Home > Tag Archives: Hilary White

Tag Archives: Hilary White

May 6th, 2016

Becoming a Bad Rad Trad

          Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining    many, desire as it were to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.St. Peter Canisius.

          You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds….What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can.St Thomas More.

I recently received the latest (September-October 2015) issue of The Brandsma Review,  which proves, reassuringly,  that editor Peadar Laighléis is still struggling manfully to overcome his ongoing production problems.   The layout, I am sorry to say, is still dire, but there are some excellent and up-to-date articles—notably, as one would expect, by Joe McCarroll and David Manly on the Eighth Amendment and abortion. However, one glaring and regrettable omission is any mention  of what seems to be becoming one of the  most serious  crises the Church has ever faced.

I refer, of course to the Holy Father’s ongoing  attack on the Church’s Tradition, most notably in regard to matters of sexual morality, in Amoris Laetitia.  I have referred before to this failure to face facts  as “tiptoeing around the Argentine elephant in the living room”. If  The Brandsma Review is not going to face squarely up to this problem, then what other Irish outlet will?

Is Stramentarius  morphing into a Bad Rad Trad? Well, if so, that’s regrettable, but I really don’t see how it can be avoided.

April 22nd, 2016

Amoris Laetitia Is a Bad Egg

The above is one of the most famous cartoons ever to have appeared in Punch.  Parts of  Amoris Laetitia are excellent too, or  so we are given to understand. But that’s not really the point, is it?  Taken as a whole, it stinks.

Some neo-Catholics have praised the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia because of its emphasis on “meeting people where they are at” rather than condemning their particular sinful situation.  Seems  commendably merciful, but it makes me very uneasy all the same.   All too easily this policy can be interpreted to mean  tacitly accepting that “where they are at” is where they ought to be. That is what  the Mods—in particular the German bishops— are already doing.

In another of his disastrous mid-air Press conferences, Pope Francis was asked to clarify the  position on “remarriage” and Holy Communion. He made  the confusion worse confounded by pointing to the interpretation of the  devious  Austrian Cardinal Schönborn.  I fear that although the Pope cannot change Church teaching, he can and has changed Church practice, as he clearly intended to do before the “Synod on the Family” was even called. It looks as though from now on, in many European countries at least, permissions for “divorced and remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion will be poured through in ever-increasing numbers.

How should a confused Catholic react? I don’t know, but I don’t think the “We’re all doomed”  response of some Traddy bloggers (following Private Fraser in Dad’s Army) is particularly helpful.

Related image
Private Fraser

Unfortunately, one of those who thinks we’re all doomed is Hilary White, whose blog “What’s Up with Francis-Church?” is usually  realistic as well as caustic.  She believes that  because Cardinal Burke is  simply  pointing out that Amoris Laetitia is non-magisterial, rather than yelling abuse at the Holy Father, the Cardinal has thrown his most loyal supporters under the bus and may as well be some kind of modernist.  But Eccles, whose blog posts are getting progressively funnier, refutes any such idea with this picture and caption:

Burke in Cappa Magna 

Warning – this is what a nasty liberal modernist looks like.

Even though we’re not necessarily doomed, this is a catastrophe all the same. As Professor Roberto de Mattei has commented:

If the text is catastrophic, even more catastrophic is the fact that it was signed by the Vicar of Christ. Even so, for those who love Christ and His Church, this is a good reason to speak and not be silent.  So, let’s make ours the words of a courageous Bishop, Athanasius Schneider:
‘Non possumus!’ I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods.
Bishop Schneider made this remark some months ago, but it’s even more relevant today.




May 14th, 2015

Ascension Thursday Sunday

 Betook me to the Pixies this morning.  It really annoys me that Newchurch  has virtually abolished one of the greatest Holy Days,  transferring it to the following Sunday just to  spare us lazy laity a little inconvenience. After all, from early church times onwards the Ascension has been the third most important feast in the Christian calendar.
It was, of course, a quiet, decent, reverent Low Mass of the Ascension at the Society of St Pius X  church of St John, Mounttown, Dun Laoghaire.   No seventh-rate ordained clown goofing around on the altar; no painfully embarrassing bidding prayers; no mangled rubrics. At an SSPX Mass you don’t find yourself wondering whether Our Lord is truly present.  I’m really grateful to them for that, so I put quite a generous offering in the collection basket. Thanks, Pixies; I  wish you were back where you belong, and I really think you ought to be, but I quite appreciate why you think that’s not possible at present.

April 27th, 2015

Bishops in a Blue Funk Over Sodomistic Pseudogamy

I am beginning to suffer from ecclesial schizophrenia. I suppose that’s only to be expected if you attend the Novus Ordo on weekdays and the immemorial Mass on Sundays. Canadian journalist Hilary White insists that “Novus Ordoism Isn’t Catholicism” and while I wouldn’t go as far as that, I certainly  think she has a valid point.

At our local church last week the Novus Ordo cycle of readings included an account of the martyrdom of St Stephen. In his little homily before the offertory the celebrant referred  in general terms to present day martyrdoms  in the Middle East, lumping them  in for some obscure reason with the tragedy of the drownings in the Mediterranean. He then jumped to the subject of “change”, suggesting  that alterations to the liturgy after Vatican II had been difficult for some people who liked things as they were, and maybe had a love of Latin.  But, he reminded us, Cardinal Newman had written that to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.

Then Father moved on to  the referendum to change the Constitution on marriage. Our bishops, he said, wanted us to reflect deeply on this matter. But mind you, they weren’t wagging their fingers at us and telling us how to vote!

The message I took from this is that it’s  OK to vote for sodomistic pseudogamy, as long as you have thought about it really seriously. This is quite in line with our bishops’ document  “Marriage Is Important: Reflect Before You Change It.”  In a recent interview Archbishop Éamonn Martin of Armagh said he was hoping for  “a deeper and more reflective debate” before polling day.

This is utterly pathetic, and it makes me ashamed to be a Catholic. Or it would do, if I hadn’t heard a spine-stiffening sermon at a Latin Mass in Dublin the previous Sunday.  The priest said simply that the bishops were in a blue funk,   when faced with a proposal to overturn the whole God-given idea  of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. St Kevin’s Church in Harrington Street is to have a an evening of prayer for the defeat of the referendum, including 15 decades of the rosary and Benediction.

Our shepherds should  be thundering their denunciations down on the heads of this execrable government. They don’t seem to grasp that sometimes, to keep any self-respect, one has to engage the enemy in battle even if there may not be that much hope of success.

What a contrast to the uncompromising action by three Baptist churches who took out a half-page ad. in our local paper, the Dun Laoghaire Gazette:

As Bible-believing Christians, it is our duty to point out that Jesus Christ defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. ..There is much talk today about human rights, and equality. However, God as our creator, has rights over his creatures. God instituted marriage, not man. God makes the rules, and man has no right to change what God has set in place.

Marriage, as defined by God to be between a man and woman, has been universally accepted by all cultures from time immemorial. It is no longer marriage if it is redefined to mean two men or two women. No generation, until now, has dared to tamper with this definition.

This vote is not about valuing some people in our society. It is about devaluing God. This vote is not about equality, but is really about dethroning God as the ultimate authority in life…

This is why we urge you to vote NO at the forthcoming referendum on 22nd May.

Why can’t our shepherds say something as  simple and uncompromising as that, instead of bumbling on about “deep and reflective debates”.  Do they  think the media will respect them for broad-mindedness  or  despise them for their cowardice? All honour to  the Blanchardstown Baptist Church, the Lucan Gospel Baptist Church, and the Redemption Baptist Church, Athlone.

Michael Voris  of ChurchMilitant. TV was speaking of the situation in the US, but his remarks apply equally well to Ireland:

As you might imagine, saying it like it is, putting it out there, ruffles the feathers of the more genteel, the more ‘diplomatic’, the professional Catholic crowd.

Their lace-curtain approach, their ‘don’t upset people and make them feel uncomfortable’ tactics have accomplished nothing and actually are now standing in the way.

This whole tone of the Catholic Establishment must be defeated.  It’s worthless, wimpy, and whiny.  It inspires nothing—nothing except indifference.

The Church of Nice needs to get back to the gym and develop some muscles.  In the meantime, we need to get about the business of the work of great men like St. Francis de Sales and preach the hard truths—get in people’s faces, confront the evil in the Church, and all this despite being mocked and abandoned by the Establishment Church of Nice gang.

No one in the world listens to them with their pudding mouth approach. Why should we?


January 13, 2015

We Must Fight for Christendom

There is something quite absurd about the way the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre are  lauded as martyrs.   Those hate-filled anarchists were no more “martyrs” than the Moslem fanatics who killed them, or than the Nazi Horst Wessel. Fr John Hunwicke points out that all this nonsense bears an uncanny resemblance to the hysteria that followed the death of Diana Prince of Wales: “this eerie mass hysteria of the mob; the politicians riding on the back of it; the coercion into a prescribed self-identification; the ludicrous apotheosis of the dead.”

It was Flannery O’Connor, I think, who insisted  that we must push against the prevailing culture as vigorously as it is pushing against us.  I’m realising with increasing clarity that the remnants of Christendom, whether Catholic or Protestant, are being ground between two very unpleasant millstones: the secularism of the so-called Enlightenment, represented in its most extreme modern form by the likes of Charlie Hebdo; and a much more ancient foe in the shape of Islam.


December 4, 2014

Morality and the Demon ‘Allah’

I’ve long been an admirer of Hilary White’s blog Orwell’s Picnic. In this entry—which I am quoting at length here—she shows that, contrary  to what you might expect, Islam has a lot in common with moral relativism. (I think Pope Benedict was making much the same point in his mild and courteous speech at Regensburg which made the Moslems so angry.)

For a long time, the Fashionably Stupid People, frequently younger people, have liked to say, ‘Well, there’s more than one kind of morality,’ and ‘You can’t impose your moral values on me,’ and ‘Morality is a malleable concept,’ and other related irrational and self-refuting rubbish. And we know this was, let’s face it, mostly puerile attempts to justify having (their preferred variety of) sex outside of natural marriage, or approving of abortion or divorce as a ‘right’ or whatnot.

Well, we are seeing now, aren’t we, all over the place, but especially in Middle Eastern countries that there really is such a thing as a ‘different morality’ from the one we have all taken for granted all our lives. For various reasons, Islamic ‘morality’ doesn’t include a concept of a universal moral law. They don’t believe that all persons, by virtue of being human, have the same rights. And they don’t believe that it is always, inherently, wrong to steal from or attack or lie or kill or rape or enslave other people. There is no such thing in Islamic ‘morality’ as ‘inherent’ right or wrong. This has to do with the monster they worship being above its own laws. The demon ‘Allah’ can change its mind about right and wrong, (thus giving the lie to the insane notion that it is the same as the God of Abraham) therefore there is no universal objective moral law in Islam. In Islam, we have finally seen what moral relativism really turns into: the triumph of the will over all. Might makes right.

We’ve had a pretty hard time accepting that this is really what we’re seeing, because the Judeo-Christian ethic has been so ubiquitous that we have simply assumed that this is how all humans work. The notion that other people, large groups of people, really could have radically different ideas about right and wrong from those we have based our culture on seemed so outlandish that we have wasted precious years, more than a decade now, arguing about how it’s not really Islam that says these things, even though the people doing the acts tell us every day, all day that it does.

But I’ve realised where this denial has come from. If the perpetual adolescents were to admit that it is Islam itself that sanctions and even mandates these acts, they would have to admit that there is such a thing as an immutable, universal moral law from which these acts are a systematic deviation, and that is behind our judgement that the acts in question are wrong, are evil and must be stopped. It would, in short, yank the entire argument out from under their precious Sexual Revolution, and force them to admit its close relationship with the same moral relativism—the same triumph of will—that is currently murdering, raping and enslaving its way across the Islamic world, right now.

They would no longer be the good guys struggling for ‘rights’. They would just be a bunch of kids addicted to a pornographic anti-culture and trying to use the force of law to make everyone else addicted to it too.


Happy Breed of Moslems

New  research shows that “Mohammed” has become the top boys’ name chosen by parents in Britain after a huge surge in popularity for Arabic names generally.

Mohammed has risen 27 places from last year to claim the number one spot for the boys, according to data carried out by the website BabyCentre.

The next thing we need to know is: how long will it take the Moslems  to outbreed the indigenous population?  It looks as if David Abbott’s book Dark Albion: A Requiem for the English (see earlier posts) was not far off the mark.

October 14, 2014

Get Ready to Throw the Rotten Fruit

The news from the synod–or as much of it as those in charge  want us to hear–is not good at all. It is confusing and extremely depressing. What can we do? Well, I’ll give you two comments from people I trust, and follow them up with one of my own.

The first–as you might expect–is from Fr John Hunwicke of the  Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham:

I read the document which recently emerged from Rome with increasing disbelief. “Is this some sort of joke?” I wondered. I checked in my diary that the date was not April 1.

What has reassured me is the uproar among the Synod Fathers which followed its publication. One friend has described the Synod as a latrocinium. [He means a “robber council” of the kind which has occurred once or twice in the history of the Church–Stramentarius.] I think this is quite the wrong end of the stick. I don’t think it is “disloyal”  for a Catholic to say that the Holy Father was very poorly advised by those who suggested to him some of the names to be involved in spinning the Synod’s deliberations to the world. And also by those … probably the same lot … who put into his head the idea of making the thing secret. But they have been unable to get away with it. Powerful heads are well above the parapet. The first sign of the impending storm was when Cardinal Mueller made robustly and publicly clear his disagreement with the policy of secrecy. Cardinal Mueller is an able and acute man. He has realised that the Holy Father’s appeal to the Synod Fathers to speak with parrhesia  [that is, saying exactly what they think–Stramentarius] is a factor that can apply in more than one direction. And he is, like Miss Jean Brodie, in his prime. I do not think it will be easy for the malign interests in Rome to sideline him as their fathers did the ailing Cardinal Ottaviani. I will be surprised if heterodox plotters succeed in their attempted coup in the way that those earlier plotters did during the Sessio prima of the Council.

I do not think that “going to the SSPX” is a surefooted option ecclesiologically. What does the Society say about itself? That it is a canonically erected society within the Catholic Church with a certain very important charisma. It does not even claim to be some sort of separate, more “pure” Church than the Church herself. By its own constitution, none of its bishops possesses or claims to possess episcopal jurisdiction. “Going to the SSPX” doesn’t put you behind some sort of Starwars shield which will protect you from incoming missiles. It simply gives your enemies the opportunity of claiming that you always were schismatically inclined. In other words, it blunts your witness.

Catholics have a canonical right to make their concerns known to their pastors, especially to their bishops.

The Sovereign Pontiff himself would wish you to express yourself with parrhesia.

The second comment is from pro-life journalist Hilary White. She works in Rome, and  has an excellent blog called Orwell’s Picnic.,

Gravity works, doesn’t it? It always works all the time. Same with maths. Numbers always turn out the same no matter how you put them together on a page. Logic is the same kind of thing; a syllogism will tell you a true conclusion if you follow its rules, starting with true premises.

If you head off in a particular direction and keep walking along the same path for a long time, if nothing stops you, you will eventually reach your destination.

Fifty  years ago, the Second Vatican Council started the Church off in a direction it was never supposed to go. Many, many people followed along in good faith, assuming that the people in charge knew what they were doing. But a smaller number of others sounded a warning, saying that the direction leads to a deadly falls.

Well, now we are seeing the roaring falls that we have been hearing, and largely not heeding, for all this time. There is still time, of course, to start rowing back and return to the true course. The closer we come to the falls, the harder it will be, but it can still be done.

The only problem is that most of the people we have in charge of the boat are paddling for the falls as hard as they can.

What happens in the next week will be crucial. There are, reportedly, a lot of people in the Synod hall who do not agree with this direction. They now have a sacred duty to make it clear that we do not have to go in this direction, that to do so is disaster. Do they have the strength to force the boat backwards now that the falls is in sight? Do they even have the vision clear enough to understand where we went astray in the first place?

I don’t know. I only know that this is the wrong direction, and I don’t have to follow. Even if I am the only one, I don’t have to go over the falls with them. I seem to have been standing on the shore with my friends shouting at the people in the boat, trying to warn them. But they do seem to be getting further and further away, and the roar of the falls is now so loud, that I wonder if they can hear us at all.

What can I add?.  Well, the liberals always like to quote Cardinal Newman on the importance of consulting the faithful in matters of doctrine, as though one could somehow ascertain the truth from listening to unashamed contraceptors and other dissenters.   No, as the late Doris Manly pointed out, Blessed John Henry meant consulting the faithful–not the unfaithful. However, the  Second Vatican Council got the emphasis right when it reminded us that one of the early church fathers, St  Vincent of Lerins, did teach that the whole body of faithful Catholics, in their cultivated sense of the faith, are one of the guarantors of the church’s teaching authority.

If those governing the Church start saying, or even implying,  things plainly contrary to the words of Our Lord in order to ingratiate themselves with the world, as they appear to  be about to do now on the question of   the indissolubility of marriage, it will be the duty of us layfolk  to defy them–if necessary, to rebuke them publicly.  The trouble is , though, that  Catholics conditioned by the last 50 years of life in the church can’t cope with the idea that a pope or a papally-approved Synod might issue a “policy” that flatly contradicts church teaching.  Many good people would just regard it as a new party line, or even make themselves believe, absurdly,  that the new policy was always the church’s real policy. But we don’t have to go along with this rubbish: the church has got things wrong before. For instance, the Council of Sirmium ,  later condemned, made compromises with the Arian heresy.

So store up the rotten fruit: you may need it to fling at some treacherous mitred heads (metaphorically, of course, and with parrhesia!).