Guest Submission: The Church and Sex Scandals – Why the Church Cannot Change

Please review post

by Anonymous

Part 1

Modern news media was present and reported in real time an apparition holding that the Church would go through a century of Job-like desolation beginning in 1917. Sure enough, in that century, a New Theology crept into the ranks of the same clergy that took oaths against the very heresy they put into effect, taking control of the apparatus at a rigged council halfway through, leading a pope to decry that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, mobilizing that same pope to do . . . nothing. From a 4th grade level catechism of instruction, it seems obvious that where the smoke of Satan enters, the Holy Spirit departs. In that period, the priesthood was not only corrupted, but protected in that corruption. It did not creep in, it was cultivated. As the desolating century came to a close, the faith was in crisis, the Church in collapse, and the only way to claim continuity to the pre- consular Church is as its dialectical antithesis controlled by a clergy that can only justify its status in as a dialectically determined antithesis by likeminded clergy. Following the 100-year desolation, the apparition also promised that God would reassert His control of His Church. This is that year.

While not one to be to drawn too far into things like apparitions, it is nevertheless interesting that in the year following the Fatima century, no less than three high ranking personal confidants inside the Pope’s inner circle have been plucked-off through “emperor has no clothes” revelations of desolating sacrileges of Maccabean proportions that comes as no surprise to any discerning person – which ends up being just about everyone outside the clergy. Like a 5-year-old tearing the wings off an insect, one almost gets the sense of a voice calling down; “Hear I am! No! Here, I AM. And I am NOT ‘coming to be’, my eschaton is not immanent, I did not tolerate desolating sacrileges in my temple then, when I sent my priest, Mattathias, and will not tolerate the interfaith of Assisi today.” For those whose sense has been one of a Church suffering under the weight of a great oppression, these high ranking, delegitimizing scandals are not met with dread but rather with the sense of silent relief that comes when prayers are answered and justice, divine justice – NOT social justice, is being served. They never should have been there, they need to be gone. And, as has become clear, only an outside force will do so.

There is one sense in which it can be said that the Church is not in crisis; that is that the Church is exactly where those in charge wanted it to be, with the people they wanted, when they brought it to this point. Lex orandi, lex credendi. At heart, the corruption continues because those who wrested control of the Church brought it here. In the face of now decades long, profoundly public human outcry to Satanic levels of abuse, the evidence that those in charge tolerated this activity is that it continues to happen; and most prominently at the highest levels.

Harsh? Maybe. Nevertheless, shepherds that cannot ferret out the wolves are not shepherds at all, and sometimes, the sheep get to have a say in this. Shepherds who build walls to keep them from seeing the predation they permit claiming they did not see it cannot claim the wall as an excuse. When the wolf preys on the sheep, it is the shepherd’s fault – period. It’s in the Bible – see Acts. When Jesus told his Apostles that” “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea,” he was

speaking as much to his future bishops who tolerated such behavior as to the predator priests who were allowed to enter and prey. There is no place for the positive use of the word “discernment” in this discussion.

It is in this frame that we should understand Cardinal Wuerl and, respectfully, the Cardinal Bishop of Boston with his blah, blah, blah response. “CLERICALISM” We have heard this before, and if the same regime remains, we will continue to hear it again and again and again. “Shocked! Just Shocked” Really? You and who else? The problem is not just what is said, but who is saying it. Policy? Enforced by whom? This is not an issue of policy, it’s one of corruption – deep malignant metastasized corruption. A moral clergy does not need these policies and no policy can fix a corrupt clergy. One feels compelled to ask the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston how many of those abuse commissions and panels did he sit on alongside Cardinals McCarrick and Wuerl? And just how many other bishops and priest because, the problem is, everyone believes, actually they know as if their child’s welfare depends on it, that there are others, that will only come to light by outside exposure leading to another round of “I’m shocked, just shocked”. The decision to wear blinders is the decision that convicts. “CLERICALISM” How about the pope with his Chilean friends? The only thing confusing about these events is the compounding recognition of complete intentional betrayal by the shepherds. Listening to the parish priest in homily speak of these times as confusing, and maybe for him they are, one cannot help but recognize the au contraire reception of those in the pews, those that showed up. This year, finally, the response is not one of confusion, the picture is clarifying and becoming clear. This is the 101st year.

Long overdue, in deference to an authority their positions afford them, an authority their very presence erodes, one begins to sense that this year, the bell is tolling to a rising chorus, the sensus fidelium is finding its voice as it culminates to say: “ENOUGH! YOUR DONE! WE ARE DONE WITH YOU! GET OUT! BECAUSE YOU SAID IT, THERE IS NOTHING TO HEAR! AND CERTAINLY, NO DIALOGUE!” It is not that the faithful don’t want to believe the Cardinal Archbishop, it’s that after over 40 years of good faith on just this issue with the same people, they can no longer do so, they cannot afford to do so, it is no longer appropriate that they do (if it ever was). The crisis has burned in, Its visceral. LEAVE!

Sadly, the bishops will characterize the sensus as the voice of anger and agitation and will meet it with a “buy time” and “ride it out” response that minimizes their personal direct culpability, per SOP. “CLERICALISM.” “CLERICIALISM!” “CLERICALISM?” Is this some kind of (dissociative) joke? Talk about top-level in your face evasion! The indicators, however, suggest that the faithful can no longer hold the lukewarm – that is also putrid – in their mouths and must spit it out. Voices calling for the vertical stroke of Bishops and Cardinals may seem excessive but it does reflect the solidifying recognition, the reality, that this fish is the most rotten at its head. They were not random bishops who got plucked, they were the hand-picked inner circle that reflects the vision from the top – a fact that cannot be evaded or minimized. They had to be plucked, they were not going any other way. If I were running the show, I’d be wondering why my wings were getting so publicly plucked to such humiliating effect. Even the deaf can feel the vibration of the thunder.

The Church has been actively engaged in its own destruction for some time; demonstrating an institutional and institutionalized inability to police itself in the face chronically horrific ongoing institutional and institutionalized behavior. Ratzinger said his mission was to destroy the Church (more on that later). This is the Church that Vatican II created that, as Pope Paul stated, Satan entered. For the religiously minded, it’s not too difficult to close the circle on Pope Paul’s admission and draw a straight line to Lot. As noted, Jesus did not “dialogue,” his remedy was the millstone; a

form of capital punishment that the Vatican now declares we have progressed beyond (think negation). On the dialectal nature of “dialogue,” it should not be lost that its first effect is to negate the millstones in a “process” composed of skin crawling narratives of “recovery and healing” by the very shepherds who provided unimpeded access to the wolves. For Mattathias and his fellow priests, it was loyalty to God. When he and his fellow priests mobilized, the faithful mobilized with them. There’s a reason Maccabees is in the Bible. Loyalty and obedience to whom and for what?

Part 2

What follows is a political warfare gloss that addresses the ideological reasons why the Church is incapable in its current status to address the sexual predator issue. Not addressed in this thread, but highly relevant to it, are two mutually reinforcing points that together also mutually reinforce the discussion below.

First. 1950’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) of former Communist Party USA members who were active in the 1930’s that document the 1935 Communist International’s (COMINTERN) directive to penetrate and coopt the churches that included Communist Party literature documenting the social justice narratives of the 1930s that now dominate USCCB and the Vatican narratives. See especially the Testimony of Manning Johnson Testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee Executive Sessions, 1953 but also Testimony of Bella Dodd to the House Un-American Activities Committee, 1953.
Second. From Bella Dodd’s related disclosures that as a CP USA planner, she personally oversaw the placement of over 1000 committed Communist Party members into Catholic seminaries in the 1930’s. At the time of her testimony, she spoke of the program’s success, noting that some had reached the level of bishops and cardinals, including a few assigned to the Vatican. A center of operation for Bella Dodd was Columbia University. When the Instituted for Social Research (better known as the Frankfurt School) relocated to Columbia from Germany, it was at the direction of John Dewey. In Cry Havoc, Ralph de Toledano chronicles the Institute’s activities from Frankfurt to Columbia. Prior to relocating to America, the Institute targeted the UK, penetrating elite academic centers and taking them over. Of note was the Institutes preference for committed homosexual communists such that they derisively labeled their operation in the UK the “homotern”. What makes this relevant is that there is every reason to think that the Institute’s placement preferences remained unchanged when locating to Columbia at a time when Bella Dodd was close to Columbia when placing committed communists in the seminaries. While not fully assessed, it should nevertheless be noted that if validated, it would independently affirm, not detract from, a picture that is already well along in formation.

This discussion will move through some strange and prickly topics. While not the forum to do so, the points raised can be taken down to the studs; there is a documentary basis to the claims. Hence, even if there is disagreement, it should take a level of effort to overcome it. Having said that, if, around the third time a demonstrable data point is used to established a disfavored interpretation that leads you think to yourself “I choose not to understand it that way”, you should put yourself on notice that you may be understanding things along the lines of what Josef Pieper called a constructed pseudoreality.

It is entirely possible that the true and authentic reality is being drowned out by the countless superficial information bits noisily and breathlessly presented in propaganda fashion. Consequently, one may be entirely knowledgeable about a thousand details and nevertheless, because of ignorance regarding the core of the matter, remain without basic insight. This is a phenomenon in itself already quite astonishing and disturbing. Arnold Gehlen labeled it “a fundamental ignorance, created by technology and nourished by information.” But, I wanted to say, something far more discouraging is readily conceivable as well: the place of authentic reality is taken over by fictitious reality; my perception is indeed still directed toward an object, but now it is pseudoreality, deceptively appearing as being real, so much so that it becomes almost impossible any more to discern the truth. (Pieper, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, Ignatius Press 1992 (German 1974), 33-34.)

To put it bluntly, unless we take Morpheus’s Red Pill, we cannot know the Truth and hence it will not set us free. Because it can sound bizarre and depressing, as the explanation unfolds, it is important to understand that Red Pill explanations are “the emperor has no clothes” explanations that are suppressed to keep them from being able to stand up because once taken in, they lay bare the smoke screen. A political warfare analysis of what happened rips the mask off of ongoing institutional “conservative” Catholic explanations that have long since lost the ability to hold out even the hope that they may one day explain events. “These ARE the ‘good’ bishops everyone has been waiting to take power” when being told that Pope John Paul II was fixing things in the seminaries back then. Political warfare analysis demands that intent be derived from actions. When documents and constitutions that have conventionally been read one way end up also being able to explain completing – even hostile – interpretations that, never-the-less conforms to and even provides a closer explanation of those same events, then that must become the interpretation of analysis.

It is as simple as this, the “New Theologians,” a repackaging of the Modernist theologians – both of whom were formally condemned by multiple encyclicals drafted for that purpose – flipped the Church at Vatican II in a classic counter-state operation. The New Theologians split into the “radical” outside group, the Concilium, creating space for the inside “moderate” Communio to push forward the same agenda while allowing it to assume the posture of being “more reasoned” while actually holding the line as a controlled opposition. (Bolsheviks v Mensheviks) The term for this form of strategy is “splinter movement theory.”

What you are explaining in your example of the “liberal priest” is a purposeful process that always touches the target in a neutralizing language of disassociation – the occurrence is disassociated from the ruthless intent behind it and made to sound common. Hence, the impact of the devastating effects is always understood in a limiting way – disassociating the “liberal priest’s” actions from the faith killing intent it purposefully drives. Such disabling narratives are designed to have the target roll their eyes, listen in the spirit of the “big tent” and “tolerance” not realizing that this is a predatory operation from the beginning. The very “multicultural / diversity” narrative one hears in churches, at mass, and as part of the community ministry is the antithesis to faith that affirms the mission of the “liberal priest” and the polyester clad nun. “Political correctness is the enforcement mechanism to the postmodern narrative (diversity / multiculturalism) that executes cultural Marxism.” “Dialogue” and “praxis” are terms of negating aufheben.

Your deconstruction is “critical theory” applied. In Biblical studies, it’s called historical criticism. Since its inception in 1940, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) has maintained operational control of the Interfaith Movement in the U.S. The IAF was founded by the Gramsci Marxist Saul Alinsky. Closely

read, his Rules for Radicals reveals that his main point of penetration – his main effort – and principle ally – was the Archdiocese of Chicago. (Just note how the bishop chortles feigned indignation as Alinsky points to the priests in attendance and says they should have been aborted.) Alinsky’s hold on Chicago, then Notre Dame, and then the NCCB remained firm even after he published Rules, a book he openly dedicated to Lucifer –

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.” – – Saul Alinsky, 1971

When Alinsky said this, it was as much paying homage to the creator of critical theory, Karl Marx, as he was making his own declaration. He also established his historical continuity with Marx, a man who also likewise declared his enmity to God –

“I wish to avenge myself against the one who rules above . . . Thus, Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well, my soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell.” – Karl Marx, ~1837
If there is a Something which devours, I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins — The world which bulks between me and the abyss I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses… Oulanem, Karl Marx, 1839

In reading this, it should be noted that Alinsky’s hold on the Church may have extended to the same Pope Paul who spoke of the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church. One would not generally put too much weight in Alinsky’s three 1958 meetings with Montini, then the Archbishop of Milan, were it not for Alinsky’s exuberance over them alongside his giddiness at the thought of Montini becoming pope. From Alinsky –

“I had three wonderful meetings with Montini and I am sure that you have heard from him since.”
“I don’t know who the next Pope will be, but if it’s to be Montini, the drinks will be on me for years to come.” (For an excellent account, see “Saul Alinsky and “Saint” Pope Paul VI”)

Part 3

The problem may not have been a lack of discernment but rather what the object of discernment was – and still is. In Hermetica, Lucifer is God’s Angel of Light who helped the immanent god start his messy but necessary self-actualization process that culminates at the end of history. And we wonder why the USCCB is an established ally on the left aligned with Soros groups, “Think Progress,” March of History, “Change”, etc. (While Alinsky may have been an atheist, just note that he and Marx were Hegelian and, as it always seems to turn out, the Marxian and Hermetical always tend to be harmonious.) The USCCB itself emanated out of the Marxist Catholic alliance in Chicago, as did the NCCB’s Campaign for Human Development. Today, this history is rapidly clarifying itself; and much faster in the non-institutional Catholic world than in it – with an accompanying sense of rage where the only thing worse than being lied to about the current situation is the sense that so many clergy

seem to be in a stupor – with eyes actually glazing over. The current intellectual drain brings to mind Polish Nobel laureate Czeslaw Miosz’s observation from 1980:

With the law of hierarchy goes the law of travesty and parody. There is inspiration, no idea, or discovery that, when mirrored in a lower intelligence, at a lower level of the “interhuman church,” does not lose proportionality in value. If only something of the original, however weakened, however dimmed, would endure! But since the difference of degree is often one on absolute quality, the diluted version becomes a parody of the higher. Inspiration, its parody, and the parody of its parody: they surround us in constant and clamorous collision. Or, to use another metaphor, everything of substance is undermined, hollowed out by the termites of inferiority. By endowing masks and facades with real existence, we find ourselves one day the victims of an illusion. A priest nurtured on the Freudian-Marxian-Chardinian dregs will be a priest in name only; a teacher, though able to read and write, an illiterate and a corruptor; a politician, an outlaw; artists and poets, the helpers of circus managers who stage spectacles with real blood and live copulation, exactly as those Roman circus-theater described by Tertullian.

Looking at the recent affairs of the Vatican and USCCB, it’s hard not to ask: Has the Church become Miosz’s circus theater? A political warfare analysis is under some obligation to accept the fact that when Cardinal Ratzinger said he wanted to destroy the Church along the lines advanced by Balthasar in order to bring it in line with the events of 1789, that he meant it (The French Revolution resulted in the mass purposeful killing of Catholics qua Catholics in a revolution dominated by Hermeticists – Hermeticism being the archetype theosophy of Freemasonry). He also meant it when explaining that the “Pastoral Constitution,” Gaudium et Spes, was drafted to mainstream much of this. (Actually, there were only two constitutional documents from Vatican II and Gaudium et Spec was not one of them). From Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987 from German original in 1982), 381- 382, Ratzinger stated –

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no statement of the relationship that would exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely prerevolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view that no longer corresponded with the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical

method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Only a careful investigation of the different ways in which acceptance of the new era was accomplished in various parts of the Church could unravel the complicated network of causes that formed the background of the “Pastoral Constitution”, and only thus can the dramatic history of its influence be brought to light. Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.

That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the “demolition of the bastions” is a long-overdue task . . . She [the Church] must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for Her and that She has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.

Harnack is the Protestant compliment to the same line of attack. On the question of demolition, Popes John Paul and Benedict both presided over a church that institutionalized predatory homosexual behavior among its clergy in an overt act of demolition. Alchemical formulas notwithstanding, to demolish Church bastions is to destroy the Tradition. The question has to be asked: If Ratzinger was telling the truth about wanting to destroy the Church along Balthasarian lines as he clearly stated, wouldn’t the Church look like it does today? Well, yes! But if so, why would it be wrong or disrespectful to note Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments when hailing Pope Benedict out and saying with a cheer, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”! As the dust of history settles, there is rising and convincing evidence that the Church is precisely where it planned to be by the New Theologian periti who put it there, including Ratzinger. This is not an issue in controversy, as recently as 2016, Pope Emeritus Benedict affirmed his role in flipping the Church and remains steadfastly unapologetic even as he acknowledges that the Church is on the verge of capsizing. Associated with Ratzinger’s discussion on the need to double-down on the Balthasarian demolition of the Church was his recognition that, as of the 1980s’s, Vatican II had been an unmitigated disaster where his solution was to double-down on the very “reforms” that brought the Church to that point – as if “demolish” does not mean what he was decrying – DEMOLISH. In doing so, the Cardinal was aware that he was acting in the face of mounting opposition among the sensus fidelium –

Is anything left but the heaped-up ruins of unsuccessful experiments? Has Gaudium et Spes been definitively translated into luctus et angor [grief and anguish]? Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of the mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. But we must likewise ask ourselves, in all earnestness, why such contractions and distortions of faith and piety have such an effect and are able to attract those who, by the basic conviction of their faith as well as by personal inclination, are in no way attracted by sectarianism. What drives them into a milieu in which they do not belong? Why have they lost the feeling of

being at home in the larger Church? Are all their reproaches unfounded? Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987 from German original in 1982), 389-390

A few brief observations on the above citation from Ratzinger. Did he ever stop to think that maybe he was wrong? Also, note his being confounded by the very dialectical thinking that informs his thinking, all the “contradictions.” More important are his use of the terms “integralists” and “sectarian” to refer to his opposition in the Church through veiled but aggressively hostile narratives. “Integralist” is an attack term that derisively refers to Catholic theologians that have a Thomistic orientation to their theology. That would be the pre-Vatican II theology that recognized Modernism and the New Theology as heretical. Closely read, Ratzinger de facto declared them heretics under his “New Theology” regime. Really, isn’t a truly “New Theology” one that breaks with old “Deposit of Faith” as a matter of definition? The Hegelian cosmology and Hermeticism are intensely Platonic, especially Neo-Platonic, in their orientation and Aquinas’s theology severely limits its application. Integralism is a veiled attack on St. Thomas and Thomistic theology. Wikipedia defines “Sectarianism“ as “a form of bigotry, discrimination, or hatred.” That would be the Cardinal’s view of Catholics who might think being Catholic remains an integral element of the Church he was bent on destroying.

This line of inquiry raises the need to make explicit what some recognize implicitly and, hence, often goes unrecognized. This analysis assumes that when a person says something, especially when reduced to written instruments in a scholarly or professional forum, they mean what they say. While the assumption is rebuttable, the burden of proof has to lie with those asserting claims like “I know he said that, but he did not mean it.” That such responses lean towards gnosticism are compounded when they include, as they often times do, a strange spiritualized babble; a spiritualized gnosis. The trick to engaging issues in this forum is to recognize the necessity of not getting bogged down in rigged theological narratives, recognizing in them the political attacks that they are.

For example, it might be argued, with substantial supporting evidence, that when Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the need to destroy the Church, he may not have meant the kind of destruction we are seeing (whatever that “kind” of destruction might be). The response is that it makes little difference to this assessment the manner in which the Church is destroyed so long as it is being destroyed by those who called for its destruction. Why should it matter that the demolition is off schedule for the planner? Demolish is demolish. It is for the other side to draw out the fine gnostic distinctions that collapse in the face of events.

Alongside the analogy to Dostoyevsky’s The Devils (also The Possessed), with Popes Paul, John Paul and Benedict playing Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovinsky to Pope Francis’s Pyotor Stepanovich Verkhovinsky, one can add a modern software analogy. What these popes seemed not to recognize is that when you overwrite the firmware “Tradition” with a dialectical operating system, it will cause “Catholic” programs to misfire. The God of the Catholic Church is, and only is, “I Am”. As long as the Vatican does not fix the operating system, there will be no software solutions even if the programs themselves are sound. The incompatibility will remain notwithstanding the discernment to recognize it. There is something primitive about Pope Benedict’s dialectical response to resolving the mass issue he played a role in creating, calling for yet another new mass that is characterized as the synthesis of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass (thesis) and the Novus Ordo (anti-thesis).

When reading Ratzinger, and even JP2 (especially his “Faith and Reason”), it is important to recognize and interpret their writings in the dialectical manner in which they were written. Hence,

the “pastoral” Gaudium et Spes can naturally negate all the pre-Vatican encyclicals against Modernism and the New Theology because, being dialectical, that is what they do. The dialectic is the authority behind Ratzinger’s suppression of the pre-Vatican II encyclicals. Everything that was true yesterday, especially because they were both true and yesterday, gets negated today, which in turn will be negated tomorrow. That is the formula behind “we uphold the Magisterial teachings (from yesterday) but we have to be pastoral (today)”. This is how 1930 years of Tradition can be negated one dialectical turn at a time. As important, this is what was intended by Vatican II documents as evidenced by the fact that they remain unimpeded while doing exactly what they continue to do. The new theology claims the right to completely negate (by aufheben) any Tradition or Magisterial teaching where-ever they are out of touch with the living god who manifests himself as Absolute Idea in the zeitgeist of the day. Think Teilhard.

Part 4

Balthasar’s theology mimicks Christianity while implementing Hermeticism. When hailing out Hegel in Word and Revelation, doing so in conjunction with Hegel’s “Hen kai Pan”, Balthasar was signaling that his work was dialectically in line with Hegel at precisely the point where Hegel affirmed Hermetica –

“Hen is the characteristic world that mysticism which ascends by renunciation. Pan is the attempt to bring the finite despite this renunciation. “Hen kai pan” remains the aspiration of the heart which may well be postulated and assented to as the ultimate ideal but one which lacks any power to attain. What applies to mysticism applies also to philosophy. It can and must postulate that nothing of that which is extraneous to the unity of being, and that in all that is the revelation of being is to be discerned; but it cannot prove, or desire to prove, that the creature is coincident with the creator of simply a mode of him. From the hen to the pan – the two, after all, belong together – the bridge joining them can only be thrown by God. If this bridge is what the christian (sic) religion consists in, then “there arises the infinite demand that the content of religion should vindicate itself also to thought, and this necessity is not to be eluded.” These are the words of Hegel (Hegel, Philosophy of Religion 1832, II, 280). His theology and philosophy of the Spirit stand face to face. The positive cannot be the ultimate. (Balthasar, World and Revelation, 186-187)

Of course, for Balthasar, what positive Revelation (and Tradition) requires is “aufheben” (negation) to bring about the intended synthesis of the true revelatory understanding that god intended. If you put Hermes in frame when reading Balthasar, everything pops. Just as god is most fully realized at the end of time because, as Hegel explained, history is the process of god collecting his shattered identity in creation through an ongoing series of dialectical turns that converge at the end of history when god becomes fully realized, it is important to note that Hegel precisely followed the alchemical formula that his dialectic mainstreamed (that Vatican II adopted). This is Teilhard’s “omega point” god. Teilhard replaced “I Am” with “becoming” thus rendering god immanent. Consider. Teilhard, followed Hegel’s alchemical formulas (really, alchemy). Hegel used them to execute his Hermetic cosmology in a manner that emulated the Pietist Lutheranism of his day. Hegel’s god only exists in a fully realized state at the end of history, immanently (and pantheistically) dependent upon his creation to transition him from pure undifferentiated thought (Hegel’s Logic – the Father), through his creation thus allowing the undifferentiated god to know himself through his differentiated creation reflecting back on him (Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature – the Son) so that the two can dialectically operate off each other through history until all of actualized thought converges at the

end of time in the Actualized Absolute Idea (Hegel’s Philosophy of the Spirt – the Holy Spirit). It’s not far off from Joachim of Fiore.

As Eric Voegelin recognized, Hegel’s immanentized god “immanentizes the eschaton” and, in-so- doing, transitions a church’s mission focus from heaven to earth; seeking god at the end of history through the building-up and perfecting of his creation – “heaven on earth”. It is just a few semantical turns away from Marxism. Under Hegel, Jesus is replaced by the state because god manifests himself in the state. In this process, justice transitions to social justice. Social Justice is repackaged Marxism. Social Justice has become a primary mission of the church alongside its interfaith mission. The interfaith mission is statist as has been the Vatican’s in recent years.

Long before Vatican II, German Lutheranism would suffer the Hegelian demand to have Biblical analysis conform to the Hegelian cosmology, designated as a science (think scientism) that demands that the Torah be brought into frame with Homer and other 6th Century BC mythologies in conformance with the ersatz mythological science Wellhausen imposed as a historical critical analysis of the Bible, called scientific, and designated Hermeneutics (can you cull out the HERMES in hermeneutics?) Hence, JEPD. In the New Testament, Q extends the timeline for the production of the Synoptic Gospels past the destruction of the Temple, putting them more closely in frame with – and hence in peer competition with – the rising gnosticism and Neo-Platonism of the time. Yet Acts ends with Paul still alive before the fall of the Temple. There is no historical or scientific basis for “Quelle” outside the constructed narrative that demands that it be. Yet, the USCCB’s officially approved Bible, the New American Bible (NAB) cites to Q in footnotes as if it existed.

Part 5

Returning to Balthasar, while his sexualized theology may be a sacrilege when considered in light of St Paul and 1930 years of Tradition, it is in line with how Hermetic tradition positions the idealized status of women in the role of Ishtar, Astarte and Libertas (who French Freemasons built a large statue of, which New York Freemasons dedicated in New York Harbor). Strange? No question about it. But don’t blame me! A brief Google research and review on the goddess Astarte in Sumerian tradition will help establish an unwanted perspective when reading Balthasar:

The figure of the prostitute is so appropriate for the Church …. that it …. defines the Church of the New Covenant in her most splendid mystery of salvation. The fact that the Synagogue left the Holy Land to go and be among the pagans was an infidelity of Jerusalem, the fact that ‘she opened her legs in every road in the world.’ But this same movement, which brings her to all the peoples, is the mission of the Church. She must unite and merge herself with every people, and this new apostolic form of union cannot be avoided. (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Sponsa Verbi, 1969, 267.)
The ‘corporal’ union of mankind with the living God is manifested – an extraordinary thing! – by the symbolism of eros, as a realization of what is said in the Canticle of the Canticles: existence considered as nuptials. The Church and the soul that receive the semen of the Word and the spiritual truth can only receive it in an attitude of feminine openness and accessibility. She does not become annoyed, does not close herself, does not make herself rigid or assume any virile reaction, but gives herself in the darkness, receives in the darkness without knowing what and how much she receives and gives birth to. (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theology of History, 1960, 145.)

Yes, Astarte! As my teenage daughter would say, “Ick”. If you are informed by typology, this can’t make you feel good. But reading it, recognizing that Pope John Paul II made him a Cardinal years after publication, and knowing that this was one of Pope Benedict’s two most favored theologians, one must ask: Doesn’t this help explain Assisi? What is the difference between Assisi and the “desolating sacrilege” of Daniel and Maccabees? Given the trajectory of Balthasar’s comments, isn’t there “something about Mary” in here? What about “Theology of the Body”? If one maps Balthasar’s theological writings, at least the ones I reviewed, one can plainly see that the typology runs through a micro thin “Catholic” veil (to spoof the system) to Hermetics. Balthasar even wrote very supportive forwards to theosophical works claiming a Catholic nexus to hermeneutical concepts, as for example, his forward to Meditations of the Tarot –

A thinking, praying Christian of unmistakable purity reveals to us the symbol of Christian Hermeticism in its various levels of mysticism, gnosis and magic, taking in also the Cabbala and certain elements of astrology and alchemy. These symbols are summarized in the twenty-two so called “Major Arcana” of the Tarot cards. By way of the Major Arcana the author seeks to lead meditatively into the deeper, all-embracing wisdom of the Catholic Mystery. (The Forward is all downhill from here)

Wasn’t tarot condemned?

But wait, there’s more. Balthasar left the Jesuits in the 1950’s to live a life that clearly emulates Steiner’s in his role with Blavatsky. Balthasar, became the spiritual counselor/confessor to the eccentric Adrienne Von Speyr, a twice divorced convert from Protestantism who he helped regress through her previous lives to recapture her virginity (Isn’t the only place you’ll find reincarnation in Catholic Tradition located in the chapter labeled “Condemned”?). So how did Balthasar and Speyr explain the founding of their publishing house (because no-one would publish her works)? As stated in the Communio, a journal founded in the Vatican by Ratzinger, Speyr said their newly founded institution was formed “as a period of pregnancy, where the institute is the child, Adrienne the mother and von Balthasar the father.” How could the two “virgins” have a child – at least spiritually speaking? Speyr channeled Saint Ignatius that “even though [they] were virgins, this was a means by which a man could mark a woman.” A virgin, that is, through regressions over which Balthasar presided that the Communio published.

Speyr (and Balthasar) believed she and Balthasar were on a “Blues Brother-esque” mission from God, or at least on one from Mary – her Mary. As related in “They Think They Won, Part 4”, Balthasar said, “In a ‘Marian’ vision, Adrienne says to God: ‘’We both (Adrienne and von Balthasar) wish to love You, to serve You, and to thank You for the Church You have entrusted to us . . . we spoke those words both of us together, and for a fraction of a second, she placed the child in my arms, but it was not only the child, it was the Una Sancta (the Church) in miniature, and seemed to me, to represent a unity of everything that has been entrusted to us and which constitutes a work in God for the Catholic’.” Not my Una Sancta.

Recalling Balthasar’s “semen of the Word” theology, Speyr relates how St Ignatius also channeled that “man’s spiritual fecundity is to be deposited in the woman’s body that she may bear fruit. In this sense Hans Urs von Balthasar’s fertility was deposited in the stigmata, which Adrienne had received for him.” Just close your eyes and visualize this. Or maybe not, certain things cannot be unseen. But

consider, if someone acted this out, made a video of it and put it on the web, wouldn’t it be a form of internet porn in need of penance?

Balthasar was hailed as the pre-eminent Vatican II era theologian by, among others, the two successive popes that gave him elite status. Both Popes John Paul and Benedict affirmed Balthasar and both were personally present and instrumental in standing up Casa Balthasar in Rome. A review of “events” on the Casa Balthasar webpage reveals the playing of Mozart’s The Magic Flute – a composition notorious for its Freemasonry theme and imagery (which is Hermetic). Assessments of Balthasar that go too far beyond my teenage daughter’s analysis may be overthinking him. She had him in three words: “pervy and gross.” [I did ask her, she turned 18]

And herein lies the rub. It’s not just teenage girls. Most men (and women), especially those with children, would not find it too difficult to conclude that a Vatican leadership that’s all in on Balthasar would be soft on a principled response to the predatory clergy that has come to define the Church. Lest we lose sight, while Hermes might take a flyer on acting on such issues, his heart not really being in it, for Christ, it’s the millstone. On this issue, there can be no conflicts.

The Church disabled itself from being able to address the predatory homosexuality that now PROPERLY DEFINES it because it does not quite violate what they believe. A political warfare analysis holds that the Church is what it does. The “Catholic” programs may demand action, as the faithful most certainly do, but the operating system’s level of effort is satisfied with simply going through the motions to get by. “CLERICALISM”

In Il nostro compito, Balthasar noted approvingly that Speyr received a divine mission to “rethink” the “positive value of the so-called corporeity (or sexuality) within the religion of incarnation”. This makes sense when one recognizes that in the Hermetic domain, man was originally androgyne and hence, any theology that seeks convergence at the end of history would naturally anticipate all forms of converged sexuality and genderism. The interfaith model perfectly conforms to this hermetic typology. Pope Francis said the mission of the Church will continue to be the interfaith mission established a Vatican II.

“As above, so below.” While this is a theological aphorism, it is decidedly not Christian. It is Hermetic. With this aphorism informing “elite” Vatican II theology, it brings institutional understanding to the contra-Traditional / contra-Biblical notion that, yes, we may “dare hope that all men are saved” (even if it takes a few reincarnations to get there).

This type of analysis can be repeated with Teilhard and, by varying degrees, the rest of the Communio pantheon.

It must be stated simply. If the Church as constituted in 1950 was the Catholic Church, and it can be shown that today’s Church is not that, except in the form of its antithesis – that the only way to claim continuity is to helically assert the very dialectic condemned at that time – then what are people holding onto today when holding back from saying what everybody knows, “the emperor has no cloths.” There is precise directionality to the corruption.

That the clergy in America does not have the <<fill in the word>> to tell Cardinal Wuerl (and others) to get out cannot but cause the faithful to ponder the lack of discernment and lack of moral and spiritual courage that raises questions regarding the quality of faith.

Please comment Cancel reply