and material Evolution exclude Aquinas!
    “..light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress..”


  33. Roger says:

    There is a difference between prior to the Passion and after. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ and wasn’t there before. The Passion created a New Heaven (opened the door to Heaven that was closed) and New Earth (Our Lords sacraments are the New Earth the Sinless Body Of Our Lord (Eucharist , Baptism etc..) the Old Earth was Adam’s (his name means Red Earth). and His Original Sin).
    The point about Abortion in the West is that this is murder within what was Christendom. The West knew Christ and Original Sin and intends Abortion knowing the Doctrine. That is why it is a sacrifice of blood to Satan (the intent is to kill without the possibility of Baptism!, to deny God these souls in Eternity and leave them in Satan’s grasp).
    Please see the hatred of God in Abortion and the intent to prevent Salvation! It leaves the Mother and Abortionists in Mortal Sin as well.
    It should horrify Us! It should shake Our Consciences to the bottom of Our Souls. Try to see how this must be in God’s eyes!


  34. Toad says:

    “Please see the hatred of God in Abortion and the intent to prevent Salvation! “

    I would say the “intent” of abortion is essentially to get rid of unwanted babies, rather than to prevent Salvation.
    Deploarble perhaps, but not the same thing.
    I doubt that many, if any, of the poor frightened Irish girls who felt it necessary to come (still do?) to England for abortions “hated’ God.
    But who knows? But I doubt it.


  35. Toad says:

    Deplorable spelling.
    Blind Toad!


  36. Roger says:

    Individual cases are not something that we should be judging. God deals individual with each and every soul.
    Its the Sin not the poor sinner. St Augustine expressly dealt with woman who had been impregnated against their Will (City Of God). But for single pregnant mothers the great St Martin De Porres stands before Us.
    The Truth is that no Sin can enter Heaven but the poor sinner can be healed!
    No the Governments especially of the West have passed Laws expressly against Christ and piled Sin on Sin (this was fortold at La Salette). The hatred of God are these Nations who were once Christian and are now pure Satanic. Top of that list is England.


  37. Toad says:

    “… the Governments especially of the West have passed Laws expressly against Christ.”
    No they haven’t, Roger.
    They may have passed laws that go against some aspects of Christian teaching, because they mostly aren’t really Christian and don’t see things from that perspective – but that’s not the same thing.

    The hatred of God are these Nations who were once Christian and are now pure Satanic. Top of that list is England.”
    In order to hate God, you’d first be obliged to believe in Him. And most Western people don’t, certainly most English people. (At least not with any great conviction.)

    …And I suggest the French are worse. (And so are The Finns. Frightful.)

    (This blog is rapidly becoming Hatred, Pure & Simple. It’s amazing nobody’s come on so far saying how much they hate opera.)


  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Bite your lingual epithelium, you ugly thing. Finns love opera. Not as much as jazz, though.


  39. Roger says:

    Pius XII “The greatest sin is our generation is that it has lost all sense of sin.”
    The point of England Toad. The entry into Europe means that it has joined a Republic above its Crown. Although England has a State Church the reality is its parliaments and governments are a hybrid (pluralism) of religions. England is dominated by masonry and although nominally a Christian country the reality is that its Laws are above Christ.
    The same applies now globally that is Christ has no Authority in the governments and nations.
    La Salette “All the civil governments will have one and the same plan, which will be to abolish and do away with every religious principal to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritualism and vice of all kinds”
    But the discussion is over “.the tension between the DOCTRINAL approach and the PASTORAL ..”
    This tension is because of a clash over so called Traditionalist and Modernists But its should never have happened because Doctrine is Truth built on Truth and the Pastoral is the application of Doctrine.


  40. Toad says:

    Yes, Roger – much of the West has tried – and succeeded – in removing laws based on religion. This is why Catholics in England nowadays enjoy the same constitutional rights as Protestants. It was not always so.

    As you mention “globally,” Muslims are trying, forcefully, to get their countries run on “Sharia” law, which is religious and is God’s law, so they tell us..
    I assume you are not happy with that?
    So, I presume what you are suggesting is that countries should all be run on Catholic law. Well, maybe they should. Good luck. Spain did, for a while. Many Spaniards did not care for it.

    “La Salette “All the civil governments will have one and the same plan, which will be to abolish and do away with every religious principal to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritualism and vice of all kinds”
    No they don’t.
    The only “plan” any Government has is to hang in there, and tell enough lies to get re-elected.


  41. kathleen says:

    I would suggest that what the Spaniards did not care for, was not so much Catholic principles being the norm, as Fascism (albeit a very light form of Fascism if one is to compare it to other countries that imposed it). Many Spanish Republicans were perfectly able to see the difference between the two…. unfortunately there were fanatical anarchists and Communists among them who could not, thereby choosing to use the Church as the scapegoat for their hatred of Religion. Those in Spain who really did not like or want to follow Catholicism were not obliged to do so – same as in Ireland – as long as they were not breaking the law. Islamic fundamentalism is totally different. In countries where Islam is the law of the land, to oppose it is lose your head!

    Admittedly there were some of extreme right-wing leanings in Spain “in those years” who used and perhaps abused their positions in the Church in the wrong way, but the whole Catholic Church cannot be blamed for the sins of just a few of its members.

    It’s noteworthy that crime in Spain during the fifties and sixties was the lowest in Europe. You could go shopping and leave your front door open without a care in the world. Girls could walk home at night and never fear they would be accosted. Quite different nowadays! Spain is now one of the most dangerous countries in Europe with soaring crime rates.
    One of the “joys” of secularism I suppose.


  42. Toad says:

    Yes, it was indeed a mistake to mention Spain again.

    “You could go shopping and leave your front door open without a care in the world. Girls could walk home at night and never fear they would be accosted. Quite different nowadays!”
    Ah, the Good Old Days!
    When, as a friend once remarked, back in the 60’s, “No matter where you are in Spain, you can be sure someone within a mile or two is being tortured.” Don’t know if that was true or not, of course there’s no way of ‘proving’ it – and it was a journalist speaking – so probably not.

    Personally, I am entirely in favour of the Guardia beating half to death anyone even suspected of petty crime.
    But then, I’m old fashioned. Bit of a ‘Trad,’ really.


  43. Toad says:

    New one on Toad.


  44. golden chersonnese says:

    That sounded a bit like the Finnish Darts Club as they were convincing us that it was in our best interest to vacate their favourite table in the English-style pub chop-chop, Toad.

    So Spain enforced “Catholic law” did it, Toad? One was garrotted for eating chorizo or black-footed jamon on a Friday or for having an impure thought, was one?

    Please to explain.


  45. Toad says:

    Put it this way, Golden: If you were not a practising Catholic you were treated with the greatest possible suspicion, to put it mildly, and were very unlikely indeed to get a “government” job, like postman, schoolteacher or town hall clerk.
    That is if you were not already shot, and lying in a ditch.
    Personally I can’t think of any Fascism worse than Franco’s. Certainly not Mussolini’s.
    Matter of taste, though. I suppose.
    How sick I am of losing the Spanish Civil War every week. Serves me right, though.


  46. johnhenrycn says:

    Thankee, Toad: must get a copy of that opera – The Ostrobothnians – because that’s where my father’s side of the family are from, although at $134 CDN, I think I’d better wait for Christmas.


  47. Toad says:

    De nada, JH.
    Clearly there is something to be said for having excellent ancestors. It helps!
    Darwin might not disagree.


  48. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 18:17

    Do stop talking absolute balderdash!

    Good thing you were not an honest practicing Catholic in any area dominated by the Reds in the years preceding or during the Spanish Civil War.
    Because otherwise you would most likely not be here telling these fibs (and pretending to believe them!)


  49. golden chersonnese says:

    The Ostrobothnians

    They are some of the leftover Swedes of Finland, aren’t they, JH? Must be. If they were ethnically Finn, they would be called eemguusuomidaalo, or something like that.


  50. golden chersonnese says:

    Correction. They would be suomalaiset itäpuolella lahden. Well, close.


  51. johnhenrycn says:

    You’re correct about the Swedish demographic of Ostrobothnia, GC. It still has a Swedish speaking majority, as do the Åland Islands of Finland that Brother Burrito visited last year, but my paternal grandparents are ethnic Finns.


  52. golden chersonnese says:

    “Österbotten” (east bottom) in Swedish, JH, and ‘Pohjanmaalla’ (land in the north) in Finnish.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s