I noted the “Giving Tree” at my Catholic Cathedral parish had a couple gift tags for the Golden Compass book for needy parish children. What do the bishops (or bishopric bureaucrats) know that you do not? While I refrained from taking one of the the tags (I took the one for art supplies for a six year old boy, instead), I think I’ll go see the movie before accepting a condemnation from you. Perhaps, as Sister Wendy writes about ‘admirable atheists,’ “I have the greatest admiration for atheists, because by definition they have rejected a false ‘God.’ The true God, if you have the priviledge of knowing Him, you cannot reject.” Could it be Pullman has something to teach the believer?

Oh, that’s so nice. I tend not to see movies
as it is. They are a big distration from the
heady business of secession. 
I really wonder what kind of country we would
have now if we had an active church, that would
initiate public examinations of such literary
works as golden compass. Nip them in the bud, so
to speak prior to them becoming films, and what’s
better, protestant chumps such as robertson
wouldn’t have had such a megaphone as he used to
have had there been a clergy and church willing
to stand up against the protestant nationalist.
Why now, and why this?

One wonders how the reviewer will protest , when in the fullness of time Milton has his day, and the eloquence of Paradise Lost reverberates from behind an IMAX screen at Wagnerian length.

The Pullman mini-series is , as they say , just the beta.

“The USCCB review captures in microcosm the dominant malady of the West...” The fish starts to stink from the head. The sickness of our civilization IS because the heads of Catholic Church started to stink. Simple as that. I know you cannot say that in your article but that review is a symptom of a universal sickness pervading Catholic Church, where those who have not only the means, but the moral duty to stand up, do not. They are those who in the first and foremost place fail the western civilization.

Could it be Pullman has something to teach the believer?

Yes. In the same sense that Jefferey Dahmer has something to teach the children about diets.

I know you cannot say that in your article but that review is a symptom of a universal sickness pervading Catholic Church, where those who have not only the means, but the moral duty to stand up, do not

The Orthopraxis of the laity is working. Who do you think IS slaying this beast of a movie?

Sadly,on this thread, we can read other Catholic laity defending evil.

C’es la vie.

As to AmBishops not discharging their duties to Teach, Rule,and Sanctify,there are MANY reasons why they do not do that - and they will answer to God for that but we Laity, also have our duties to act and a lot us us are - including the admirable Mr. Piatak.

Tales of Yawnia indeed. These self proclaimed urban sophisticates, who delude themselves into feeling morally superior to the rabble by crapping on God and the Church.

Their rants and raves are so boring...These people like to believe they are too intelligent to believe in God, when they are really too narcissistic and too self absorbed to understand what Christians are talking about.

Great slam of Pullman, the ultimate example of this sort of thing.

God willing, the box office failure of this film will continue - no thanks to the USCCB.  But better late than never on pulling the review.  Now it’s time to pull the reviewer, who, I understand, also gave a glowing review to the sodomite and adultery propaganda film Brokeback Mountain a couple of years ago.

The film Golden Compass is an attempt to suck kids into reading the books and there are numerous merchandising tie-ins as well, including coloring books for younger kids, toy bears, and various size models of the compass.  But all this not to mention sequels, depends on the success of the movie and so far, while not a complete flop, it has been a relative failure.

...I really just quoted Our Lady of Quito, AD 1631, who four hundred years ahead of our time diagnosis the sickness of the Universal Republic.

D C Exile:

Sister Wendy is great, and I have no problem with atheist artists.  There are many atheists who lack faith, but do not despise Christianity and in fact are trying to find the truth.

Pullman is not one of these.  His express goal is to undermine Christian belief, and he hates Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, as shown by his vicious attacks on Lewis and Tolkien.  Pullman also would not be one to wait to see a movie before condemning it.  He lobbied against having “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe” turned into a movie a few years ago, because he did not think anyone should see a movie based on Narnia.  Pullman deserves no better from Christians. 

As for me, I would never give one dime to a man who thinks that Catholics are incapable of producing profound literature, because they just accept what the Church tells them as true.  This is what Pullman’s attack on Tolkien--an attack he has repeated to other interviewers--means.  Pullman may become even richer than he is because of this movie, but he is not going to become any richer with my money.

On the subject of books, I wonder if anyone has read
Tanya Huff’s vampire series, the “Blood” books? While
I am not sure what her beliefs are, she has a
sympathetic understaning of her Catholic hero (even if
such hero turns is a 500 years old vampire).

“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”

Have to give the guy credit - he does dream big, doesn’t he?

What gets me is that people believe Nicole Kidman to be a Catholic, as she herself has proclaimed, and as her parish priest, Australian bishops, and, I guess, the pope and College of Cardinals agree.In reality, she chose to take the role as the head of “The Magisterium”, and is, I would assume, playing the role of “The Whore of Babylon”, as anti-Catholics like to portray the Church.

What we need are some good old-fashioned excommunications of numerous movie stars, politicians, and members of the hierarchy.  It’s time for the pope to take a stand and use his absolute power absolutely.  The USofA may only have 6% of the world’s Catholics, but because it produces most of the world’s entertainment, it’s time for Benedict XVI to take action.  Nothing would do more to let people know that the REAL Magisterium was serious than to see the Bishop of Los Angeles being thrown out onto the street, to live on the street and get back in touch with the pain and suffering and poverty that is out in the real world, and then maybe he would understand the morality that the Church brings to an otherwise barbarian, pagan world.

Anti-Catholicism is a long British and American tradition.  I would be worth asking, To what extent is the general Christophobia of Britain today and of the Northeast and West Coast USA just this tradition writ large?  Also, to what extent is this Christophobia the consequence of weak religious traditions: Anglicanism, founded because a king wanted a divorce; Calvinism, the foundation of which, along with Lutheranism’s, collapsed when the New Perspectives on Paul earthquake occurred; the Dissenters, with a foundation neither based on antiquity nor aided by reason? Furthermore: was 1688 for Britain, as 1861 for America, a political disaster, the bad results only visible now?

And another provocation, given a recent article here and its writebacks.  If the choices were only two, then better an Islamic society in Britain and America than a secular society and the accompanying decadent, vulgar society, with all the social pathologies:  high crime, divorce, abortion, sexual perversions, sociopaths, psychopaths, the Lumpenproletariat, drug abuse, fast food and bad health, television and cinema and decadent music (the new opiate of the masses), self mutilation, the absence of any aesthetic feeling, and an utter lack of social graces, or even of decent behavior.  One reads Orwell’s “The Lion and the Unicorn” and wonders if the nation which he describes even exists anymore.  But then Huxley, not Orwell, was the better prophet.  There was a lot wrong with Dale Carnegie America, but it was vastly superior to what followed.

But at least the restaurants in England have improved! 

As for the mess in the Catholic Church, pray that Good Pope Benedict will live long!  He’s cleaning out the mess.

Oh, I never, ever judge a pile of crap until I have tasted it.

Enough of this I won’t judge the movie until I’ve seen it. 99% of what comes out of Hollywood is bilge. Period. How many times do you have to put your hand in a vipers den to figure out it ain’t good. Hollywood vulgarizes everything it touches. That includes “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Passion of the Christ.” The movie theater is the Church of the masses, and that’s not a good thing, Barbara Nicolosi to the contrary notwithstanding. Movies are a big part of our counter-liturgy of consumption and war. Oh, but we must engage the culture. The Church will begin to have real success when we learn to be truly counter-cultural. Harry Forbes, like so many sophisticated liberal Catholics, was probably reacting against the healthy reaction of the mass of Catholics against the movie, because you know art must be defended against the great unwashed. The whole concept of entertainment has to be deeply critiqued.

I often wonder why so much time is spent discussing such inanities as “Golden Compass” when, really, the best attitude to take is to simply ignore it.  It is certainly understandable why good people are angry with it and want to say something about it, as Mr Piatak admirably did, and, no, I do not think we should bury our heads in the sand about it.  But I think we should look at it in its proper perspective.

That perspective is this:  we are dealing with a Hollywood that, aside from their swimming in perversions both sexual and religious, has totally lost - and I mean, completely - lost the art of movie making.  Look at this nonentity who “directed” this movie.  Who will remember him in five years?  I mean, let’s face it: a David Lean he ain’t.

Hollywood writers used to have Faulkner, Du Maurier and Chandler among their group.  They used to have honest-to-goodness real music composers working there, like Miklos Rozsa, Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann.  Special effects creators like Ray Harryhausen used to enchant us with wonder and with awe, instaed of today’s effects boys who have forgotten what charm is.  And, lastly, we used to have directors who could direct:  John Ford, Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock.

And the actors and actresses working today?  Please.

Who working today in that God-forsaken town can even come within one hundred miles of the men mentioned above?  To ask the question is to answer it.

It’s funny to me to see these gesticulating amateurs railing against the Catholic Church, the Church that built civilization.  Letter writer “c max”, above, answered them simply and beautifully.  The peurile ravings of Dan Brown (does anyone remember the “DaVinci Code” movie?) and Mr Pullman area a great source of amusement especially when you actually read them and find that their Gunning-Fog rating is at about the fourth grade level.

I don’t mean to belittle anyone who wants to put these pipsqueaks in their place.  To them I say, “Go for it”.  To the US Catholic Bishops on the other hand, that sad collection of cowards, heretics, arrogant buffoons and poofs, I say go out and get a real job because you’ve utterly failed in the work you were given to do.  Perhaps Benedict might start governing the Church a little more forcefully by throwing to the winds the Levadas and Mahonys, too.  We can pray for that.

Yes, go on and discuss this Hollywood “masterpiece” as much as you believe necessary but don’t forget the one central fact about it:  it is a piece of junk.

No doubt “The Golden Compass” is tanking in part because Catholics have crossed it off their must-see lists. Good for them. But its box office egg-laying may have a simpler explanation: It sucks. Friends who’ve seen it are pretty dang uniform in describing the movie as “charm less”, and even more devastating, “dull.”

No wonder Pullman is so dismissive of “Lord of the Rings.” It’s like Michael Stipe calling The Beatles “elevator music”: What he can’t match, he slags. Gotta pass the word to these guys that envy is so… unattractive. But at least Pullman and Stipe have put themselves in the top-five for “Silly Punk Bitch of the Year.”

Director Weitz may envision even more “iconoclasm” in his sequels, but since Number One hit the fan and spattered the wall, he should be envisioning his way into the next crappy teen comedy. Maybe he can work some iconoclasm into titty jokes and screwed pies.

(Weitz… hmm… something tells me he won’t helm a guilt-trip documentary on the Great Israeli Wall… right?)

PC propaganda is, by definition, dispiriting. If you’re setting out to destroy everything a person, or a society or an ethnic group hold dear, you’d damn sure better have the power of life and death over them – or be a very entertaining little dancing monkey. You can grab folks’ attention for awhile with smoke and mirrors. But don’t let it go to your head. As C Matt points out here, the author and makers of “The Golden Compass” aim big. But “creative destruction” must have a suitable replacement for the rubble it leaves. And its advocates MUST realize that.

If not… the next load of destruction may be headed their way…

If the choices were only two, then better an Islamic society in Britain and America than a secular society...

Really? Well,lots of luck trying to hold a meeting of the League of the South after The White House becomes a Mosque.

An argument could be made that as the rapidity and acuteness of our angle of descent into barbarism increases the more luminous and attractive will be the splendor of the Catholic Church.

Whereas, dhimmitude?  Not so much, brother.

It is when all seems lost and hopeless (vis a vis the Church)that one can be assured the restoration has already begun.

Men will be amased, thinking the Church is dead. It’s restoration and splendor will be a sign to the world of who is ultimately in charge.

And the restoration has begun.

For a LONG time, America has been Laodicea…

And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

But Laodicea began its transformation when The Theotokos appeared in the center of the Americas - Our Lady of Guadalupe - as a sign of things to come (spiritually and politically imo).

What will be left after the break-up of America?

Who knows but it will be interesting to watch and be an observer of its break-up, already well under way.

All I know is I am on the Ark of Salvation so I have nothing to worry about.

Have a Blessed Advent.

Ah, just taking a break from reading the Syllabus of Errors, here.. Feel I have to ask the question everybody is just burning to ask, but haven’t the cojones to..

WWPNND?

That’s “What Would Pio Nono Do? 

Now that the deistic secularists have taken over the hierarchy? 

I mean, those dem’d masons, Screwing up the mass wasn’t enough?  Turning it into a happy clappy consciousness raising session, with the spirits of ‘68 and ‘76 dripping off the architecture and from the music like protoplasm off the Ghostbusters? 

(Now that was a good movie!  I especially love the bit where they all get possessed and worship the demon Hal.. Good stuff!)

And that ignoring that epidemic of homosexual statutory rape and pedophilia that’s been engulfing the Church these last forty to fifty years?  That wasn’t sufficient? 

What’s the USCCB endorsing stupid flim flam movie agitprop for atheism after all that?  I mean, really?

It’s just them rubbing it in, that’s what.  You know, like la dee dah, who believes in this carp anymore?  God, dog, carp, crap.. yada yada.  nada nada.

Or maybe a few of them actually do believe and are plumping for anti christ. 

Who knows.  All I can say is that Pullman apparently depicts God a doddering old fool, who expires while getting up, while the Magisterium is all ruthless danger. 

I suspect he has it exactly backward.  Poor, poor Phil.  Si triste.  Tant pis.

shocked by bishops who, through the bureaucrats they employ, effectively recommended that parents expose their children to cinematic atheism.

Except they didn’t.  They gave it an A-II rating which advises against bringing children.  While I happen to like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Miracle on 34th Street”, they are purely secular Christmas movies.  While there certainly was a Catholic influence upon Hollywood not producing trash, much of it was outright puritanism.  Personally, I am not taking my children to it.  I severly limit what my children see however.  There just seem to be bigger fights to be had out there.

The Austriallian Bishops give it M, which seems equivalent to our A-III.
http://www.catholic.org.au/filmreviews/viewreview.asp?fid=951
The Quebec doesn’t even get into the atheism.
http://www.mediafilm.ca/films-detail.asp?Id=1631

I don’t think “deistic secularists” have taken over the hierarchy.  America has some great bishops, some good ones, and some bad ones, but I am not aware of many who are “deistic secularists.” I think the principal problem is not a lack of belief, but a lack of courage.  This is a trait of contemporary America as much as it is a trait of the hierarchy.  Like many other Americans, many of our bishops do not want controversy.  And a sure way of avoiding controversy in America is to stay a little to the left.  The only way to counteract this continued leftward drift in our culture is to push back. 

My hope is to contribute to pushing the bishops in the right direction, and I believe things are moving in the right direction in many areas, thanks in part to the leadership of Benedict XVI.

I’ve read all three books, and I can attest to the
accuracy of Piatak’s comment on the film. I am not
a Catholic so I am completely unbiased here (although
I know a lot about Catholic theology). This book is
typical of the kinds of attacks against the Catholic
Church that are currently popular at the University of Oxford, where
I believe Pullman teaches part-time (In any case,
he lives in Oxfordshire and he attended Oxford).

The fact that Pullman had no qualms about doing this
despite the fact that the English governments have
persecuted Catholics from the late 16th century well
into the late 19th century is what gets me about this
book. The book is basically a rehashing of all the
English conspiracy theories, in children book form, about
the Catholic Church controlling the world. The most
interesting aspect of the books is that they follow
the plot of Milton’s Paradise Lost. People call Pullman
an atheist but I think he writes more out of the
perspective of the good old English anti-Catholic bigot.
To this extent, I think, had Milton been able to read this,
Milton, a devout Puritan who also hated Catholics but
who was to put it mildly a considerably superior writer
to Pullman, would have recognized it as his own
17th century perspective on the Catholic Church.

M. Z. Forrest,

The pulled review recommended the movie for adults and adolescents, and the reviewer envisioned parents and teens discussing the movie.  That is a recommendation for parents to expose their children to the film.  And the only reason it wasn’t rated A-I was because of the stylized violence and the like, not Pullman’s aggressive atheism, which didn’t concern the reviewer at all.

As for “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Frank Capra would disagree with you about it being “secular.” True, it’s not a literal retelling of the Nativity, but it features angels, prayer, and religious carols.  Try selling that as “secular” at your local public school.

Finally, the great Hollywood films of the ‘30s, ‘40s, ‘50s, and early ‘60s easily outclass the films of today.  One reason they do is that Hollywood couldn’t rely on cheap sex or graphic violence to attract audiences, and had to tell good stories instead.  I don’t care if that’s “puritanism” or not; I’d like more of it.

I think its a mistake to call Pullman or Hitchens or the other “new aethists aetists at all. They’re not out trying to prove God doesn’t exist, they just don’t like God period. In their mind, God or the concept of God represents the world they’re trying to destroy to uplift their secularlist utopia.

Our current Pope - may God bless him - won’t be doing any excommunications of these Hollywood big-wigs or politicians. Why? Because the Holy Father is more of an academician than a disciplinarian. He’s more at home teaching rather than punishing.

And he himself is still enamored of Vatican Two. He was considered one of the “Progressivists” during the Council. Too many of the current Hierarchy have that same mindset...or worse. So His Holiness will not remove any of them from their bishoprics and such. God forgive him, but he just doesn’t have it in him to discipline or punish.

So what we of the laity have to do - whether we like it or no, whether we wish it or no - is to create modern films that UNDERMINE ATHEISM AND SECULARISM. And to do it in such a manner that the Hollywood establishment can’t do anything about it from the outset. EVER!

If we can’t or won’t do it, then I believe Our Lord will punish us severely for it, both in this life and the next. Those who may disagree, I believe you are dead wrong.

Thank you all for your time.

“I have the greatest admiration for atheists, because by definition they have rejected a false ‘God.’”

The problem is that Pullman has also rejected the true God.  I wonder if the people who think they have to see Golden Compass for themselves in order to properly judge it feel the need to watch every piece of garbage produced by Hollywood.  What a blessing these people must be to rotten movie producers.

Abellio said that The Passion of the Christ is Hollywood. You’re totally wrong, Abellio. Mel Gibson is not Hollywood. He is the ANTI-Hollywood in flesh and blood. He represents all that Hollywood hates and abhors. Mel Gibson is the man.

M. Z. Forrest said:
“While I happen to like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Miracle on 34th Street”, they are purely secular Christmas movies.  While there certainly was a Catholic influence upon Hollywood not producing trash, much of it was outright puritanism.”

I don’t like either movie, but I agree with you about the Puritanism. The code was a mixed blessing. There wasn’t as much porno and blood lust, but what we got was a lot of gee-whiz, Beaver Cleaver Americanist drivel. A big problem was the negative, materialist mentality which creates a check list of you can’t show this and you can’t say that rather judging and promoting healthy art on the level of its formality. Or, I should say, these prohibitions needed to be balance with efforts to promote more noble affirmations of the good because you always need prohibitions. 

A big problem is that movies are and have been democratic, capitalist art, and the disordered desires of the mass of men offer an irresistibility tempting market for capitalist exploitation. So by this logic things become more and more depraved.

But again, I think Christians must make, or at least, assimilate, a much deeper critique of popular media and entertainment which in many ways serves to channel devotion away from God and to the State. Secularization, such as that of the Christmas story, is part of this project since it enlarges the space the state claims as its own, and diminishes the domain of the Church.

I would say to Mr. Piatak, that what we need is truly sacred art not just art that includes angels, prayer and religious carols. The worst thing about “It’s a Wonderful Life” is its mediocrity, sentimentality and diminishment of higher things.

“It’s A Wonderful Life” is one of the great American movies.  The first time I saw it, as a sophomore in college, I was amazed, and it still never fails to move me.

I think Roger Ebert’s essay on the film is quite good:  http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990101/REVIEWS08/401010376/1023

I also enjoyed this essay on the movie that recently appeared on a Catholic website:  http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/67867

And, for what it’s worth, it’s on the Vatican list of 45 great movies.

There are lots of different ways to make worthwhile movies, and I’m not suggesting Capra’s was the only way.  Not by a long shot.  But, in my view, we could do with more directors like Frank Capra, and more actors like Jimmy Stewart--both of whom regarded “It’s a Wonderful Life” as their best movie.

A fine piece, Mr. Piatak. Two observations, evidenced by the official Catholic reaction to the film and its death at the box office:

1. As for the USCCB, St. John Chrysostum said: “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

2. As our parish priest notes, all the major heresies came from bishops and priests, and it was the laity, acting in concert with good popes, who put things right.

I didn’t offer this criticism of the column, but seeing the comments to the article, I am so sick and tired of the ridiculous bishop bashing whenver knows that the bishops weren’t the one’s who made the evaluation.  And while yes the road to hell will be paved with the skulls of bishops, the idea that this movie will be the reason is offensive to the senses.

Junk actors make junk movies.
Better love your kids or the Devil will do it
for you (or the “celibate” Clergy if your Catholic.)

The failure of the Catholic Church and the so-called Religious right to attack Hollywood simply shows they don’t really believe what they preach.

Hollywood and the entertainment “industry” is the biggest foe of religion in the USA. Yet, we see almost no willingness to fight back. Pastors and Priests should be telling their flocks NOT to watch commercial TV or see Hollywood Movies. Instead, everyone tap dances & justifies seeing the latest piece of sewage from Hollywood. If you must see a movie or TV show watch an old movie on DVD or something by Mel Gibson, who IS ANTI_HOLLYWOOD.

Pablo, it is because they are more frightened of public disapproval and media criticism than they are of said Hollywood garbage. Vatican Two and the Americanist heresy in this country only adds to the problem.

Add to that the fear of being persecuted, in either body, property, money or freedom. They don’t want to die, get beat up, go to jail, lose their freedom or money or be called names and worse.

Tom,

Good post.  This is a bit off topic, but I have to ask:  Whom do you prefer, Tolkien or Lewis?

I like both, but would have to say that Tolkien is the superior writer.  The symbolism of Lewis often seems overwrought, and his notion of fantasy (the actual rules, creatures, orders, etc. of the world he creates) seems to be somewhat of a free-for-all, while Tolkien creates a natural order, with its own internally consistent rules and logic, albeit fictional ones. 

TS Eliot once said that Homer was a world and Vergil a style.  I say that Tolkien too was a world, but Lewis a master of symbolism.

The Catholic Church did their very worst to hold back progress.  They stole every book they could and burned those they couldn’t.  On top of that, they rubbed the ink off classic works of math and physics and scribbled magical appeals to their god over them.

Under the Romans, there were roads, baths, central heat, running water and flushing toilets, water powered mills and factories.  Under the Catholics, all that was destroyed to build monuments to an invisible sky fairy.  It took over 1,000 years to recover from the Church’s destruction of technology.

Lest anyone forget, the Inquisition was murdering people right up until WWI (last one in Mexico).  And Galileo wasn’t reinstated until the 1980s!

Today, they spend their time abusing children and obstructing the punishment of pedophiles.

It would be hard to find a more violent and evil mental illness than religion.

Bede,

Thanks for the kind words.  Like you, I prefer Tolkien, who did indeed create a world.  If you haven’t read it, I would also recommend Tolkien’s published correspondence, which shows how deeply conservative he was.

Ugly American,

I suggest you read this, and learn something:  http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris

Tom Piatak says of the American Bishops that they lack courage. 

Well, Courage is a Virtue and Virtue means “to be a man” and since there is NO training these days of boys into manhood---well, there are very very few REAL men around.  Our society is effeminized and puerile.  Our Church just pulls men, albeit psuedo-men, from this bastardized culture and anoints them.  Culture defines Politics.  It is as simple as that.  The church can be no different from the culture it pulls its priests and bishops from.  Furthermore, at the door to every seminary is a vetting process where liberals discriminate against conservative, traditional Catholic candidates. (Please see Leon Podles, The Church Impotent.)

The Catholic Church is in a whirl of a mess.  The Bishops are cowards, i.e. lack virtue, because they are NOT men in the first place.  The Church draws effeminates. Modern Christianity is effeminizing and it pulls effeminate candidates, and desk-bound academics. There is NO good material out there to pull from.

Mr. Wheeler, tell that to the Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX), and their pack-to-the-rafters seminaries. You might be tempted to revise your statement.

Our society is effeminized and puerile.

And because you are part of that society, that means you are, um, “effeminized.”

Tell us, when you sing, “I enjoy being a girl,” do you use a falsetto voice?

Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX), and their pack-to-the-rafters seminaries

Yes. It takes real men to flee the battlefield and start a schism. And the Protestants in Fiddlebacks up in the rafters?

They are moonbats barking the Jews are cursed as a race.

There is a reason I wrote that Forbes’ review “captures in microcosm the dominant malady of the West.” The liberalism at evidence in the review is not a uniquely Catholic problem, far from it; it is systemic.  Like “I am not Spartacus,” I see signs of hope in the Catholic Church, more than I see in the broader culture.  And as the Church revives, so will the West.

Mr. Wheeler:

No, it is not quite that “simple.” Most of the more
recently ordained priests and seminarians in my
Northern Ohio diocese are entirely orthodox and the
exact opposite of “effiminate”.  I have met many of
them and can’t help but think that they will be exerting
greater influence over the direction of the Church
in the very near future. From all I have heard, this is
happening in many other parts of the country as well.

Great article, Tom.  Your point about what the
Church built in America prior to the cultural
revolution of the sixities in spot-on.  Just at the
point when Catholics were poised to have a perhaps
decisive impact for the better on American society, we
threw it all away.  There are signs that at least some of us are trying to rediscover what we lost.

As a Cinema Studies student graduating in the spring I completely agree that the hacks in Hollywood today have nothing on the classical era. Frank Capra, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Merian C. Cooper, Errol Flynn, and Cary Grant were either class acts (like Grant) or real adventurers (like Flynn) and so they brought talent and art to the screen. Those in Hollywood today are hacks who flunked out of high school and can only make pop culture references.
And for the Tolkien vs Lewis debate, as much as I love Tolkien, “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” was the book that made me love reading as a kid so I’m for Lewis.

Spartacus, on the SSPX, you are wrong. They are NOT in schism from the Church, nor are they “moonbats”.

Insults do not an argument answer. Thank you for your time.

I have already explained to Spartacus that SSPX are not in schism, but he seems to carry the lie quite close to his heart. Wait until BXVI lifts the excomunications.

On the Tolkien vs. Lewis debate, Lewis gets my vote, but not for Narnia.  His greatest work is his much lesser known science fiction trilogy - Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength.  The last named combines elements of romantic fantasy from the Arthurian legends, a chillingly prophetic negative utopia, and a truly creepy horror story.  I’d probably rate it as my favorite novel other than Quo Vadis.

Yes, “That Hideous Strength” is a great book.  Interestingly, Tolkien was an inspiration for the hero of Lewis’ science fiction trilogy, just as Tolkien to some extent modeled Treebeard after Lewis.

I’m an atheist who is (a) sympathetic to Paleoconservatism and (b) has read Pullman’s trilogy, though I haven’t seen the movie.

The trilogy is inveterately hostile to Catholicism, but so rabid is it that I found some of the Catholic villains rather more sympathetic than the Satanic ‘heroes’, such as the child-sacrificing Lord Asriel.  I kept expecting the protagonists, Lyra and her boyfriend, to reject the Satanists at the end, but no, Pullman has them swear unthinking allegiance to Satan (who’s female), like good little stormtroopers - and this is the position he advocates!  He has a blind, religious faith in rebellion and revolution as good-per-se.  He’s the exact opposite of genuine humanist fantasy authors like Michael Moorcock, who advocate that people think for themselves.  In all, in fact, I have to say I thought these were evil books, from a very unpleasant mind.

Thank you Roy F. Moore. I thought Spartacus had
more sense. Those of us who are traditionalists
can assert with some credibility: we never left
the Church or the Faith; it, or whoever controls
the buildings, left us. There is more than enough
information on this subject; unfortunately, those
who ought to know better have not looked into it
deeply enough.

As for Paul: “lifting the excommunications” is
moot. There was no valid excommunication. The
real problem remains for a future pontiff and/or
council to determine what these last five Popes
and Vatican2 merit.

I thought Spartacus had more sense.

That just proves you do not know me.

Those of us who are traditionalists
can assert with some credibility: we never left the Church or the Faith; it, or whoever controls the buildings, left us.

Even though I, in some sense, am bereft of sufficient sense, I have enough sense to know this is schismatic nonsense.

“It would be hard to find a more violent and evil mental illness than religion. “

Not so hard at all.  One need look no further than your own hateful, lying post and from that into the shifty eyes of militant atheism.

There is violence and evil aplenty in you and your ilk.  In fact, that is all you have at your command since the one whose backside you kiss has nothing but lies and devious hatred to offer.

Like Richard Dawkins, A C Grayling or Christopher Hitchens, Philip Pullman is not really writing for the likes of me, of course. His only purpose is to hate the Narnia novels: the His Dark Materials trilogy was written because certain parents could not stand their children’s love of Narnia.

The Christianity in Narnia is subtle (some people manage to miss it entirely, like most readers of Tolkien), whereas the anti-Christianity, and especially the anti-Catholicism, in Pullman’s work is painfully and tediously obvious and obsessive. Like, say, Dan Brown, Pullman is wholly parasitic in relation to Christianity (even the trilogy’s title has been lifted from Paradise Lost), and presupposes a very high degree of familiarity with it, far beyond what often exists in fact.

Pullman’s trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children of about 12. Is it back to this that future generations are to look nostalgically when recalling the formative books of childhood? Indeed, are Pullman’s pubescent readers today to emulate this behaviour? After I asked that question in an letter to The Observer a couple of years ago, I was repeatedly told (as if I did not already know it), “Will and Lyra touch each other’s ‘daemons’ as a mark of love.” Well, is that what they are calling it these days?

Pullman’s ‘daemons’ physicalise processes that are primarily emotional. This extends to many other interactions in Pullman’s world (persuasion, seduction, lying, betrayal, befriending), and it is very clever and effective, in that it allows extended expression of the psychological and emotional by means of physical vocabulary.

However, precisely because this makes it far easier for younger readers who may not have the capacity or inclination to follow more sophisticated and difficult expressions of persons’ ‘inner lives’, what of those younger readers (or, now, viewers) who have no ‘daemons’ with which to physicalise the primarly emotional process of being in love? What are they supposed to do in response to this literature?

We know the answer to that one, since Pullman himself has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels: sexualisation is even higher on his agenda than is secularisation, of which his obsession with Christianity is in any case a standing contradiction.

This disgusting film should at least have been given an 18 certificate (in the United States, the trilogy itself is only marketed to adults). After all, The Passion of the Christ was given one. Or have I missed something?

Spartacus sez: “...you do not know me.”

Of course we don’t. That’s not the point.
We are responding to your statements; not
to your personality.

Spartacus sez further: “...this is schismatic
nonsense.”

Sorry old boy, you remind me of a fellow down
under who was “away from the faith” and returned
after eight years thinking himself a prodigal
returning home. He never the left the one true
Faith. THAT is the definition of schism. He
left a protestantized edifice; a protestantized
service (there is no real Mass; no real sacrifice);
and returned to the same. And he had the nerve to
refer to those of us who know better as “radtrad
monomaniacs.” I never realized what invincible
ignorance was until I listened to Hagee and some
of the rabid Vatican2 types. Go kiss the Koran
like Wojtyła and share your acts of faith with
the other modernists.

If someone needs info on the above, feel free to
ask the moderator to contact yours truly and I’ll
be happy to send you information. I’m not about to
plant reams of stuff like that muslim did on
another column ("Allah the Unbound”—now at 63
pages and counting...).

PS: Don’t take this stuff so personally; it’s
important, of course—saving one’s soul is
vastly more important than politics—but have
a toast at Christmas and thank God we’re not
mulsims, atheists, or protestants. I just said
that, partly, to tweak Prof. Ramus....

That’s “...muslims..,” of course.
Bad “editing.”

Militant, hate filled clowns like Philip Pullman give atheists like me a bad name.

Spartacus sez: “...you do not know me.”

Of course we don’t. That’s not the point. We are responding to your statements; not to your personality.

Me comment was a tongue-in-cheek, gentle, self-denigrating riposte. Lighten-up, Francis

From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius XTH - the great man whose name you and your Satan-serving schism dishonor…

23 Q: In what does the Body of the Church consist?

A: The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.

(Ahem)

31 Q: Are we obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us?

A: Yes, we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned.

(Ahem)

32 Q: Are we also obliged to do all that the Church commands?

A: Yes, we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.”

(Ahem)

33 Q: Can the Church err in what she proposes for our belief?

A: No, the Church cannot err in what she proposes for our belief, since according to the promise of Jesus Christ she is unfailingly assisted by the Holy Ghost.

(Ahem)

.
37 Q: Has a Catholic any other duties towards the Church?<?B>

47 Q: <B>Besides her teaching power has the Church any other power?

A: Yes, besides her teaching power the Church has in particular the power of administering sacred things, of making laws and of exacting the observance of them.

49 Q: To whom does the exercise of this power belong?

A: The exercise of this power belongs solely to the Hierarchy, that is, to the Pope and to the Bishops subordinate to him.

(Ahem)

62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.

(Ahem)

64 Q: Who are the Bishops?

A: The Bishops are the pastors of the faithful; placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God in the Sees entrusted to them, in dependence on the Roman Pontiff

(Ahem)

65 Q: What is a Bishop in his own diocese?

A: A Bishop in his own diocese is the lawful Pastor, the Father, the Teacher, the Superior of all the faithful, ecclesiastic and lay belonging to his diocese.

66 Q: Why is the Bishop called the lawful Pastor?

A: The Bishop is called the lawful Pastor because the jurisdiction, or the power which he has to govern the faithful of his diocese, is conferred upon him according to the laws and regulations of the Church.
(Ahem)

Well, I could go on but the point is made.

I will end with a quote from the great Pope St. Pius XTH

Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909

“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all
means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and
judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not
about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone

St Irenaeus ...

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the
unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which
occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of
Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but
swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by
them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.

“...I would assume, playing the role of “The Whore of Babylon”, as anti-Catholics like to portray the Church.”

Mr. Capp, it is not ‘anti-catholics’ who view rome as the Whore of Babylon alone.

I am a convert to Holy Orthodoxy from Rome. For five hundred years before Rome’s bastard children left their fornicating mother, (1517-1054=463) the other Four Patriarchates had clearly, unambiguously stated (more than once!) that Rome was ‘no true church,’ and this was well before that Doctor of ‘catholic’ Divinity, Martin Luther, appeared on the scene…

Living in Evan-jelly-goo America, perhaps you don’t know this fact of history. Ms. Kidman, now divorced from her Scientology hubbie, Cruise, and marrying again (in an RC church!) is merely being a consistent heretic of Rome, not ‘a traitor.’ You should welcome her embrace of yet another aspect of the religion of ‘diversity.’

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, frankly.

Fr. John,

As the author of the piece being commented on, what do your comments have to do with my piece?  What do they have to do with anything?

I make a point of not criticizing other Christian denominations in my writings, because I believe Christians ought to be united in the face of the common enemy.  Comments like yours are a grave disservice to the cause.

Anyone with half a clue and even crippled powers of observation realizes that Hollywood and the TV networks (not to mention most newspapers) are on a bandwagon devoted to the destruction of the cornerstones of Western culture, most specifically the Catholic church, and Christianity in general. I ditched my TV over a decade ago and instead use that time productively rather than being passively brainwashed by the implicit values of sitcoms. Catholics should create their OWN movie studios, just as in the past they created their own school system. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that I can’t name a SINGLE Catholic who owns a movie studio or production company. It’s time to start a trend rather than surrender that battleground.

Me comment was a tongue-in-cheek, gentle, self-denigrating riposte. Lighten-up, Francis
From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius XTH - the great man whose name you and your Satan-serving schism dishonor…

Well, Spart, as I read your introductory comments, to wit:

“...gentle, self-denigrating....” “Satan-serving schism...” [I bet you stayed up all night for that one], I came to the conclusion that you are obviously not to be taken as seriously as you take yourself. A touch of humility is lacking as is knowledge. And wisdom, well, another time perhaps.  Since you seem to relish quotes, I will give you a few.  However, I would be the first to wish that Pope Saint Pius X or Pope Pius V was in charge. Then I know that Vatican2 would have never happened; the Church would have remained true to Her Deposit of Faith; and the modernists (perhaps you included) would have been sent packing...as Roncalli and Montini had been earlier in their careers. But the invincibly ignorant try to hide behind the virtue and discipline of Obedience thinking that they maintain the Faith.

I’m sorry old boy but it is you and your modernist, protestantized brethren who will have more to explain than those of us who stayed true to the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church, the one that St. Irenaeus would recognize.

For what it’s worth – these are mostly your people, by the way, so go argue with them:

Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Popes permission) is not in itself a schismatic act” and so no excommunication applies. (La Republica, October 7, 1988).

Cardinal Alfons Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library, served as an expert to four Vatican II commissions. Living in the Vatican at the time, he said: “Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. “Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?” The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition...because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever.” (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)

Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, wrote the following reply, on May 3, 1994, to an inquiry about the status of the Society of Saint Pius X:
“Regarding your inquiry..., I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully consecrated......”

Fr. Gerald Murray of the Archdiocese of New York received his license in Canon Law at Rome’s Gregorian University in 1995 with a lengthy thesis entitled: “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X. Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?”

In his interview with Latin Mass Magazine (Fall, 1995), he says: “I have received a license in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis.... They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He’s guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act. *** In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X lay people or the priests, the Vatican has never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic. *** As far as I can see, the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act ... Let’s say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let’s say he denied the existence of hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion. Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons.”

Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn. L., LL.D., retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic.”

And yes, I could go on and on as well. St. Athanasius comes to mind. But since, in reality, you prefer koran-kissing modernists and clown-masses and such, I thought I would introduce you to some of the people who made it possible for you to enjoy your invalid, protestantized services – and I will, at least, promise the moderator of this excellent website that I will never do this again :

A List of Masons in the Vatican and Italian Church

The following is a list of Masons reprinted with some updates from the Bulletin de l’Occident Chrétien Nr.12, July, 1976, (Directeur Pierre Fautrad a Fye - 72490 Bourg Le Roi.) All of the men on this list, if they in fact be Masons, are excommunicated by Canon Law 2338. Each man’s name is followed by his position, if known; the date he was initiated into Masonry, his code #; and his code name, if known:
1. Albondi, Alberto. Bishop of Livorno, (Leghorn). Initiated 8-5-58; I.D. # 7-2431.
2. Abrech, Pio. In the Sacred Congregation Bishops. 11-27-67; # 63-143.
3. Acquaviva, Sabino. Professor of Religion at the University of Padova, (Padua). 12-3-69; # 275-69.
4. Alessandro, Father Gottardi. (Addressed as Doctor in Masonic meetings.) President of Fratelli Maristi. 6-14-59.
5. Angelini Fiorenzo. Bishop of Messenel Greece. 10-14-57; # 14-005.
6. Argentieri, Benedetto. Patriarch to the Holy See. 3-11-70; # 298-A.
7. Bea, Augustin. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
8. Baggio, Sebastiano. Cardinal. Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. (This is a crucial Congregation since it appoints new Bishops.) Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II from 1989 to 1992. 8-14-57; # 85-1640. Masonic code name “SEBA.” He controls consecration of Bishops.
9. Balboni, Dante. Assistant to the Vatican Pontifical . Commission for Biblical Studies. 7-23-68; # 79-14 “BALDA.”
10. Baldassarri Salvatore. Bishop of Ravenna, Italy. 2-19-58; # 4315-19. “BALSA.”
11. Balducci, Ernesto. Religious sculpture artist. 5-16-66; # 1452-3.
12. Basadonna, Ernesto. Prelate of Milan, 9-14-63; # 9-243. “BASE.”
13. Batelli, Guilio. Lay member of many scientific academies. 8-24-59; # 29-A. “GIBA.”
14. Bedeschi, Lorenzo. 2-19-59; # 24-041. “BELO.”
15. Belloli, Luigi. Rector of Seminar; Lombardy, Ita- ly. 4-6-58; # 22-04. “BELLU.”
16. Belluchi, Cleto. Coadjutor Bishop of Fermo, Italy. 6-4-68; # 12-217.
17. Bettazzi, Luigi. Bishop of Ivera, Italy. 5-11-66; # 1347-45. “LUBE.”
18. Bianchi, Ciovanni. 10-23-69; # 2215-11. “BIGI.”
19. Biffi, Franco, Msgr. Rector of Church of St. John Lateran Pontifical University. He is head of this University and controls what is being taught. He heard confessions of Pope Paul VI. 8-15-59. “BIFRA.”
20. Bicarella, Mario. Prelate of Vicenza, Italy. 9-23-64; # 21-014. “BIMA.”
21. Bonicelli, Gaetano. Bishop of Albano, Italy. 5-12-59; # 63-1428, “BOGA.”
22. Boretti, Giancarlo. 3-21-65; # 0-241. “BORGI.”
23. Bovone, Alberto. Substitute Secretary of the Sacred Office. 3-30-67; # 254-3. “ALBO.”
24. Brini, Mario. Archbishop. Secretary of Chinese, Oriental, and Pagans. Member of Pontifical Commission to Russia. Has control of rewriting Canon Law. 7-7-68; # 15670. “MABRI.”
25. Bugnini, Annibale. Archbishop.Wrote Novus Ordo Mass. Envoy to Iran, 4-23-63; # 1365-75. “BUAN.”
26. Buro, Michele. Bishop. Prelate of Pontifical Commission to Latin America, 3-21-69; # 140-2. “BUMI.”
27. Cacciavillan, Agostino. Secretariat of State. 11-6-60; # 13-154.
28. Cameli, Umberto. Director in Office of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of Italy in regard to education in Catholic doctrine. 11-17-60; # 9-1436.
29. Caprile, Giovanni. Director of Catholic Civil Affairs. 9-5-57; # 21-014. “GICA.”
30. Caputo, Giuseppe. 11-15-71; # 6125-63. “GICAP.”
31. Casaroli, Agostino. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John Paul II since July 1, 1979 until retired in 1989. 9-28-57; # 41-076. “CASA.”
32. Cerruti, Flaminio. Chief of the Office of the University of Congregation Studies. 4-2-60; # 76-2154. “CEFLA.”
33. Ciarrocchi, Mario. Bishop. 8-23-62; # 123-A. “CIMA.”
34. Chiavacci, Enrico. Professor of Moral Theology, University of Florence, Italy. 7-2-70; # 121-34. “CHIE.”
35. Conte, Carmelo. 9-16-67; # 43-096. “CONCA.”
36. Csele, Alessandro. 3-25-60; # 1354-09. “ALCSE.”
37. Dadagio, Luigi. Papal Nuncio to Spain. Archbishop of Lero. 9-8-67. # 43-B. “LUDA.”
38. D’Antonio, Enzio. Archbishop of Trivento. 6-21-69; # 214-53.
39. De Bous, Donate. Bishop. 6-24-68; # 321-02. “DEBO.”
40. Del Gallo Reoccagiovane, Luigi. Bishop.
41. Del Monte, Aldo. Bishop of Novara, Italy. 8-25-69; # 32-012. “ADELMO.”
42. Faltin, Danielle. 6-4-70; # 9-1207. “FADA.”
43. Ferraioli, Giuseppe. Member of Sacred Congregation for Public Affairs. 11-24-69; # 004-125. “GIFE.”
44. Franzoni, Giovanni. 3-2-65; # 2246-47. “FRAGI.”
45. Gemmiti, Vito. Sacred Congregation of Bishops. 3-25-68; # 54-13. “VIGE.”
46. Girardi, Giulio. 9-8-70; # 1471-52. “GIG.”
47. Fiorenzo, Angelinin. Bishop. Title of Commendator of the Holy Spirit. Vicar General of Roman Hospitals. Controls hospital trust funds. Consecrated Bishop 7-19-56; joined Masons 10-14-57.
48. Giustetti, Massimo. 4-12-70; # 13-065. “GIUMA.”
49. Gottardi, Alessandro. Procurator and Postulator General of Fratelli Maristi. Archbishop of Trent. 6-13-59; # 2437-14. “ALGO.”
50. Gozzini, Mario. 5-14-70; # 31-11. “MAGO.”
51. Grazinai, Carlo. Rector of the Vatican Minor Seminary. 7-23-61; # 156-3. “GRACA.”
52. Gregagnin, Antonio. Tribune of First Causes for Beatification. 10-19-67; # 8-45. “GREA.”
53. Gualdrini, Franco. Rector of Capranica. 5-22-61; # 21-352. “GUFRA.”
54. Ilari, Annibale. Abbot. 3-16-69; # 43-86. “ILA.”
55. Laghi, Pio. Nunzio, Apostolic Delegate to Argentina, and then to U.S.A. until 1995. 8-24-69; # 0-538. “LAPI.”
56. Lajolo, Giovanni. Member of Council of Public Affairs of the Church. 7-27-70; # 21-1397. “LAGI.”
57. Lanzoni, Angelo. Chief of the Office of Secretary of State. 9-24-56; # 6-324. “LANA.”
58. Levi, Virgillio (alias Levine), Monsignor. Assistant Director of Official Vatican Newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. Manages Vatican Radio Station. 7-4-58; # 241-3. “VILE.”
59. Lozza, Lino. Chancellor of Rome Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas of Catholic Religion. 7-23-69; # 12-768. “LOLI.”
60. Lienart, Achille. Cardinal. Grand Master top Mason. Bishop of Lille, France. Recruits Masons. Was leader of progressive forces at Vatican II Council.
61. Macchi, Pasquale. Cardinal. Pope Paul’s Prelate of Honour and Private Secretary until he was excommunicated for heresy by Pope Paul VI. Was reinstated by Secretary of State Jean Villot, and made a Cardinal. 4-23-58; # 5463-2. “MAPA.”
62. Mancini, Italo. Director of Sua Santita. 3-18-68; # l551-142. “MANI.”
63. Manfrini, Enrico. Lay Consultor of Pontifical Commission of Sacred Art. 2-21-68; # 968-c. “MANE.”
64. Marchisano, Francesco. Prelate Honour of the Pope. Secretary Congregation for Seminaries and Universities of Studies. 2-4-61; 4536-3. “FRAMA.”
65. Marcinkus, Paul. American bodyguard for imposter Pope. From Cicero, Illinois. Stands 6’4”. President for Institute for Training Religious. 8-21-67; # 43-649. Called “GORILLA.” Code name “MARPA.”
66. Marsili, Saltvatore. Abbot of Order of St. Benedict of Finalpia near Modena, Italy. 7-2-63; # 1278-49. “SALMA.”
67. Mazza, Antonio. Titular Bishop of Velia. Secretary General of Holy Year, 1975. 4-14-71. # 054-329. “MANU.”
68. Mazzi, Venerio. Member of Council of Public Affairs of the Church. 10-13-66; # 052-s. “MAVE.”
69. Mazzoni, Pier Luigi. Congregation of Bishops. 9-14-59; # 59-2. “PILUM.”
70. Maverna, Luigi. Bishop of Chiavari, Genoa, Italy. Assistant General of Italian Catholic Azione. 6-3-68; # 441-c. “LUMA.”
71. Mensa, Albino. Archbishop of Vercelli, Piedmont, Italy. 7-23-59; # 53-23. “ MENA.”
72. Messina, Carlo. 3-21-70; # 21-045. “MECA.”
73. Messina, Zanon (Adele). 9-25-68; # 045-329. “ AMEZ.”
74. Monduzzi, Dino. Regent to the Prefect of the Pontifical House. 3-11 -67; # 190-2. “MONDI.”
75. Mongillo, Daimazio. Professor of Dominican Moral Theology, Holy Angels Institute of Roma. 2-16-69; # 2145-22. “MONDA.”
76. Morgante, Marcello. Bishop of Ascoli Piceno in East Italy. 7-22-55; # 78-3601. MORMA.”
77. Natalini, Teuzo. Vice President of the Archives of Secretariat of the Vatican. 6-17-67; # 21-44d. “NATE.”
78. Nigro, Carmelo. Rector of the Seminary, Pontifical of Major Studies. 12-21-70; # 23-154. “CARNI.”
79. Noe, Virgillio. Head of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. He and Bugnini paid 5 Protestant Ministers and one Jewish Rabbi to create the Novus Ordo Mass. 4-3-61; # 43652-21. “VINO.”
80. Palestra, Vittorie. He is Legal Council of the Sacred Rota of the Vatican State. 5-6-43; # 1965. “PAVI.”
81. Pappalardo, Salvatore. Cardinal. Archbishop of Palermo, Sicily. 4-15-68; # 234-07. “SALPA.”
82. Pasqualetti, Gottardo. 6-15-60; # 4-231. “COPA.”
83. Pasquinelli, Dante. Council of Nunzio of Madrid. 1-12-69; # 32-124. “PADA.”
84. Pellegrino, Michele. Cardinal. Called “Protector of the Church”, Archbishop of Torino (Turin, where the Holy Shroud of Jesus is kept). 5-2-60; # 352-36. “PALMI.”
85. Piana, Giannino. 9-2-70; # 314-52. “GIPI.”
86. Pimpo, Mario. Vicar of Office of General Affairs. 3-15-70; # 793-43. “PIMA.”
87. Pinto, Monsignor Pio Vito. Attaché of Secretary of State and Notare of Second Section of Supreme Tribunal and of Apostolic Signature. 4-2-70; # 3317-42. “PIPIVI.”
88. Poletti, Ugo. Cardinal. Vicar of S.S. Diocese of Rome. Controls clergy of Rome since 3-6-73. Member of Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and of Divine Worship. He is President of Pontifical Works and Preservation of the Faith. Also President of the Liturgical Academy. 2-17-69; # 32-1425. “UPO.”
89. Rizzi, Monsignor Mario. Sacred Congregation of Oriental Rites. Listed as “Prelate Bishop of Honour of the Holy Father, the Pope.” Works under top-Mason Mario Brini in manipulating Canon Law. 9-16-69; # 43-179. “MARI,” “MONMARI.”
90. Romita, Florenzo. Was in Sacred Congregation of Clergy. 4-21-56; # 52-142. “FIRO.”
91. Rogger, Igine. Officer in S.S. (Diocese of Rome). 4-16-68; # 319-13. “IGRO.”
92. Rossano, Pietro. Sacred Congregation of Non-Christian Religions. 2-12-68; # 3421-a. “PIRO.”
93. Rovela, Virgillio. 6-12-64; # 32-14. “ROVI.”
94. Sabbatani, Aurelio. Archbishop of Giustiniana (Giusgno, Milar Province, Italy). First Secretary Supreme Apostolic Segnatura. 6-22-69; # 87-43. “ASA”
95. Sacchetti, Guilio. Delegate of Governors - Marchese. 8-23-59; # 0991-b. “SAGI.”
96. Salerno, Francesco. Bishop. Prefect Atti. Eccles. 5-4-62; # 0437-1. “SAFRA”
97. Santangelo, Franceso. Substitute General of Defense Legal Counsel. 11-12-70; # 32-096. “FRASA.”
98. Santini, Pietro. Vice Official of the Vicar. 8-23-64; # 326-11. “SAPI.”
99. Savorelli, Fernando. 1-14-69; # 004-51. “SAFE.”
100. Savorelli, Renzo. 6-12-65; # 34-692. “RESA.”
101. Scanagatta, Gaetano. Sacred Congregation of the Clergy. Member of Commission of Pomei and Loreto, Italy. 9-23-71; # 42-023. “GASCA.”
102. Schasching, Giovanni. 3-18-65; # 6374-23. “GISCHA,” “GESUITA.”
103. Schierano, Mario. Titular Bishop of Acrida (Acri in Cosenza Province, Italy.) Chief Military Chaplain of the Italian Armed Forces. 7-3-59; #14-3641. “MASCHI.”
104. Semproni, Domenico. Tribunal of the Vicarate of the Vatican. 4-16-60; # 00-12. “DOSE.”
105. Sensi, Giuseppe Mario. Titular Archbishop of Sardi (Asia Minor near Smyrna). Papal Nunzio to Portugal. 11-2-67; # 18911-47. “GIMASE.”
106. Sposito, Luigi. Pontifical Commission for the Archives of the Church in Italy. Head Administrator of the Apostolic Seat of the Vatican.
107. Suenens, Leo. Cardinal. Title: Protector of the Church of St. Peter in Chains, outside Rome. Promotes Protestant Pentecostalism (Charismatics). Destroyed much Church dogma when he worked in 3 Sacred Congregations: 1) Propagation of the Faith; 2) Rites and Ceremonies in the Liturgy; 3) Seminaries. 6-15-67; # 21-64. “LESU.”
108. Trabalzini, Dino. Bishop of Rieti (Reate, Peruga, Italy). Auxiliary Bishop of Southern Rome. 2-6-65; # 61-956. “TRADI.”
109. Travia, Antonio. Titular Archbishop of Termini Imerese. Head of Catholic schools. 9-15-67; # 16-141. “ATRA.”
110. Trocchi, Vittorio. Secretary for Catholic Laity in Consistory of the Vatican State Consultations. 7-12-62; # 3-896. “TROVI.”
111. Tucci, Roberto. Director General of Vatican Radio. 6-21-57; # 42-58. “TURO.”
112. Turoldo, David. 6-9-67; # 191-44. “DATU.”
113. Vale, Georgio. Priest. Official of Rome Diocese. 2-21-71; # 21-328. “VAGI.”
114. Vergari, Piero. Head Protocol Officer of the Vatican Office Segnatura. 12-14-70; # 3241-6. “PIVE.”
115. Villot, Jean. Cardinal. Secretary of State during Pope Paul VI. He is Camerlengo (Treasurer). “JEANNI,” “ZURIGO.”
116. Zanini, Lino. Titular Archbishop of Adrianopoli, which is Andrianopolis, Turkey. Apostolic Nuncio. Member of the Revered Fabric of St. Peter’s Basilica.
THE FOLLOWING CLERGY WERE EXPOSED AFTER THE ABOVE LIST WAS COMPILED:
1. Fregi, Francesco Egisto. 2-14-63; # 1435-87.
2. Tirelli, Sotiro. 5-16-63; # 1257-9. “TIRSO.”
3. Cresti, Osvaldo. 5-22-63; # 1653-6. “CRESO.”
4. Rotardi, Tito. 8-13-63; # 1865-34. “TROTA.”
5. Orbasi, Igino. 9-17-73; # 1326-97. “ORBI.”
6. Drusilla, Italia. 10-12-63; # 1653-2. “‘DRUSI “
7. Ratosi, Tito. 11-22-63; # 1542-74 “TRATO.”
8. Crosta, Sante. 11-17-63; # 1254-65. “CROSTAS.

Events Foretold? “I Saw Satans’ Smoke Entering the Vatican”

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, stigmatist (bore the wounds of Christ), and miracle-worker, who subsisted entirely on water and Holy Communion for many years, received numerous visions of the future crisis in the Church and the infiltration of the Masons. In her visions, she describes men in aprons destroying the Church with a trowel, The Masons wear aprons and their symbol is the Mason’s trowel.

The following excerpts are from page 565 of Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 1, by Rev. K.E. Schmö:ger, Tan Books, 1976:

“I saw St. Peter’s. A great crowd of men was trying to pull it down whilst others constantly built it up again. Lines connected these men one with another and with others throughout the whole world. I was amazed at their perfect understanding.
“The demolishers, mostly apostates and members of different sects, broke off whole pieces and worked according to rules and instructions. They wore WHITE APRONS bound with blue riband. In them were pockets and they had TROWELS stuck in their belts. The costumes of the others were various.
“There were among the demolishers distinguished men wearing uniforms and crosses. They did not work themselves but they marked out on the wall with a TROWEL where and how it should be torn down. To my horror, I saw among them Catholic Priests. Whenever the workmen did not know how to go on, they went to a certain one in their party. He had a large book which seemed to contain the whole plan of the building and the way to destroy it. They marked out exactly with a TROWEL the parts to be attacked, and they soon came down. They worked quietly and confidently, but slyly, furtively and warily. I saw the Pope praying, surrounded by false friends who often did the very opposite to what he had ordered...”

teachem2think:

I’ll ask you the same questions I asked “Fr. John.” As the author of the article being commented on, what does your (absurdly long) comment have to do with my article?  What does it have to do with anything?

If you had read the comments prior to it, you would
realize that it was a response to Mr. Spartacus’
comments. That seems to happen here. And, as I
stated in one previous comment, I did not want to
leave such an “absurdly long” but nonetheless too
accurate comment but after Mr. Spartacus regaled me
with his snippets from canon law, I felt obligated
to inform him that the Church today is not quite
the Church that Our Lord founded upon St. Peter.

My favorites are #25 and #79. Pray for them the next
time you go to a valid Mass.

teachem2think:

I attend a valid Mass every Sunday.  The Mass of Paul VI is a valid Mass, as is the Mass of St. Pius V.  I attend both, but I go to the Mass of Paul VI far more often.  As for the Church, I believe what Jesus told Peter about His Church and the gates of Hell.  And, believe it or not, I have actually encountered many good and holy priests and religious over the years, and I am quite happy with my parish and our devout and humble pastor.

If you want to promote sedevacantism and attack Blessed John XXIII (or “Roncalli,” as you call him), Paul VI ("Montini" to you), and John Paul II ("Wojtyla" to you), go ahead, but I’d ask you not to do it in response to any article of mine.

For those readers still interested in the subject of the article, L’Osservatore Romano has just criticized Philip Pullman and “The Golden Compass:”

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/film_nm/compass_vatican_dc

Here’s a working link to the story about L’Osservatore Romano:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/film_nm/compass_vatican_dc

Dear Mr. Piatak:

No. 1, I fail to see how Montini’s mass, which was constructed
by noncatholics, is a “valid Mass.” As for how long “blessed”
Roncalli, who was also a mason, remains “blessed,” only a
future Council and future Pope, true to the Deposit of Faith,
will determine.

No. 2, My response, as I stated clearly above, was obviously not
in response to your article. It was in response to Spartacus’
statements. That he chose to make them here is something you
do not seem to have a problem with....

No. 3, I do not, in fact, promote sedevacantism. After reading
all the available information, I have very grave doubts and
cannot help but believe that not only Anne Catherine Emmerich’s
but also Pope Leo XIII’s prophecies are coming true. I suppose
that requires some faith but, in our humble opinion, that faith
was grounded upon and nurtured by Nuns and Jesuits before most
of them apostasized. If someone wishes to cast aspersions upon
what I know is the one, true Faith, I will defend the Faith
wherever such aspersions are made.

No. 4, I also believe that the gates of hell will not prevail
and that is why I remain faithful to the first 1,958 years and
reserve judgment, for too many good reasons, about the last 49.
A future Council and/or future Pope will make the ultimate
determination about the last forty nine years.

No. 5, There are some things which cannot be changed and which
render your mass invalid: “multis” is not translated as “all.”
It is translated as “many.” And if one word of the consecration(s)
is changed, sorry, but there is no consecration. The priest may
be devout and humble—I do not doubt they exist; I’m sure there
are Bishops and Cardinals in the Curia who are not masons --
but devotion and humility can neither substitute for truth and
tradition (all 1,958 years of it) nor can it make the invalid valid.

teachem2think:

Kindly stop posting your rants here.  They will merely distract (or offend)readers actually interested in what I wrote about.  I suggest you start looking for an editor willing to publish your screeds.  I highly doubt such a person exists, but please begin the search for him now.

Well, Mr. Piatek, you have posted a very interesting article and I am sorry that all sorts of weirdos have come out of the woodwork to favor us with their screeds.  Bug off, guys.  I think we need to stick to the topic at hand.  If you have something to say about The Golden Compass, militant atheists, film in American culture, or what have you fine.  If not, STFU!!!!

Now, back to topic: I have had friends who are atheists and agnostics.  There seem to be two types of nonbelievers, those who don’t believe “all that stuff” but don’t mind if other people believe in it.  Like some of our posters here, Camille Paglia, John Derbyshire, folks like that.  Then you have your angry, militant, hate filled atheists like Chris Hitchens, Phillip Pullman, etc. 

I have a friend who is a minister today but as a teen he was, according to his own description a “militant crusading atheist”.  He said that later he realized that rather than really not believing in God, he was very very angry at God.  He had a relative who was a devout Christian Scientist who died a rather horrible and lingering death from cancer because she would not accept medical treatment.  He extrapolated from that to the idea that if that was what religion did for people, he wanted nothing to do with it and only realized later he was blaming God for his aunt’s mistaken religious beliefs. 

I suspect if you scratch the surface of Pullman, Hitchens, etc., they are really really mad at someone who let them down who was religious, or they suffered from the general unjustice and unfairness of life and wondered, if God is all good and all powerful, why does life suck so much?  And then concluded that there isn’t a God or he’s malevolent or weak.

I mean, if atheists think when we die, that’s it, we’re worm food, why should they care if people want to think that there’s a God?  So there’s something more going with the angry types than just not believing in God.

My dear Mr. Piatak:

Thank you for the personal attack.
I do not rant. I wasted my time rsponding
to your friend Mr. Spartacus in Your comment column and then to you. Thus far, and to his credit, Mr. Spartacus has at least shown the discretion of silence when faced with incontrovertible information. And, thankfully, the website
is not yours.

Marty,

You are right on your dichotomy of atheists.  There are many atheists who lack belief, but don’t hate believers and actually appreciate the legacy of Christianity.  Camille Paglia recently wrote an essay arguing that secularism has had a detrimental impact on Western art; Charles Murray, an agnostic, came to a similar conclusion after his exhaustive study of human achievement.  Unfortunately, Hitchens and Pullman are not like this.

teachem2think:

There is nothing “incontrovertible” in what you wrote, far from it.  But this is not the forum for extended religious debate.  Suffice it to say, I do not take kindly to attacks on my religion by the likes of Hitchens and Pullman, nor do I take kindly to attacks on my religion by you.

You know, this whole debate has brought another thing up that I’ve often thought about--when atheists want to attack belief in God, do they write works of fiction against Mormonism, or Protestantism or the Orthodox Church, or Islam or Judaism?  No as we see with The DaVinci Code or Golden Compass, it’s always the Catholic Church.  I became a Catholic in 1992 and one of the things that occurred to me was that Jesus said that the world would hate us because it hated him. I looked around and saw that everyone seemed to be piling on the Church; anti Catholic fundies of the Jack Chick tract stripe, liberal mainline Protestants, abortion rights crusaders, militant atheists like Hitchens and Pullman, schismatics that have set themselves up as their own Pope, etc., ad nauseum.  This was just one of the things that convinced me that Catholicism must be true!!  Look at the quality of its enemies!!!  We must be on the right track.  This is not to say that other forms of Christianity don’t get attacked; look at the scorn heaped upon our Evangelical brothers and sisters.  But I guess we are the 800 pound gorilla of Christianity and a very large target.

Marty,

Yes, the Catholic Church is still the biggest target, and Hitchens and Pullman both have a particular animus against Cahtolicism.

My son and I are both big fans of Lord of the Rings by New Line cinema and I have even purchased a few small items from their store.  Based on your advice Mr. Piatek I will make sure that my son never sees the Golden Compass and I will let New Line Cinema know that I will no longer be supporting any other movies or products of theirs.  We can hit them where it hurts and it will make a difference.  I intend to inform both churchs that I attend that I urge them to put out an announcement regarding the danger of this movie to young children.  If anyone has any doubts see the presure that Ron Paul supporters put on sponsors of the Glenn Beck Show.

M. Nucci:

You may also wish to share with your pastors this Catholic News Agency article on L’Osservotore Romano’s denunciation of “The Golden Compass:”
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=84733

Thanks for the link Tom.  I may have to paraphrase that one for distribution at mass.  It is time to start telling Hollywood in no uncertain terms that we hold them accountable to the entertainment coming from them.  We are not asking to censor them but simply asking that they be honest in their advertising of what their product is.  If they want to put out an anti-Catholic movie then fine just be honest and say that their studio has a decided anti-Catholic agenda that they are advancing by hopefully introducing this message to young children.  Would you happen to have the contact information to New Line Cinema?

M. Nucci,

No, I don’t have the contact information for New Line. 

I hope you have a blessed and Merry Christmas.

You guys are less concerned that Pullman is a blasphemer than that he is “anti-Catholic.” Your identities as follower of a guy in a funny hat matters more than anything else. Everything in your lives revolves around how it affects Holy Mother Church. This is functionally no different from the paranoid chauvinism that neocons feels about Israel.

Mr. Ramus,

Oh, please.  I criticize Pullman for being a militant atheist who hates the West, and you’re not happy because I also point out his open and obvious anti-Catholicism.  Pullman is the one who named his villains “the Magisterium,” not me.  Then, there is this little gem, from Peter Chattaway’s interview with Pullman recorded at Chattaway’s weblog:

As for Narnia - I’ve expressed my detestation for that series on several occasions and at length, so I won’t say very much about it here, except to note something that some commentators miss when lumping Lewis and Tolkien together, which is this: that Tolkien was a Catholic, for whom the basic issues of life were not in question, because the Church had all the answers. So nowhere in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is there a moment’s doubt about those big questions. No-one is in any doubt about what’s good or bad; everyone knows where the good is, and what to do about the bad. Enormous as it is, TLOTR is consequently trivial. Narnia, on the other hand, is the work of a Protestant - and an Ulster Protestant at that, for whom the individual interaction with the Bible and with God was a matter of daily struggle and endless moral questioning. That’s the Protestant tradition. So in Narnia the big questions are urgent and compelling and vital: is there a God? Who is it? How can I recognise him? What must I do to be good? I profoundly disagree with the answers that Lewis offers - in fact, as I say, I detest them - but Narnia is a work of serious religious engagement in a way that TLOTR could never be.

I think it’s fair to assert that someone who claims that only Protestants are capable of producing works of “serious religious engagement,” as Pullman essentially does here, is anti-Catholic.