Home > Tag Archives: Ann Barnhardt

Tag Archives: Ann Barnhardt

March 18th, 2018

Papal Disasters, St Patrick and Faggotry

Here are two challenging thoughts.

The first is from Fr John Hunwicke, and it’s the best summary of the present papacy I’ve seen yet.

During the Bergoglian era, the two major disasters have been the shiftiness, accompanied by unbecoming bluster, in the area of paedophilia and coverups and cronyism; and attempts to get away with perverting the Church’s moral teaching by stealth.

This was prompted  largely by the unsuccessful attempt by Pope Francis’ supremo for communications, Mgr Dario Edoardo Viganó,  to manipulate the media into believing that Pope Emeritus Benedict, in a recent letter, had expressed unqualified and fulsome support for his successor. This was done by deleting  portions of the letter which tended to  show the contrary. Pope Benedict was  in fact declining to write an endorsement of a series of booklets published under the auspices of Pope Francis.

The second thought arises from Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s St Patrick’s Day junketings in the United States. Today’s blog post by Ann Barnhardt is fortuitously, but amazingly, à propos. It says, among other things:

Saint Patrick’s greatest miracle was driving all of the faggots out of Ireland.  This was a key reason why he was recognized as a saint, and this was one of his greatest miracles.  “Snakes” is code for faggots – back when people literally did not discuss faggots and faggotry out loud because it is THAT DISGUSTING.



Can you imagine?  Can you imagine what a vastly, vastly improved world this would be if there were NO FAGGOTS?

I can’t discover where Ann got  the idea that “snakes” is code for homosexuals. But if by “faggots” (the American word for queers) she means  just militant sodomites and NOT everyone  struggling with homosexual temptations then she’s quite right. I hope I understand her correctly, but I think she should spell it out.

December 29th, 2016

Pope Frankenstein and the Brandsma Review

It was a pleasant surprise to receive Issue 141 of the Brandsma Review a day or two before Christmas. With a gap of over a year  since Issue 140, I presumed the magazine had already come to  an end, without so much as  T.S. Eliot’s proverbial whimper. Not so.

However, editor Peadar Laighléis warns that in the not-too-distant future he will be giving up the print edition of the BR.  This I think is an immense pity, as it’s the only proper traditional/orthodox conservative Catholic publication in Ireland, apart from some devotional magazines. With an increased  workload as a civil servant in taxation, he has struggled manfully to keep the BR  going, but I have to say that he seems to have ignored much of the advice I gave him when I handed over the editorship some years ago. I told him then that if he didn’t make a priority of bringing the magazine out in time, or nearly in time, his readership base would disappear. I also advised him to be sure to notify readers when their subscriptions were due. These are the only ways to prevent a fatal haemorrhaging of subscribers.

There are several problems with confining oneself to an electronic publication. The most serious is that there are still many people who don’t have access to the internet—and why should they? Peadar is offering to investigate the possibility of printing individual copies for such readers, but I doubt if he will have more than a handful of takers. An electronic magazine amounts to little more than a lengthy blog post.

The layout in the latest issue has improved, but is still pretty dire. There are several excellent articles: perhaps the most notable are by Joe McCarroll and Fr Brendan Purcell. The former’s piece is a review of the latter’s book Where Is God in Suffering? which impressed me so much that I am going to order it. Fr Brendan’s article is on the murder by Moslems of Fr Jacques Hamel.

Peadar’s German correspondent  has a strong attack on the country’s new right wing party Alternative für Deutschland which has crossed swords with the country’s Catholic hierarchy. While I hold  no particular brief for this party, it seems a bit over the top to mention Bismarck in the same breath as the  AfD, and when she reminds people that Adolf Hitler started with  similarly low ballot results, warning all German Christians to be on their guard, she just loses me entirely.  That’s scaremongering. And it’s not as if the corrupt, heterodox and grotesquely wealthy state-funded German Catholic Church had anything to boast about these days.

Peadar covers the 1916 anniversary commemoration in a very well balanced manner. He himself  broadly approves of  the Rising, and deplores the way secularists have appropriated the executed leaders to their own cause, when in fact many of these leaders were motivated by their Catholic faith. Hibernicus, on the other hand, points out that while 1916 cannot be retrospectively abolished, it may be reassessed. He is certainly right to remind readers that the Rising violated the traditional Catholic requirements for a just war or rebellion,  was the work of a self-proclaimed messianic group, and has caused periodic mayhem ever since.

Unfortunately Peadar has still failed to tackle the problem now facing every orthodox Catholic. I refer of course to Pope Frankenstein the Merciful. (That’s not original; I stole it from an anonymous priest-correspondent of Ann Barnhardt’s.)  Mel Cormican has an article praising the Holy Father’s “covert critique of Islam”, which contains some good points about the evils contained in the Koran. But really: what is the point of the pope’s “pulling the rug” from under Islam, as Mr Cormican puts it, if very few people—and certainly not the Moslems—are aware that this is what Pope Francis is doing? There is already a hideous persecution of Christians in countries where the crescent holds sway. Plain unequivocal speaking in relation to Islam would hardly make this much worse.

I am strongly of the opinion that if Mr Laighléis were to grasp the nettle firmly and question some of the Pope’s unorthodoxies—such as his promotion of Holy Communion for unrepentant adulterers—his circulation would not suffer at all. Peadar’s hope is that the BR, in whatever form it takes, will be a beacon in the darkness. It goes against the grain to criticise a reigning pontiff, but in the appallingly chaotic  situation in which Catholics now find themselves such criticism is indispensable. Unless the Review can summon the moral courage to do this, whatever light it manages to shine will be dim indeed.


December 23rd, 2016

The Film to Watch before Midnight Mass

I found this film, Scrooge,  on Ann Barnhardt’s blog. She believes  it is quite the best-ever film presentation of Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. I saw it when I was 14, shortly after it first appeared. A very fine performance by Alistair Sim in the title role.

Ann says Ebenezer Scrooge, before his shock conversion, is a perfect example of what she calls “a Diabolical Narcissist”. I have known plenty of those in my time. Some, I regret to say, were traditional Catholics.

You would find it well worth while to add Ann Barnhardt to your list of favourites. You may not always agree with her—I sometimes find her over the top—but she is always stimulating and challenging.  Sometimes her blog posts—at least in my opinion—show great spiritual depth.

Ann suggests that Scrooge is the perfect film to watch before going out to Midnight Mass. Quite right.

August 24th, 2016

Smash and Grab

The redoubtable Ann Barnhardt (look her up on Google) wants everyone to follow the example of the man who tore down this poster. I think she’s right, and I hope I’d have the guts to do the same if and when such “execrable filth” starts appearing on the streets of Dublin…

Six seconds.

This is how it is done, gentlemen.

Remember, the crime is not in the “property destruction”, the crime, before the throne of Christ, is walking by this execrable filth and doing nothing. Like an effeminate little sis.

If you are serious about taking back our civilization, might I suggest that this sets an excellent example of how to begin.

If you don’t understand what you are seeing, it is an advertisement on a public street for a sodomite hook-up website/app. This fellow has clearly had enough, and did exactly what he should have done.  Not one more precious soul, not one more innocent child, will walk by that ad and be scandalized by it.

If you are sitting there thinking that the ad must have been “legal” according to local statutes, then let me now re-introduce you to the concept of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, Sovereign King of the Universe.  ALL LAWS are subject to His Law.  Any laws that are contrary to His Law are ipso facto null and void. Period. Maybe you should worry more about what God Almighty thinks, and less about currying human respect.  In other words, MAN UP.

June 10th, 2016

Is This a Call for Schism?

You’ll probably remember that “Traddery and Trumpery” item we published on May 31st, on a furious row about an article in The Remnant (the leading American Catholic Trad paper) by one Ann Barnhardt. To recap briefly:  in Ethika Politika (a publication of which I’d never heard) John Médaille, a theology teacher and retired businessman, savaged Miss Barnhardt’s article and asserted that  Remnant editor Michael Matt was “trying to become the Donald Trump of Catholic traditionalism” for even carrying such a piece.

Mr Médaille’s article has now been reprinted by my favourite neo-Catholic (by which I mean Vatican II Conservative) magazine the New Oxford Review under the headline “The Remnant Crosses the Rubicon”. By so doing, the NOR is clearly expressing agreement with Mr Médaille’s  assertion that The Remnant, by carrying a piece suggesting that “those bishops remaining who still hold the Catholic faith” should depose and anathematise Pope Francis, is openly calling for a schism.

Schism, as I’ve said before, is never the answer to heresy. But is this a call for schism? I honestly don’t know. But if it is, couldn’t the charge also be levelled at St Athanasius? He went so far as actually to go around ordaining bishops in dioceses where the incumbent was an Arian heretic, which is  hardly less drastic than anything proposed in The Remnant. Athanasius, who considered he was  defending the Catholic faith as handed down,  was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, but everyone now considers Athanasius acted rightly.  As Cardinal Newman says: “St Athanasius, driven from his Church, makes all Christendom his home, from Trèves (Trier) to Ethiopia.” There can surely be little doubt that Athanasius was responding to a state of emergency within the Church. Are we in a similar state today? Who am I to judge?

I hope to write more about the New Oxford Review in my next post.







May 31st , 2016

Traddery and Trumpery

There has been quite a rumpus recently in Traditional and Conservative Catholic circles about an article in the American Trad newspaper The Remnant by Ann Barnhardt,   describing  Pope Francis as “personally responsible for the most loss of human souls to eternal damnation, above Luther, above Mohammed, above Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), above Paul VI Montini”.

Well, I think most readers, even those most critical of the present pontificate,  would agree that such language is more than a little over the top. And Miss Barnhardt goes on to insist that the Pope  must be “deposed and anathematised for being a heretic” by  what she describes as “those bishops remaining who still hold the Catholic Faith”, called together in an “imperfect Ecumenical Council”.

Whoa! In the first place she can’t possibly know how many—if any—souls have been lost because of the Holy Father’s admittedly destructive polices and heterodox utterances. In the second place, it is not our business as lay people to advocate what would amount to a schism.

All the same, I can’t go along with John Médaille, (a theology teacher, a retired businessman and a Distributist more or less on the lines of Belloc and Chesterton) who bitterly attacks The Remnant‘s editor Michael Matt for carrying Miss Barnhardt’s piece at all. He insists that Mr Matt is just trying to  increase his circulation by appealing to the worst passions of his audience and saying the most outrageous things—thus becoming “the Donald Trump of Catholic Traditionalism”.

Now, every editor wants to increase his circulation. But I’ve met Michael Matt on several occasions, and I’m sure his motives are worthier than that. I think he felt that Ann Barnhardt’s voice was one that should be heard, and I think—despite the  hysterical tone of the piece—that he was probably right. You can read John Médaille’s critique on www.ethikapolitica. org. In the appropriate  combox on that site you will find dozens of entries arguing for and against Mr Matt’s decision to carry the article. Mr Médaille concludes:

And who can fail to note the irony that on the eve of the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s famous 95 Theses that split the Church apart, some Traditionalists, with their own theses, want to do the same? And to make the irony complete, they seem to want a council to overrule the Pope, which sounds a lot like the conciliarism they pretend to oppose.

Christopher Ferrara, distinguished pro-life lawyer and Remnant columnist retorts:

And who can fail to note the irony that Francis is going to Sweden next year to commemorate the 500th anniversary of that same “Reformation”, including participation in a joint liturgy with faux Lutheran “bishops” who condone abortion, contraception, divorce, the “ordination” of women and practicing homosexuals, and who would be viewed as worthy of the flames by Luther himself? Surely we Catholics have not lost the capacity to recognize this kind of thing as simply insane. There is more to the Remnant‘s position than the rhetoric and tone of one column.

And in a separate comment,  Mr Ferrara says: “No Pope in Church history has received the world’s praise like this Pope. That is a very bad sign, as Our Lord himself made clear.”

In another comment, one Stephen Hand notes:

Just weeks before the Irish same sex referendum in which Ireland was lost to the Catholic Church for the first time since St. Patrick, Francis appointed the notorious gay advocate, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, as Consultor to the Vatican’s Peace and Justice Commission. What a sly signal to the Irish in that critical hour. And that appointment also illustrated that Francis, unlike JPII and BXVI has been driving a sly wedge between Church praxis (works of mercy) and traditional Catholic doctrine. The former must ever be the “fruit” of orthodoxy, sound doctrine, never a substitute for it.

I would agree with John Médaille that no matter how bad things get, schism is never the answer. Perhaps our best course  would be to heed the advice of Cardinal Raymond Burke:

I think of so many faithful who express to me their profound concerns for the Church in the present time, when there seems to be so much confusion about fundamental dogmatic and moral truths. In responding to their concerns, I urge them to deepen their understanding of the constant teaching and discipline of the Church and to make their voices heard, so that the shepherds of the flock may understand the urgent need to announce again with clarity and courage the truths of the faith and to apply again with charity and firmness the discipline needed to safeguard the same truths.

Both Mr Matt and Mr Médaille were at last year’s symposium of the Roman Forum in Gardone on the Italian lakes. I hope they’ll both be there again.