The feast of St. Luke

Today, October 18th, is the feast of St. Luke, physician, friend and colleague of St. Paul, evangelist, and author of the Acts of the Apostles.

THE INTROIT

Thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly honourable; their principality is exceedingly strengthened. Ps. Lord, thou hast proved me and known me: Thou hast known my sitting down and my rising up.

THE COLLECT

LET holy Luke, thine Evangelist, we beseech thee, O Lord, intercede for us, who for the glory of thy name ever bore in his body the mortification of the cross. Through our Lord.

Melancholicus is wont to regard this day, somewhat informally, as the beginning of winter, inasmuch as up to this point in the year the autumn season is usually mild, dry, and relatively light, whereas after St. Luke’s day the colder weather closes in, bringing strong winds and driving rain, and henceforth for several months Melancholicus faces the burden of rising in the morning in darkness. Melancholicus likes his bed, and is loathe to leave it unless there be sufficient light at his window. But the choice is not his to make, so rise in the middle of the night he must.

October 18th is also the anniversary of the foundation in 1988 of this clerical society, to which (in his days as a seminarist) Melancholicus once had the privilege of belonging.

Which Church Father are you?

Today on his lunch break, while idly broswing the internet, Melancholicus did one of those quiz/test thingies — specifically, to see whom among the honoured roll of the Fathers of the Church he most resembled. Curiositas is a curious thing indeed.

Anyway, here is the result. Melancholicus is quite pleased, and candidly admits that he recognizes himself therein:

You’re St. Melito of Sardis! You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

St. Cecilia's Choral Guild

Melancholicus wishes to announce that the gregorian schola of St. Cecilia will meet at 5.45 this evening for rehearsal in the Tea Room of the Blessed Sacrament Chapel on Batchelor’s Walk, Dublin city centre.

Any persons, male or female, interested in joining said schola or in learning the rudiments of gregorian chant are invited to attend. Rehearsals are held every second Wednesday. Ask for Thomas Murphy, Gareth O’Flaherty or Niall Brady.

Church bulletins

These sentences actually appeared in church bulletins or were announced in church services (or so it is claimed):

• The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.


• The sermon this morning: ‘Jesus Walks on the Water’. The sermon tonight: ‘Searching for Jesus’.


• Our youth basketball team is back in action Wednesday at 8pm in the recreation hall. Come out and watch us kill Christ the King.


• Ladies, don’t forget the rummage sale. It’s a great chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.


• The peacemaking meeting scheduled for today has been canceled due to a conflict.


• Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community. Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say ‘Hell’ to someone who doesn’t care much about you.


• Ladies intending to become mothers should see the Pastor in his private office.


• Don’t let worry kill you off — let the Church help.


• Miss Charlene Mason sang ‘I will not pass this way again’, giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.


• For those of you who have children and don’t know it, we have a nursery downstairs.


• Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.


• The Rector will preach his farewell message after which the choir will sing: ‘Break Forth Into Joy’.


• Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.


• A bean supper will be held on Tuesday evening in the church hall. Music will follow.


• At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be ‘What Is Hell?’ Come early and listen to our choir practice.


• Eight new choir robes are currently needed due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.


• Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.


• Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.


• The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment and gracious hostility.


• Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 pm — prayer and medication to follow.


• The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.


• This evening at 7pm there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.


• Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10am. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.


• The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.


• Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7pm. Please use the back door.


• The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7pm. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.


• Weight Watchers will meet at 7pm at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use large double door at the side entrance.


• The Associate Minister unveiled the church’s new tithing campaign slogan last Sunday: ‘I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours’

Festival of ethnic music in Dublin

... at least this is how the Irish Independent put it last Saturday.

Melancholicus took these two pictures from the same edition of that newspaper. He was delighted that the event pictured here was featured in the paper, and especially with the photos, since this performance was a question of “I wish I had a digital camera ... why don’t I have a digital camera?”

Melancholicus would have liked to have photographed the performance himself, since he had a bird’s eye view of it from the window of his office. It took place last Friday at lunchtime, in the courtyard in the middle of the Newman building. While at his day’s work, Melancholicus was given a musical treat.

The first photo shows Aruhan and Alatengwula, members of the Mongolian Long Song Troupe. The second shows Liu Fang of Yunan province, China, playing a four-string lute. They were performing as part of the 12th International CHIME conference hosted by the UCD School of Music at Belfield.

The performance lasted for nearly an hour; in both visual and musical quality, it was one of the finest that Melancholicus had ever seen. The performers were dressed in traditional costume, played traditional instruments and sang traditional songs from whatever part of the world they hailed from. Particularly impressive was one of the Mongolian performers who, in addition to playing a stringed instrument (of which Melancholicus sadly does not know the name), alternated between singing and humi.

There is no Wikipedia article on humi, although there ought to be one. It is a peculiarly Mongolian breathing technique — breathing in such a way as to produce musical notes. It is exquisitely beautiful. The first time Melancholicus encountered humi, he wept for the beauty of it; for, if he may stoop to the use of a contemporary cliché, it is an intensely spiritual sound, immediately evocative (to these ears at least) of the face of God, and of His presence in eternity.

*UPDATE: details and more images from the performance on the UCD website here.

40 years of infanticide in Britain: the pro-aborts are celebrating

Melancholicus has noted a glut of anniversaries lately, including the 40th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto Guevara and the 45th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.

The image reproduced here is of a poster created by a group called Choice Ireland; their impious presence on the web can be viewed here. Their website is replete with links to Indymedia, which is a hard-line international socialist news outlet. That socialists and feminists would make common cause in such an issue as abortion need not surprise us; socialists have always been noted more for taking lives than saving them.

Choice Ireland is now busy organising a celebration of another anniversary, namely that of the legalisation of abortion in Britain in 1967. These posters have appeared everywhere throughout the humanities building in the university where Melancholicus earns his crust, so he decided to appropriate one of them for the benefit of his readers.

Melancholicus quite appreciates this poster, for he feels in its simple imagery it makes a point more eloquently against the abortionists themselves than any words of his could do.

The most prominent image on the poster is Venus’ mirror, the universally-recognised symbol of femaleness and femininity — but what is that object within the circle? To Melancholicus’ eye, it looks remarkably like a clenched fist. Already we have to do with violence. So abortion is about compassion, is it? Could have fooled me.

This poster celebrates 40 years of the killing of the unborn in Britain. Yes, that’s right: celebrates. We might also note, with a not displeasing sense of irony, the colour of the digits making up the number 40 on either side of the mirror’s handle.

Of what, in the context of ‘reproductive rights’, does the colour red remind you, gentle reader?

Yes, this is the actual colour that appears in the original: Melancholicus has not doctored his image of this poster to make the abortionists look worse than they are, but has displayed it as its designers intended it to be seen.

How ironically fitting.

The bishop, his wife, the pope and the press

What a to-do. Yesterday morning, as Melancholicus was driving to the university, he heard an item on RTÉ radio that was otherwise unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. It ought to have been a private matter between the persons concerned, but given that at least one of those persons is a high-ranking ecclesiastic and hence a public figure, the media mavens were delighted with the story and with the scope it gave them to vaunt both their ignorance and their prejudice regarding matters religious.

The news people treated it as something really, really controversial. An episcopal wife in the west of Ireland has abandoned her Anglican faith and embraced Catholicism. Her name is Anita Henderson. Her husband, the Right Rev. Richard Henderson, is the Anglican bishop of Tuam, Killala and Achonry. On Sunday last, October 14th, Mrs. Henderson was received by bishop John Fleming into the communion of the Roman Catholic Church.

The two bishops at Mrs. Henderson's reception into the Church. Bishop Henderson is even sporting his crozier; both men seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious clash of jurisdictions implied by this gesture. And what is Fleming doing wearing a cardinal's scarlet? Has there been a recent consistory of which Melancholicus is unaware, and of which Bishop Fleming was a beneficiary? [picture courtesy of Irish Angle]

Melancholicus wishes to extend his best wishes to Mrs. Henderson, and offers his prayers on her behalf. He is glad that she has the freedom to follow her conscience in matters of religion, the position of her husband notwithstanding. He is glad that (except in certain parts of Northern Ireland) one can today become a Catholic without fear of being pressed to death under heavy weights, or hanged, drawn and quartered, or that, conversely, one can go the other way without fear of being burned at the stake.

That the wife of an anglican bishop could enter the Roman Catholic Church so serenely, without anathemas and counter-anathemas being hurled back and forth between Catholics and Anglicans seems to have come as a disappointment, if not as a shock, to the news media, who seem to have been drooling in anticipation of some bitter and recriminatory clash more redolent of Reformation polemics than of today’s ecumenical chumminess.

On his way home in the evening, Melancholicus tuned in to Drivetime on RTÉ radio, and found somewhat to his chagrin that the media were still pursuing this story. Wondering why this should be, and why an individual’s change of religion should be considered so important to a society which scorns all forms of Christianity indifferently, he resisted the urge to switch over to Newstalk and kept listening - and all the more avidly when the Most Rev. John Neill, the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin, appeared as a guest on the programme.

The female presenter seemed rather taken aback that Archbishop Neill did not consider Mrs. Henderson’s conversion a scandal to the Church of Ireland. If she were hoping for some frothing at the mouth, she was disappointed. In any case, Archbishop Neill is a restrained and soft-spoken man, and much of what he had to say was perfectly reasonable. After commenting on how wonderful it is that the Churches can now live together in harmony, etc. etc., she asked Archbishop Neill for his views on Dominus Iesus, and his reaction to this recent re-statement of Catholic doctrine from the CDF, and then Melancholicus understood precisely why the media were so eager to run with this story: any excuse to bash the Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict in particular. The usual tired objections to perennial Catholic teaching were trotted out yet again; they are so shopworn that there is no need for Melancholicus to list them, much less refute them. It beggars belief how sections of the media will go out of their way to malign the holy father. The coverage of such issues by RTÉ is well known for its childish animus against Catholicism, and for its hatred of Benedict XVI, whom these illiterate stooges have repeatedly castigated for his alleged conservative authoritarianism.

Speaking of Catholicism, Mrs. Henderson will soon discover, alas, that there is not much of it left in the ‘renewed’ church she has lately joined. She may well find her new religion indistinguishable in almost every way from her former faith, except she will doubtless observe that liturgical worship in her new church is so much more poorly discharged than in the church in which her husband remains a bishop. She will discover that the blandness of the ICEL missal makes a poor showing beside the elegant poetry of the Book of Common Prayer. She will discover that on the far side of the Tiber, things are not all as they should be. Nevertheless, she is doubtless still aglow with the enthusiasm of the convert, and we pray that the grace of God will help her to overcome the obstacles ahead. There will be many of them.

A Prayer for Recovery

O LORD Jesus Christ, who didst go about doing good and healing all manner of disease amongst the people, lay thy healing hand upon me, and if it be thy will restore me to my former health. May thy almighty strength support my weakness, and defend me from the enemy. May thy sustaining presence be with me to soothe each ache and pain.

O spare me a little, that I may recover my strength before I go hence and be no more seen. Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed. Save me, and I shall be saved, for thou art my strength.

Write, O Lord, thy sacred wounds on my heart that I may never forget them, and that in them I may read thy pains, that I may bear patiently every pain for thee. Write thy love on my heart that I may love only thee.

Lord, be merciful to me a sinner: Jesus, Son of the living God, have mercy upon me.

I commend my soul to God my Creator, who made me out of nothing: to Jesus Christ my Saviour, who redeemed me with his Precious Blood; to the Holy Ghost, who sanctified me in Baptism. Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.

Let thy holy angels defend me from all powers of darkness. Let Mary, Mother of God, and all the blessed saints, pray for me a poor sinner.

Christ, when thou shalt call me hence, be thy Mother my defence, be thy cross my victory.

— from the Traditional St. Augustine’s Prayer Book.

Would the popes who got it right please raise their hands?

Last week Melancholicus observed the forty-fifth anniversary — O unhappy day! — of the opening of the Second Vatican Council by reviewing the address given by Pope John XXIII on that day in 1962.

Poor Pope John! Melancholicus resolved that he would not embarrass the memory of the late pontiff any further, but in his reading he has since come upon these quotes from certain of Papa Roncalli’s predecessors in which the general tone of anxiety and even dread contrasts sharply with the beaming optimism of Papa Roncalli. Melancholicus’ comments on the opening address need not be repeated, and in any case they pale into insignificance beside these diagnoses of the times from the mouths of these august servants of God.

First let us hear Pope John:

... we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin ... They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse ... We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand ...

Now let us compare the above with these stark warnings:

We felt a sort of terror considering the disastrous conditions of humanity at the present hour. Can we ignore such a profound and grave evil, which at this moment is working away at its very marrow and leading it to its ruin? ... Truly, whoever ponders these things must necessarily and firmly fear whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign of announcing, and the beginning of the last times ...

That was St. Pius X, in his first encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus.

With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man ... the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that society is tottering to its ruin because it no longer has a secure and solid foundation.

And that was Pius XI in Quas Primas.

We are overwhelmed with sadness and anguish, seeing that the wickedness of perverse men has reached a degree of impiety that is unbelievable and absolutely unknown in other times.

And that was Pope John’s immediate predecessor, Pius XII, writing in February 1949. And just for good measure, here’s another quote from the same Pope (Evangeli Praecones):

... the human race is involved today in a supreme crisis, which will issue in its salvation by Christ or in its destruction.

So, who was right, Pope John or these his distinguished predecessors? I am sure that Good Pope John did not have his predecessors in the Chair of Peter in mind when he castigated his ‘prophets of gloom’, especially not his beloved father Pius X, who in 1904 ordained the young Angelo Roncalli to the priesthood, and to the memory of whom he had a lifelong devotion. But how can Pope John have failed to heed the warnings of such holy popes, especially when they urgently forecast disaster and ruin, both for the Church and mankind?

Ah, but Melancholicus forgets... the Piuses lived in the bad old days, before the Council. The Piuses lived before the 1960s, the decade when everything became new and fresh and interesting, and when the light and joy of brotherly love lit up the world. The Piuses lived in a different world, so how could they have been expected to understand?

Melancholicus would like to have lived in the same world as the Piuses. Unfortunately that world seems to be gone, and he is stuck instead in the world of Good Pope John. But he derives no comfort at all from the flowers and the colours and the easy availability of condoms. Because the wickedness of perverse men has now reached a pitch of impiety undreamt of by the Piuses (save perhaps the last, who witnessed the carnage of World War II). God is not mocked; and Melancholicus is afraid.

Palestrina: Adoramus Te

This performance, from a group of lads at a Mennonite (!) college in the United States, is absolutely charming:



What is most amazing is that they don’t have either a conductor or sheet music, yet their delivery is flawless. It brings a tear to the eye.

They say 'peace, peace', yet there is no peace

Melancholicus is quite impressed. An initiative for peace coming from — of all quarters — the Mohammedans, no less!

From Catholic World News:

Islamic leaders issue call for inter-religious peace

Amman, Oct. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians." That was the message of 138 Islamic leaders, in an appeal for cooperation with the world's Christians.

Noting that Christians and Muslims together account for more than one-half of the world's population, the Islamic leaders called for cooperation between these two religious groups to reduce international tensions. "Without peace and justice between these two religious communities," their statement asserted, "there can be no meaningful peace in the world."

Quoting from both the Bible and the Qur'an in their lengthy document, the Muslim leaders argued that both Christian and Islam doctrine support the call for inter-religious cooperation that would go beyond "polite ecumenical [sic] dialogue" and ensure genuine commitment to the cause of peace.

The Muslim leaders' statement was sponsored by the Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan, and signed by Islamic leaders from 25 different countries. The message was addressed to the world's most prominent Christian leaders, beginning with Pope Benedict XVI and including the patriarchs of the autocephalous Orthodox churches; the heads of the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, and Assyrian churches; the Archbishop of Canterbury; the head of the World Council of Churches, and other Protestant leaders.

This is quite interesting. The original document referred to in the news item may be read here (PDF format). The signatories must be moderates, if they are actively seeking to make common cause with Christians. Melancholicus has just one teeny-tiny criticism to make of this initiative. To the signatories of this document I say, “after you.” Let them begin this quest for peace by reining in the militants in their own jurisdictions, and by ensuring the provision of basic human rights for Christians throughout the Muslim world. The violence inflicted by Muslims on Christians in Muslim lands finds no parallel in the vice versa of the Christian west. Where in the world, for instance, are Muslims persecuted for their faith by heavy-handed Christian authorities? In what country are mosques routinely fire-bombed, vandalized, destroyed by Christian mobs? In what country are Muslims subjected to continual pressure to abandon their own religion and adopt Christianity? In what Christian country does the Muslim community live in a perpetual state of servile dhimmitude? In what country do Christians who decide to become Muslims face intimidation and death threats from the Christian community? How many Christians who have embraced Islam been put to death for apostasy by their former co-religionists? In what Christian nation are Muslims prosecuted and imprisoned under blasphemy laws? In what country do Muslims live in fear of being set upon by enraged Christian mobs? In what country are Muslim girls raped by Christian men? In what Christian country are Muslims absolutely forbidden to practice their religion, or any part of it, not even permitted to possess a Qur’an or any other symbol of their faith?

We could go on and on, but doubtless, gentle reader, you have grasped the point. Let these Islamic leaders first set their own house in order before they presume to lecture Christians on the subject of peace and mutual trust.

Calling a spade a spade

This just in from the BBC.

Melancholicus is pleased that the US House of Representatives has voted to recognize the brutal slaughter in 1915-17 of one and a half million Armenian men, women and children for what it was: genocide.

Congress has not received the support of the White House. In declaring itself “very disappointed” by the congressional vote, the Bush administration has chosen instead to sacrifice human rights and the truth of history for the sake of short-term political expediency, as the US military relies upon Turkish co-operation and the provision of logistics for its operations in Iraq.

The Turks, needless to add, are frothing with fury. They have already recalled their ambassador from Washington, and further petty acts of disgruntlement are sure to follow.

Turkey would win our respect — and that of many throughout the world, both nations and individuals — by simply admitting its fault and acknowledging the truth of what was done. She would not even have to apologize — Melancholicus takes a low view of such apologies anyway, since no-one in the present Turkish administration bears any personal responsibility for the genocide, and one cannot apologize on behalf of someone else. Simply to acknowledge the truth would be sufficient.

But instead, the Turks are howling and protesting with indignation. It is a most distasteful spectacle. In Germany, to deny the Nazi holocaust is a crime. But in Turkey, one may not even allude to the terrible fate suffered by the Armenian people ninety years ago without drawing down on oneself the unfriendly attention of the authorities and a spell in a Turkish jail.

The Daily Mail has an excellent article on the Armenian genocide here. [Warning: graphic content]

That this unrepentant nation is being considered for possible admission to the European Union is most alarming. Should the foolish politicians that govern the EU proceed with such an insane scheme, the consequences will be calamitous. It can have no more dire effect than to further the islamicization of Europe. What the Mohammedans failed to achieve by military might in 1683 and 1917 they can now accomplish by dint of diplomacy and the steady pressure of demographics.

Now THIS is fidelity and commitment

From Catholic World News:

Conversions reported on the rise in Yemen

Yemen, Oct. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Palestinian newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi is reporting 2,000 conversions from Islam to Christianity in Yemen.

Many of the converts are reportedly living abroad in fear for their lives. Yemen adheres to Shari'a law, which forbids conversions from Islam on pain of death.

The World Muslim League has appealed to Yemen’s government to stem the tide of conversions, placing the blame on schools administered by foreigners.

When one reads stories such as this, which bring home to us that there are Christians in some parts of the world who live daily with the possibility of paying with their lives for their adherence to Jesus Christ, how ashamed ought we not to be of ourselves at how lukewarm and insipid we are, we who live in peace and comfort in an indifferent democratic society, where the worst we might have to fear for our witness is the ridicule of our peers and the scorn of the media!

Yemen is a Mohammedan state. There is no such thing as ‘religious liberty’ in such societies. We in the west tend to take our freedom for granted. We can change our religion as we change our clothes, at our pleasure. But under Shari’a law, any Muslim who leaves the religion of Mohammed for any other faith may legally be put to death. Muslim converts face not just the hostility of their former co-religionists; they must leave everything behind, and must almost always flee abroad for fear of being killed.

“And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.” — Matthew 19:29-30.

This witness by our brothers and sisters in Mohammedan lands is true commitment. Melancholicus is intrigued by the reported figure of 2,000 conversions. Over what period of time did these conversions take place? It is a remarkably high figure. It may be, that as Mohammedanism grows ever more militant and repressive, gentler souls will find in the profession of Christianity that repose which their own brutal religion cannot give, and be called to Christ.

And we in the easy, comfort-loving west must not let them down.

Bishop takes action against dissenting Jesuits

Some good news for a change, from the diocese of Worcester in the United States:

Massachusetts bishop issues warning to Jesuit college

Worcester, Oct. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Massachusetts bishop has strongly criticized a Jesuit-run college in his diocese, hinting that he could withdraw the school's recognition as a Catholic institution.

Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester issued a statement on October 10, responding to protests from lay Catholics about plans for a conference at the College of the Holy Cross in which Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts will make presentations. Siding with the pro-life protestors, Bishop McManus disclosed that he had urged Holy Cross to cancel the conference plans.

The organizations participating in the scheduled event, the bishop said, "promote positions on artificial contraception and abortion that are contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church." Saying that the Church's position on key issues involving respect for life is "manifestly clear," he questioned why a Catholic school would offer these groups a forum. The bishop warned that the conference could create a "situation of offering scandal understood in its proper theological sense, i.e. an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil." By canceling the conference, he said, Holy Cross would not infringe upon academic freedom, but would "make unambiguously clear the Catholic identity and mission of the College of the Holy Cross."

Bishop McManus noted that as the head of the Worcester diocese in which Holy Cross is located he has the "pastoral and canonical responsibility to determine what institutions can properly call themselves Catholic." He added: "This is a duty that I do not take lightly."

The bishop concluded his public statement by expressing his "fervent wish" that Holy Cross would cancel plans for the conference, "so that the college can continue to be recognized as a Catholic institution committed to promoting the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."

It is always heartening to see a bishop taking up the cudgels in defence of justice and right order. Nevertheless, Melancholicus notes that the initiative in this matter has come, once again, from the lay faithful; the shepherd is merely following his flock’s lead. Let us pray for the time to come again in which courageous bishops will lead their flocks from the front, not follow along reluctantly at the rear. Nevertheless, Bishop McManus is to be praised for his stand, and it would be an act of charity for us to pray for him at this time.

That a Jesuit college should grant a platform to such manifestly anti-life organisations as Planned Parenthood and NARAL should not surprise us in the least. Like their old rivals, the Order of Preachers, the Society of Jesus has since the conciliar renewal taken a nose-dive out of the Catholic faith and into apostasy. Perhaps the time has now come for the Holy Father to take a leaf out of Pope Clement XIV’s book...

Remembering 10/11: the revolution within the Church

Two days ago, Melancholicus noted the 40th anniversary of the ‘martyrdom’ of the Argentinian marxist thug Ernesto Guevara.

Today is another anniversary — the 45th anniversary of 10/11, namely the opening of the Second Vatican Council. This achieved within the Church precisely the same ends for which our friend Che was striving in the secular sphere, and precipitated the greatest crisis in faith and morals since the sixteenth-century protestant revolt.

Melancholicus observes this day as a day of penance and mourning, for in the meantime the loss to souls and to the Church has been incalculable. The fallout from this robber-council continues to wreak havoc on what little is left of Catholicism throughout the world, and souls continue to perish from the toxic effects of conciliar doctrine.

Melancholicus does not have any time for the feverish — and to his mind futile — attempts to reconcile the acts of this council with Catholic tradition. No amount of persuasion or argument will convince him that those acts and their spin-off policies are in harmony with the teachings of the Church, for they bear the indelible print of the minds of their authors, namely the vanguard of the new theology which, like cockle among the wheat, has overthrown the Catholic faith wheresoever it has been planted.

Melancholicus will no doubt draw fire from many otherwise orthodox Catholics for this uncompromising stand, but he will remain firm in his belief that the return of order, clarity and unity to the Church demands that the acts of this council be revoked in their entirety. However, we shall not see such in our lifetime.

Nevertheless, at some point in the future, the Church will condemn Vatican II. Melancholicus can be as sure of that as he can be of anything in this vale of tears.

As a suitable observance of the significance of this anniversary, Melancholicus shall review Pope John XXIII’s opening address, delivered to the council on this day forty-five years ago. It is not his intention to criticize, much less ridicule, the late holy father — for we have the benefit of nearly half a century of hindsight, and Pope John did not live to see how the fruits of his beloved council would smash the Church like a wrecking-ball. Instead, let us simply observe how wholly unfounded was Papa Roncalli’s ebullient optimism, and how the the unfolding of events produced in the Church the precise opposite of what he hoped his council would achieve.

The complete text of the opening address is quoted below (from Christus Rex). As usual, Melancholicus has added his comments in red.

Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when -- under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast -- the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter's tomb.

THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH

The Councils -- both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years -- all prove clearly the vigour of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals. In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and endures until the end of time, in order that this magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

It is but natural that in opening this Universal Council we should like to look to the past and to listen to its voices whose echo we like to hear in the memories and the merits of the more recent and ancient Pontiffs, our predecessors. These are solemn and venerable voices, throughout the East and the West, from the fourth century to the Middle Ages, and from there to modern times, which have handed down their witness to those Councils. They are voices which proclaim in perennial fervour the triumph of that divine and human institution, the Church of Christ, which from Jesus takes its name, its grace, and its meaning.

Side by side with these motives for spiritual joy, however, there has also been for more than nineteen centuries a cloud of sorrows and of trials. Not without reason did the ancient Simeon announce to Mary the mother of Jesus, that prophecy which has been and still is true: "Behold this child is set for the fall and the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted" ( Lk. 2: 34 ) . And Jesus Himself, when He grew up, clearly outlined the manner in which the world would treat His person down through the succeeding centuries with the mysterious words: "He who hears you, hears me" (Ibid. 10:16), and with those others that the same Evangelist relates: "He who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Ibid. 11 :23).

The great problem confronting the world after almost two thousand years remains unchanged. Christ is ever resplendent as the center of history and of life. Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars.

Ecumenical Councils, whenever they are assembled, are a solemn celebration of the union of Christ and His Church, and hence lead to the universal radiation of truth, to the proper guidance of individuals in domestic and social life, to the strengthening of spiritual energies for a perennial uplift toward real and everlasting goodness.

The testimony of this extraordinary magisterium of the Church in the succeeding epochs of these twenty centuries of Christian history stands before us collected in numerous and imposing volumes, which are the sacred patrimony of our ecclesiastical archives, here in Rome and in the more noted libraries of the entire world.

THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, "Ecumenical Council." We uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the basilica dedicated to him. It was completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts. And at the same time it gave rise to a great fervour throughout the world in expectation of the holding of the Council.

There have elapsed three years of laborious preparation, during which a wide and profound examination was made regarding modern conditions of faith and religious practice, and of Christian and especially Catholic vitality. These years have seemed to us a first sign, an initial gift of celestial grace.

Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church -- we confidently trust -- will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things [Sadly, "illuminated by the light of this Council", the Church has not become "greater in spiritual riches", nor is she able to "look to the future without fear". On the contrary, the Church has been profoundly weakened and divided; her spiritual riches have been scattered or cast away like so much dross; and her clergy, and especially her bishops, are filled with confusion and uncertainty. Morale has never been lower, even while the apostles of change continue to assure us that we are witnessing the greatest renewal of the Church in her history].

And thus the holding of the Council becomes a motive for wholehearted thanksgiving to the Giver of every good gift, in order to celebrate with joyous canticles the glory of Christ our Lord, the glorious and immortal King of ages and of peoples.

The opportuneness of holding the Council is, moreover, venerable brothers, another subject which it is useful to propose for your consideration. Namely, in order to render our Joy more complete, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin [could not this vision of "prevarication and ruin" by those whom the Pope dismisses as without much "sense of discretion or measure" actually be a more realistic grasp of the situation confronting the Church in 1960 than the Pope's own boundless optimism? History has since given us the answer]. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse [well, isn't it? Pope John did not live to see the subversion of the Church by Modernism, the destruction of her holy liturgy, the defection of millions of her children, the desertion of their vows and orders by thousands of priests and religious, and the legalisation of abortion in almost every country in the western world. Nor did he live to see the proliferation of legalised pornography, the rise of militant homosexualism and the rise of militant Islam. Had he lived to see these things, he might well have agreed with those whom he so scornfully criticizes], and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand [Nearly half a century on, it is the "prophets of gloom", and not Pope John, who have been proven correct].

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men's own efforts [here Pope John strays perilously close to a most noxious and peculiarly modern heresy, the notion that man is perfectible through himself alone] and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God's superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church [does it really? This is one of the most remarkable paragraphs in the whole of Pope John's address, insofar as he gives full play to his utopian vision, even while nearly half the world's population withers in the grip of the most diabolical system of mass enslavement the world had ever seen].

It is easy to discern this reality if we consider attentively the world of today, which is so busy with politics and controversies in the economic order that it does not find time to attend to the care of spiritual reality, with which the Church's magisterium is concerned. Such a way of acting is certainly not right, and must justly be disapproved [good]. It cannot be denied, however, that these new conditions of modern life have at least the advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one time, the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church. In fact, it suffices to leaf even cursorily through the pages of ecclesiastical history to note clearly how the Ecumenical Councils themselves, while constituting a series of true glories for the Catholic Church, were often held to the accompaniment of most serious difficulties and sufferings because of the undue interference of civil authorities. The princes of this world, indeed, sometimes in all sincerity, intended thus to protect the Church. But more frequently this occurred not without spiritual damage and danger, since their interest therein was guided by the views of a selfish and perilous policy.

In this regard, we confess to you that we feel most poignant sorrow over the fact that very many bishops, so dear to us are noticeable here today by their absence, because they are imprisoned for their faithfulness to Christ, or impeded by other restraints. The thought of them impels us to raise most fervent prayer to God. Nevertheless, we see today, not without great hopes and to our immense consolation, that the Church, finally freed from so many obstacles of a profane nature such as trammeled her in the past, can from this Vatican Basilica, as if from a second apostolic cenacle, and through your intermediary, raise her voice resonant with majesty and greatness.

PRINCIPAL DUTY OF THE COUNCIL: THE DEFENSE AND ADVANCEMENT OF TRUTH

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven.

This demonstrates how our mortal life is to be ordered in such a way as to fulfil our duties as citizens of earth and of heaven, and thus to attain the aim of life as established by God. That is, all men, whether taken singly or as united in society, today have the duty of tending ceaselessly during their lifetime toward the attainment of heavenly things and to use, for this purpose only, the earthly goods, the employment of which must not prejudice their eternal happiness [sound Catholic doctrine, this].

The Lord has said: "Seek first the kingdom of Cod and his justice" (Mt. 6:33). The word "first" expresses the direction in which our thoughts and energies must move. We must not, however, neglect the other words of this exhortation of our Lord, namely: "And all these things shall be given you besides" (Ibid. ). In reality, there always have been in the Church, and there are still today, those who, while seeking the practice of evangelical perfection with all their might, do not fail to make themselves useful to society. Indeed, it from their constant example of life and their charitable undertakings that all that is highest and noblest in human society takes its strength and growth.

In order, however, that this doctrine may influence the numerous fields of human activity, with reference to individuals, to families, and to social life, it is necessary first of all that the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers. But at the same time she must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and new forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.

For this reason, the Church has not watched inertly the marvellous progress of the discoveries of human genius, an has not been backward in evaluating them rightly. But, while following these developments, she does not neglect to admonish men so that, over and above sense -- perceived things -- they may raise their eyes to God, the Source of all wisdom and all beauty. And may they never forget the most serious command: "The Lord thy God shall thou worship, and Him only shall thou serve" (Mt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8), so that it may happen that the fleeting fascination of visible things should impede true progress.

The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men [a most beautiful intention, and nobly expressed. Pope John's Council, however, was not able to raise itself to the level of these high standards. How many attenuations and distortions of Catholic doctrine have since arisen in our time because of this accursed council?]. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all [all previous Councils had assembled in order to confront some urgent problem or grave error. Here Pope John tacitly admits that there is no pressing reason for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council].

For this a Council was not necessary [ditto]. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another [Did nearly two and a half thousand bishops travel from all over the world and attend four conciliar sessions covering three years of their lives just for this?? If merely updating the means of presenting the Catholic faith to the multitudes is all that was on the Pope's mind, he could have employed less spectacular and more effective means of achieving this aim. The convocation of an Ecumenical Council involving all the bishops of the world was not necessary for such a purpose, which could have been handled by some curial dicastery at a fraction of the cost]. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

HOW TO REPRESS ERRORS

At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun [sometimes errors disappear without any special intervention by the Church, sometimes not. But I think I can see where he's going with this...]. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity [a dangerous prescription, and one which has reaped bitter fruit time and again since Pope John first uttered these words]. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations [it is now blindingly obvious that this was a disastrously mistaken policy]. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them [what evidence does the Pope have for making such a remarkable assertion? And of what errors, precisely, is he speaking? Nazism, perhaps? But what about Communism, which has claimed more victims than all other tyrannies combined throughout the whole of history, and keeps those whom it chooses not to kill in a state of dehumanized slavery? Communism in our time seems to be on the wane, but it was not so in Pope John's day. Even if, as Pope John seemed to believe, error contains the seeds of its own destruction, how does it help matters for the Church to wash her hands of her responsibility rather than putting her shoulder to the wheel?], particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies [more unwarranted optimism, since within a decade of this address being given, several countries had introduced legal abortion, and several others would follow. So much for modern man's conviction of "the paramount dignity of the human person"]. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them.

That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her. To mankind, oppressed by so many difficulties, the Church says, as Peter said to the poor who begged alms from him: "I have neither gold nor silver, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk" (Acts 3:6). In other words, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness. But she distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.

THE UNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN AND HUMAN FAMILY MUST BE PROMOTED

The Church's solicitude to promote and defend truth derives from the fact that, according to the plan of God, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (l Tim. 2:4), men without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds, with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.

Unfortunately, the entire Christian family has not yet fully attained this visible unity in truth [we shall pass over this problematic sentence and of the dangerous interpretations of which it is susceptible; that shall be a story for another day].

The Catholic Church, therefore, considers it her duty to work actively so that there may be fulfilled the great mystery of that unity, which Jesus Christ invoked with fervent prayer from His heavenly Father on the eve of His sacrifice. She rejoices in peace, knowing well that she is intimately associated with that prayer, and then exults greatly at seeing that invocation extend its efficacy with salutary fruit, even among those who are outside her fold.

Indeed, if one considers well this same unity which Christ implored for His Church, it seems to shine, as it were, with a triple ray of beneficent supernal light: namely, the unity of Catholics among themselves, which must always be kept exemplary and most firm; the unity of prayers and ardent desires with which those Christians separated from this Apostolic See aspire to be united with us; and the unity in esteem and respect for the Catholic Church which animates those who follow non- Christian religions.

In this regard, it is a source of considerable sorrow to see that the greater part of the human race -- although all men who are born were redeemed by the blood of Christ -- does not yet participate in those sources of divine grace which exist in the Catholic Church. Hence the Church, whose light illumines all, whose strength of supernatural unity redounds to the advantage of all humanity, is rightly described in these beautiful words of St. Cyprian:

"The Church, surrounded by divine light, spreads her rays over the entire earth. This light, however, is one and unique and shines everywhere without causing any separation in the unity of the body. She extends her branches over the whole world. By her fruitfulness she sends ever farther afield he rivulets. Nevertheless, the head is always one, the origin one for she is the one mother, abundantly fruitful. We are born of her, are nourished by her milk, we live of her spirit' (De Catholicae Eccles. Unitate, 5).

Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which, while bringing together the Church's best energies and striving to have men welcome more favourably the good tidings of salvation, prepares, as it were and consolidates the path toward that unity of mankind which is required as a necessary foundation, in order that the earthly city may be brought to the resemblance of that heavenly city where truth reigns, charity is the law, and whose extent is eternity (Cf. St. Augustine, Epistle 138, 3).

Now, "our voice is directed to you" (2 Cor. 6:11) venerable brothers in the episcopate. Behold, we are gathered together in this Vatican Basilica, upon which hinges the history of the Church where heaven and earth are closely joined, here near the tomb of Peter and near so many of the tombs of our holy predecessors, whose ashes in this solemn hour seem to thrill in mystic exultation.

The Council now beginning rises in the Church like daybreak, a forerunner of most splendid light. It is now only dawn [twilight indeed, but alas! It is dusk, rather than dawn. The sun is not rising, it is setting!]. And already at this first announcement of the rising day, how much sweetness fills our heart. Everything here breathes sanctity and arouses great joy. Let us contemplate the stars, which with their brightness augment the majesty of this temple. These stars, according to the testimony of the Apostle John (Apoc. 1:20), are you, and with you we see shining around the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, the golden candelabra. That is, the Church is confided to you (Ibid.).

We see here with you important personalities, present in an attitude of great respect and cordial expectation, having come together in Rome from the five continents to represent the nations of the world.

We might say that heaven and earth are united in the holding of the Council -- the saints of heaven to protect our work, the faithful of the earth continuing in prayer to the Lord, and you, seconding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order that the work of all may correspond to the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world.

This requires of you serenity of mind, brotherly concord moderation in proposals, dignity in discussion, and wisdom of deliberation.

God grant that your labours and your work, toward which the eyes of all peoples and the hopes of the entire world are turned, may abundantly fulfil the aspirations of all.

Almighty God! In Thee we place all our confidence, not trusting in our own strength. Look down benignly upon these pastors of Thy Church. May the light of Thy supernal grace aid us in taking decisions and in making laws. Graciously hear the prayers which we pour forth to Thee in unanimity of faith, of voice, and of mind.

O Mary, Help of Christians, Help of Bishops, of whose love we have recently had particular proof in thy temple of Loreto, where we venerated the mystery of the Incarnation dispose all things for a happy and propitious outcome and, with thy spouse, St. Joseph, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, intercede for us to God.

To Jesus Christ, our most amiable Redeemer, immortal King of peoples and of times, be love, power, and glory forever and ever.

There is much that is noble, beautiful and incontrovertibly Catholic in Pope John’s address. However, there are also mistaken ideas and erroneous assumptions. This opening address of the Council would in fact be a template for all the conciliar documents — Catholic in large part, but shot through with Modernism, as well as being prolix in the extreme. The opening address, as well as the sixteen documents which would be ratified by this council between 1963 and 1965, reminds Melancholicus of nothing less than what St. Pius X said in 1907 of the Modernists and their methods: “Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist” (Pascendi, 18).

The death of the priesthood, and of the Mass: more on those Dutch Dominicans

Recently, Melancholicus posted an item on the scheme of the Dominican order in the Netherlands to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a lay-led womyn-friendly, homo-friendly, sacrilegious and invalid simulation thereof. Melancholicus is now pleased to offer his readers not only the penetrating analysis of the magisterial Sandro Magister, but also an English translation of Kerk en Ambt, the original document in which the Dutch Dominicans published their heresies (H/T to Dr Philip Blosser).

As Sandro Magister observes, “The experimentation is already underway. In place of the priest are men and women selected by the faithful. And all together pronounce the words of consecration, which are varied as desired. In the view of the Dutch Dominicans, this is what Vatican Council II wanted”.

Can it seriously be claimed that ultimate responsibility for this diabolical perversion of the Church’s sacred liturgy and of the theological truths wherewith the same is underpinned does not extend back all the way to the Second Vatican Council, which made these Dominicans what they are? Are they not, after all, the spiritual heirs of Eduard Schillebeeckx, who was a peritus of that infamous Council and whose influence is stamped all over the documents thereof?

Reality check: here is a view of the Council by one who does not wear the rose-tinted lenses of the 1960s.

Remembering the revolutionary

Yesterday, apparently, was the 40th anniversary of the death of this man:



While driving home from work yesterday evening, Melancholicus listened to a feature on Guevara’s life and times on Newstalk 106. Even though George Hook and Jim Fitzpatrick were talking about a dangerous revolutionary, they treated him like a celebrity — as though Guevara were one of the great humanitarian figures of the twentieth century, which he was not.

The moral of the story is this: it happens that men often commit acts of bloodshed and mayhem for a political cause. If a man carries out these acts in the service of the politics of the right, he will be universally reviled as a murderer and a terrorist. But if the same acts are carried out in the service of socialism, the perpetrator is extolled in the press and on the airwaves as a hero and a freedom-fighter.

Is there not a strange double-standard at work here? But Melancholicus will not say any more, since this says it better:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary ... These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!" — Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

"The Wall" meaning the wall that Che Guevara so happily put people up against to shoot them.

But Che didn't always bother with the wall. One of his favored methods of killing was to tie his victim to a chair, gag him, walk around the room a bit ranting at him, and then slowly walk up, pistol in hand — and splatter the victim's brains and skull across the room while his companions watched.

Why do I bring all this up? Well yesterday, I noted Val Prieto's piece on Che's cheerful everyday execution of Christians during his "glorious revolution" in Cuba. In response to that, some faux-liberal left-wing twit posted an incoherent rant on his blog about me, Fulgencio Batista, George Custer, Ariel Sharon, and King David.

Yeah, you got it. Instead of just acknowledging that Che was a sadist and a mass-murderer, the guy changed the subject to the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!!!!!

What is it about totalitarian hate-freaks that whenever they're confronted with the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by one of their heroes, they think they can make it go away by changing the subject? And what is it with their creepy fascination with Jews, anyway?

Mind you, I can sort of understand bringing up Batista, the man who Fidel and Che toppled. Batista was a gangster, a thug and a thief. He killed political opponents and cracked down hard anyone objecting to his thuggish regime.

On the other hand, anyone who's looked at what's happened on that island over the last 50 years knows the truth: Fidel has killed and tortured and imprisoned far more people than any dictator in Cuban history. He has also created more poverty and suffering than any other Cuban leader in history. Yet still people make a hero out of his buddy, the sadistic murderer Che Guevara?

Oh thank you Che! You helped replace a brutal thug named Batista with an even more brutal thug named Castro! And in the process you helped make the poor of Cuba even poorer, helped further suppress free speech, and were proud to institutionalize torture and terror for everyday Cubans! On top of all those glorious things, you wrote poetry!

Che, you looked so handsome and dashing on your motorcycle! But you were even more handsome and dashing when you were terrorizing Cuban peasants, blowing their skulls to bits with your personal sidearm! You romantic Stalin-loving poet you!

The twit anti-semite apologist for Che also had the audacity to say that Che was a "symbol" for "Latin Americans." Yes, certainly he is, and the Latin Americans at Cubanet will be happy to tell you just exactly what that symbol means to them: Just click here to read what these Latin Americans have to say about the "symbol" Che.

And here's what some other Latin Americans have to say about the symbol Che.

Che Guevara was a murdering pig. If you're an apologist for him, you're an apologist for a murdering pig — and an enemy of human rights.

Now I wonder what Messrs. Hook and Fitzpatrick would have to say about that?

Orwellian society update: plans to outlaw 'inciting gay hate'

This just in from the BBC.

Melancholicus does not advocate violence against those who experience same-sex attraction, nor against those who, experiencing such attraction, choose to act upon it.

However, Melancholicus cannot approve of this move by Jack Straw to outlaw ‘inciting gay hate’ in the UK. What, precisely, constitutes such incitement in any case?

Should this bill become law, it will not only be a crime to express — whether publicly or in private — repugnance of homosexual behaviour. Taken to its logical extreme, it could mean that such seminaries in England and Wales as have not been closed by the conciliar ‘renewal’ may be prosecuted for refusing to admit gay candidates to study for the priesthood.

But what is Melancholicus thinking? It is already sufficient grounds for prosecution in the UK to publish, whether in writing or by word of mouth, disapproval of homosexual behaviour. The love that once dared not speak its name has now become the love one dare not speak against. In 2006, for instance, the then leader of the Muslim Council of Britain was investigated by police for having made remarks on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme which failed to be affirming of homosexuality, although in the end no charges were brought.

This new advance for the lobby of political correctness can only foment further discontent in a society which does not, by and large, share the views propagated by the media and by certain members of parliament. Offering legal protection to a vice until recently considered dangerous and abhorrent, and threatening those who oppose such a move with the strong arm of the law, can only further destabilise and divide British society. But one is forbidden to say so, or even think such, since it might be construed as an ‘incitement to hatred’. One is reminded of the ‘thought crime’ of Nineteen Eighty-four. I wonder, will UK-based ISPs now block access to Melancholicus’ blog, owing to the politically very incorrect views expressed therein? A fortunate thing indeed that Melancholicus doesn’t live in the UK; else he might find Her Majesty’s constabulary knocking at his door.

A final thought: no other group (with the possible exception of militant islamists) expresses a hatred of its enemies with more violence and fury than the homosexualist lobby. If they expect to be treated with courtesy and respect, Melancholicus wishes to request of them that they extend a similar courtesy to the adherents of revealed religion, for whom approbation of homosexual acts and approval of such bizarre social inversions as ‘gay marriage’ are impossible.

If this is progress...

Yesterday the British parliament began sitting again after the long summer recess. Melancholicus is quietly pleased, since this means he can now fall asleep at night listening to the delightfully soporific Today in Parliament programme on BBC Radio 4, rather than some third-rate ‘comedy’ filler instead. BBC Radio 4 has run downhill considerably in the last few years, but that is a story for another day.

On Monday Prime Minister Brown faced a great deal of hostile questioning over his decision not to call an autumn election, as well as criticism of his announcement that British forces serving in Iraq would be scaled down from next spring. Some MPs were roundly critical of the government’s decision to go to war in the first place, and rightly so — Sir Menzies Campbell described Britain’s involvement in the Iraqi debacle as a ‘catastrophe’, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind went even further, describing the mess as ‘the greatest error in British foreign policy in recent times’. All sentiments with which Melancholicus is in complete agreement.

Nobody, however, asked the salient question: why did Britain feel it necessary to hitch herself to George Bush’s bellicose bandwagon in the first place? Is Britannia not ashamed that she has reduced herself to the level of a lap-dog, trotting along obediently at the heels of its master?

The Prime Minister responded to his critics with this red herring: “Let us not forget the evil that Saddam Hussein did,” he said; “let us not forget also that we’re building a democracy in Iraq.”

There we have it. Because ‘democracy’ has been brought to Iraq, it has all been worth it. All the risk-taking, all the lies about weapons of mass destruction, all the abject humiliation of playing second fiddle to the Bush administration, all the terrible destruction, with loss of life and devastation of towns and cities, all the ceaseless sectarian violence, the infiltration of Iraq by agents of Iran and agents of Al-Qaeda, all the British soldiers killed and maimed in this senseless enterprise — it has all been worthwhile in the end, because Iraq is now a ‘democratic’ society. By which the Prime Minister and his supporters mean that Iraq is now clay to be moulded in the image of a western state. Prime Minister Brown forgets that such concepts, however familiar they may be to us in Europe, are alien to Mohammedan political culture. Can the Prime Minister clearly point to any true democracy in any Muslim state in order to show us a model of what might be achieved in Iraq?

The late Saddam Hussein has been typecast as the bloodstained villain whose removal from office was demanded by justice, thus providing a pretext for the invasion of a sovereign state which — before 2003 — was not involved in international terrorism of the kind decried by Messrs. Bush and Blair. Now Melancholicus has no intention of making an apologetic for Saddam, who was a murderer and a tyrant; but Mr. Brown’s specious bleatings about ‘evil’ and ‘democracy’ ring more than a little hollow to these ears. Is daily life not more evil now for the majority of Iraqi citizens than at any time under the Ba’athist regime? Hardly a day goes by without the commission of some atrocity which takes the lives of scores of ordinary Iraqis. Over a hundred thousand Iraqis have lost their lives in the violence that has followed on the collapse of Saddam’s government, and two million more have fled their homeland. Are these not expected to be grateful for the privilege of being blown up while going about their daily business, now that the dictator has been toppled from power? Is not Iraq a better, happier, more peaceful society now that ‘democracy’ has been introduced?

It seems that for those who worship the idol of the ballot box, the imposition of democracy itself — as though this were a perfect form of government — outweighs any other consideration. Yes, Iraq now has a parliamentary government. Messrs. Bush and Blair have done their work well. They can congratulate themselves on a job well done — or “mission accomplished”, as Mr. Bush put it four years ago — and now the Iraqi people must pay for this great gift they have received from such kindly, well-meaning, but thoughtless benefactors. And if the same benefactors are worried about a resurgent Iran, they have only themselves to blame; they have themselves created the conditions in the Persian gulf which permit an increasingly belligerent Iran to flex its muscles.

What gets Melancholicus really steamed is the hypocrisy of this repeated propaganda about the righteous, moral west removing an evil dictator. Saddam Hussein was removed because of a personal grudge by the Bush family, and a greedy eye by the Washington administration on Iraq’s oil reserves. Morality and justice have nothing to do with it. How many of the west’s allies in the Muslim world are themselves dictators? How about Mubarak in Egypt, and Musharraf in Pakistan, for instance? Shall we name more? Why not invade these countries also, since they are led by undemocratic regimes? To ask this question is to answer it. But our leaders will not tell us the truth, because they really do consider us as stupid and naïve as we have allowed them to believe.

The incipient violence of the left

Once again the apostles of tolerance and liberalism have shown themselves... well, intolerant and illiberal. This from Catholic World News:

Graffiti carry threats against Pope

Naples, Oct. 5, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Threats against Pope Benedict XVI have been scrawled on the walls of buildings in Naples, Italy, a few weeks before a visit there by the Pontiff.

Graffiti reading "Death to the Pope" and "Death to Ratzinger" have appeared in the Italian city, where Pope Benedict is scheduled to make a one-day visit on October 21. Italian police officials believe that the graffiti were the work of leftist groups.

In April of this year, death threats against Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa prompted police to provide the archbishop, who heads the Italian episcopal conference, with police protection. Those threats-- which also came in the form of graffiti, as well as anonymous letters-- were thought to be the work of militant homosexuals, angered by the Italian hierarchy's opposition to a bid for legal recognition of same-sex unions.

It is interesting that those who demand tolerance and acceptance for their own beliefs and practices are loath to extend the same courtesy to others who might think differently. So much for freedom of thought, never mind freedom of speech. Anything which opposes the onward march of the leftist agenda must be ridiculed and, should that fail to work, threatened with violence. Further comment is surely superfluous.

AFI: Now The World

Superb amateur video of Now the World, from the Sing the Sorrow album.

Si cum Dominicanis canis, non cum Domino canis

The lunacy of the post-conciliar church knows no bounds.

When one thinks one has finally seen and heard all the nuttiness that the purveyors of the new religion have to offer, there is always some even more outlandish sacrilege afoot in clerical quarters, making one realise that one is still capable of being shocked.

Except today such outrages no longer induce in Melancholicus his wonted pious fury, only a wearying fatigue accompanied by a sigh of here we go again...

The offending news is printed below, in blue. Melancholicus has added his comments in red.

Rome Dominicans surprised at Dutch proposal for priestless Masses

[of course a 'priestless Mass' is an oxymoron, but that significant truth does not seem to occur to the author of this article, who comes across as far too dispassionate in her coverage of such a serious issue as denial of the priesthood and the sacrifice by a Catholic religious order]

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The general curia of the Dominicans expressed surprise [surprise? Outrage would be a more suitable response] over a booklet published by its order in the Netherlands [where else?] recommending that laypeople be allowed to celebrate Mass when no ordained priests are available [reality check: the Mass is an action of Christ, not of any individual or group. One who has not received sacerdotal ordination cannot therefore confect the Eucharist, and hence cannot offer Mass].

In a written statement released by the Vatican Sept. 18, the Dominicans' Rome-based leaders said that, while they "laud the concern of our brothers" over the shortage of priests, they did not believe "the solutions that they have proposed are beneficial to the church nor in harmony with its tradition." [which is putting it rather mildly]

The statement, dated Sept. 4, acknowledged the Dutch Dominicans' concerns about the shortage of vocations to the priesthood and the difficulty in offering the faithful in the Netherlands a wider celebration of the Eucharist.

But while the statement said Dominican leaders shared those same concerns it said they did "not believe that the method they (Dutch Dominicans) have used in disseminating" a booklet to all 1,300 parishes in the Netherlands was an appropriate way to discuss the issue [again, putting it rather mildly].

An open dialogue about the availability of the Eucharist and the priestly ministry should be carried out through a "careful theological and pastoral reflection with the wider church and the Dominican order," the statement said. [more Anglican-style management newspeak. When will they ever call a spade a spade?]

"The booklet published by our Dutch brothers was a surprise to the general curia of the Dominican order," it said.

In late August, the Dominicans in the Netherlands distributed a 38-page booklet, "Church and Ministry," that proposed parishes in need of an ordained priest choose their own person to become the Mass presider. The parish could then present such candidates -- "women or men, homo- or heterosexual, married or single" -- to the local bishop to ask that they be ordained, according to the booklet [so these persons will be offering 'Mass' even before they are 'ordained'? The mind boggles. Not even the corporation formerly known as ECUSA permits the non-ordained to preside at the eucharist. These Dominicans are more protestant than the protestants].

However, basing its recommendation on practices within the early church [ ! ], the booklet said if the bishop chooses not to ordain the candidate -- for example, because the person cannot meet the requirements of celibacy -- then the elected candidate and the congregation could still feel assured that when they come together to "share bread and wine in prayer," they are still receiving a real and valid Eucharist, the Dutch Dominicans' Web site said [a 'real and vaild Eucharist'? What planet do these people live on?].

"What is important is an infectious attitude of faith," the booklet said [Faith in what, precisely?].

One of the booklet's authors, theologian and Dominican Father Andre Lascaris, confirmed that the order was suggesting the elected leader would be celebrating a Mass and consecrating bread and wine for parishioners [No 'elected leader' can possibly celebrate Mass without the sacerdotal character imparted through the sacrament of orders. The bread and wine at such a 'celebration' would remain bread and wine; nothing more].

The "magical moment" of transubstantiation when Christ becomes present in the sacrament can also occur when people come together prayerfully [this is an old and wearisome error. The supplications of the congregation, however devoutly uttered, can in no wise effect transubstantiation, for which a priest is absolutely necessary], since the priest's words of the consecration "are missing in the oldest prayers" of the early church [this too is nonsense. Lascaris is as poor a liturgist as he is a theologian. The words of consecration are "missing" from such sources because they were considered too holy to be written down. They were not absent from the celebration of the liturgical rite], he told Catholic News Service by phone Sept. 19 from Huissen, Netherlands.

Because of the priest shortage in the Netherlands, local church officials advise Catholics to drive to a nearby parish that has a priest, and some parishes have a Liturgy of the Word and a Communion service with preconsecrated hosts.

But Father Lascaris said a eucharistic service with preconsecrated hosts is like receiving "bread and wine from someone else's table."

He said to imagine going to a restaurant, "and you sit down and they bring you food from another restaurant" from a city far away [the lunacy of this complaint is what happens when you remove the sacrificial aspect from the Mass; it degenerates into a picnic].

Parishioners also want to celebrate together with a presider from their own community [here this apostate priest assumes he knows what parishioners 'want'. Would Melancholicus prefer to receive the eucharist from the hands of Mrs. Jones simply because she lives on the same street, rather than from a validly ordained priest from out of town? What do you think, gentle reader?] since a leader or priest is a member and "a servant of the community," he said [is the sacerdotal office reduced to this? To the level of a glorified community worker?].

He said Mass should not be "a method of power; we see it as a method of celebrating." [take your socialist ideas elsewhere, Father. They have no place in the Church founded by Jesus Christ]

The Dutch Dominicans emphasized their proposals were meant for emergency situations when no local priest was available and a bishop refused to ordain a selected member of the community [emergency or not, it still doesn't change the fact that a lay person cannot confect the holy sacrifice of the Mass, nor the fact that such invalid simulations of the sacraments are sacrilegious].

In an interview posted on the Dutch Dominicans' Web site, Dominican Father Harrie Salemans, another of the booklet's authors, said: "The church is organized around priests and finds the priesthood more important than local faith communities. ... This is deadly for local congregations." [this is congregationalism. It is not Catholicism]

Father Lascaris told CNS he did not think publishing and distributing the booklet was inappropriate [of course he didn't. No heretic ever thinks that heretical acts might be inappropriate].

Barring the Dominicans from disseminating ideas would be "strange," as would not allowing them to talk to other people, to journalists or even to the pope about suggestions on how to address the lack of priests available to celebrate Mass, Father Lascaris said [it would seem that the Pope and the Dutch Dominicans adhere to different religions entirely].

The issue of priestly celibacy and the potential role of married priests came up at the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist in late 2005. Both synod participants and Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed the obligation of celibacy for priests in the Latin rite.

The pope's 2007 apostolic exhortation, "Sacramentum Caritatis" ("The Sacrament of Charity"), and his special November 2006 meeting with top Vatican officials reaffirmed the value of priestly celibacy.

END

Alas! Who will deliver us from the putrid fruits of that wretched council? Forty years is far too long a time to be without authentic Catholic teaching and praxis. No wonder the faithful and their pastors in countries such as the Netherlands are so deluded as to openly espouse notions indistinguishable from low church protestantism. It might reasonably be asked whether anything even remotely resembling Catholicism still exists in the Netherlands, a country which before the catastrophe so abounded in vocations to the priesthood and religious life that Dutch priests and nuns could be found in the missions all over the world. Now, Melancholicus has no choice but to refuse communion with these heretical and apostate Dominicans, who have openly espoused novelty and in doing so have departed from the faith of the Church.