Catholicism and Me.

[Jack]

My various issues with becoming a Catholic aren't particularly biblical. I've already got my issues with the Genesis creation theory worked out absolutely fine, and the trinity isn't an issue for me either. Mainly ethical.

I cannot and do not love everyone, and I simply don't believe in the idea of universal human dignity. I don't believe anyone has a right to what they haven't worked for. I despise parasites. I'm rather a traditionalist - I definetly believe in chivalry, showing great courtesy to women, being a good host, looking after my friends and brothers by any means necessary, and I'm a patriot in relation to Greater Europe. I don't favour abortion or interracial breeding - or sex - and I believe in modesty. I'm also proud to some extent of who I am, and I have contempt towards degenerates and those who will not work to better themselves, make themselves stronger, more knowledgable, and, in a nutshell, more virtuous. I do forgive my friends when they screw up - I don't threaten them - though I expect them to make up for their mistakes. I'm protective about people I care about, particularly female friends, and I do believe people should learn and get stronger from their mistakes. I don't have much of a personal problem with sex outside marriage (or maybe I do...) but I do find personally disgusting the idea of sex outside love.

How can I resolve my outlook with Catholicism without compromising my general idea of personal excellence, so to speak?

[Milesian]

My various issues with becoming a Catholic aren't particularly biblical. I've already got my issues with the Genesis creation theory worked out absolutely fine, and the trinity isn't an issue for me either. Mainly ethical.

Ok buddy, I'll see what I can do

I cannot and do not love everyone,

Yeah, I would have to agree with you. It takes an awful lot of altruism to be able to do that. I've often wondered if that is something which will come as I mellow out with age, perhaps not truly making peace with everyone till I'm on my death-bed where perhaps life's contests and arguments might be put in a different perspective. In saying that, it is something that probably has to be taken in context. For example in the N.T. we see that St Paul speaks of the "...the Nicolatians, whom I also hate". So perhaps that has to be taken in context.
The Commandment is to "Love thy neighbour". Perhaps we need to interpet that. It doesn't say - "Love everyone", so maybe we have to ask the question, "Who is my neighbour?"

and I simply don't believe in the idea of universal human dignity

Can you clarify. By universal human dignity I think it is meant that everyone is created with an immortal soul and everyone is called to that same Most High Dignity as Children of God, that is that we all have the potential to work out our eternal Salvation. That does not mean everyone is equal. As a previous Pope commented, men are not made equal and they do not all have the same abilities. This proceeds from nature and ultimately from the Author of nature Himself. Certainly, I do not believe in the Dignity of Man, the fore-runner of the whole Human Rights idea, which is a doctrine condemned by the Papacy as being false and pernicious.

I don't believe anyone has a right to what they haven't worked for.

Indeed. The Bible is full of parables regarding lazy people
The slave who sleeps whilst his master is gone, etc.
Socialism, Communism and the abolition of private property are condmned as theft and a transgression of the Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal".
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have meant though?

I despise parasites. I'm rather a traditionalist - I definetly believe in chivalry, showing great courtesy to women, being a good host, looking after my friends and brothers by any means necessary, and I'm a patriot in relation to Greater Europe. I don't favour abortion or interracial breeding - or sex - and I believe in modesty. I'm also proud to some extent of who I am, and I have contempt towards degenerates and those who will not work to better themselves, make themselves stronger, more knowledgable, and, in a nutshell, more virtuous. I do forgive my friends when they screw up - I don't threaten them - though I expect them to make up for their mistakes. I'm protective about people I care about, particularly female friends, and I do believe people should learn and get stronger from their mistakes.

These are all praiseworthy sentiments and in agreement with Christian ideals

I don't have much of a personal problem with sex outside marriage (or maybe I do...) but I do find personally disgusting the idea of sex outside love.

I think most people today find this rather outdated.
However, that is because of society shaping us to regard this as normal.
Certainly in the past it was not regarded as normal, perhaps if I lived sometime in the past I would find sex outside marriage abhorrent.
Objectively, I do regard it as so but personally I've been raised in a society and mindset where it is quietly tolerated and even expected.
However, I understand fully the theological objections to it and it is based on maintaining a stable family unit within society. In order to do so whilst having sex outwith marriage would most likely require artificial contraception which too is forbidden. Thus sex outside marriage is a sin which in all likelyhood requires another sin (art.contraception) to preserve order and stability.

How can I resolve my outlook with Catholicism without compromising my general idea of personal excellence, so to speak?

Speak with a decent priest
Seriously though, ultimately I subject my own fallible human ideas to the wisdom of God and His wishes. In theory at least, if not always in practise
It is part of the human condition, to strive for perfection whilst being imperfect in this life. For God has said that we must all be perfect like him in order to come into His Kingdom. Looks like I will be spending a while in Purgatory.....hopefully

[Jack]

Ok buddy, I'll see what I can do

Great. I really do sympathise with the Catholic Church... just not with this Muslim-loving heretical Pope

Yeah, I would have to agree with you. It takes an awful lot of altruism to be able to do that. I've often wondered if that is something which will come as I mellow out with age, perhaps not truly making peace with everyone till I'm on my death-bed where perhaps life's contests and arguments might be put in a different perspective. In saying that, it is something that probably has to be taken in context. For example in the N.T. we see that St Paul speaks of the "...the Nicolatians, whom I also hate". So perhaps that has to be taken in context.
The Commandment is to "Love thy neighbour". Perhaps we need to interpet that. It doesn't say - "Love everyone", so maybe we have to ask the question, "Who is my neighbour?"

It's not so much 'hating' people but utter contempt towards them. Though in a sense I can both love and despise my personal enemies (e.g. Nietzsche: "I forgive you that you have done this to me, but how could you do this to yourself?"), I don't feel particularly friendly towards those who share very little in common with me (e.g. racial foreigners). I'm indifferent to their personal concerns. They mean basically nothing to me, like objects, or obstacles that get in the way of how I'd like to live my life.

Can you clarify. By universal human dignity I think it is meant that everyone is created with an immortal soul and everyone is called to that same Most High Dignity as Children of God, that is that we all have the potential to work out our eternal Salvation. That does not mean everyone is equal. As a previous Pope commented, men are not made equal and they do not all have the same abilities. This proceeds from nature and ultimately from the Author of nature Himself. Certainly, I do not believe in the Dignity of Man, the fore-runner of the whole Human Rights idea, which is a doctrine condemned by the Papacy as being false and pernicious.

I have no issue accepting that racial foreigners have souls. I have issue with the idea that I should be cozy and friendly with people whose presence disrupts the way I would like to live my life.

Indeed. The Bible is full of parables regarding lazy people
The slave who sleeps whilst his master is gone, etc.
Socialism, Communism and the abolition of private property are condmned as theft and a transgression of the Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal".
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have meant though?

More probably I didn't make myself quite clear. I mean in a psychological/spiritual sense. People who don't do anything to 'earn' love, so to speak, but nonetheless demand it or the superficial expression of it. Perhaps 'Thou shalt not steal' covers this.

These are all praiseworthy sentiments and in agreement with Christian ideals

Oh. Ok, then. I don't see them as particularly Christian, just... I have a conception of what I wish the world was like and I mould my ethics to fit that sort of world and live them through in this one.

I think most people today find this rather outdated.
However, that is because of society shaping us to regard this as normal.
Certainly in the past it was not regarded as normal, perhaps if I lived sometime in the past I would find sex outside marriage abhorrent.
Objectively, I do regard it as so but personally I've been raised in a society and mindset where it is quietly tolerated and even expected.
However, I understand fully the theological objections to it and it is based on maintaining a stable family unit within society. In order to do so whilst having sex outwith marriage would most likely require artificial contraception which too is forbidden. Thus sex outside marriage is a sin which in all likelyhood requires another sin (art.contraception) to preserve order and stability.

I partly agree with it. For some arcane reason I don't know whether or not I'll do sex before marriage again (last time wasn't the best experience - about the only downside with vodka ) because I'm not even slightly promiscuous like most people I know. I have no problems with people having sex within love before marriage, but I understand and somewhat sympathise with the Catholic advocacy of strong family unity.

Speak with a decent priest

I'll have to find one worth speaking to first. Most of the ones I know I simply don't agree with, who think the Church has to 'adapt to the times' by pissing the work of St Augustine and others down the drain. It's so revolting I'm inclined to go Orthodox (I'd like to go Catholic for reasons of history and heritage though) when I meet these people.

Seriously though, ultimately I subject my own fallible human ideas to the wisdom of God and His wishes. In theory at least, if not always in practise

That's another thing. I don't like the idea of pretending to be someone I'm not. I won't deny that there are some girls my age I find very attractive and get the instinct to go through the mating process with them But then I know that if I was in a position to do that I'd probably walk away because it wouldn't feel right.

It is part of the human condition, to strive for perfection whilst being imperfect in this life. For God has said that we must all be perfect like him in order to come into His Kingdom. Looks like I will be spending a while in Purgatory.....hopefully

That's ok, I'll spend some time with you. Hey, you could have worse company

[Milesian]

Great. I really do sympathise with the Catholic Church... just not with this Muslim-loving heretical Pope

Agreed

It's not so much 'hating' people but utter contempt towards them. Though in a sense I can both love and despise my personal enemies (e.g. Nietzsche: "I forgive you that you have done this to me, but how could you do this to yourself?"), I don't feel particularly friendly towards those who share very little in common with me (e.g. racial foreigners). I'm indifferent to their personal concerns. They mean basically nothing to me, like objects, or obstacles that get in the way of how I'd like to live my life.

Personally, I don't have much problem with people simply for being foreigners.
I do have a problem with foreign immigrants though. This doesn't contradict my Faith though. Being charitable is one thing, eagerly allowing foreigners into your country and supporting Multi-Culturalism however is quite another.
Christ told his disciples to "Preach to the Nations", he didn't say "Form a New World Order, One Government, One Culture". In fact, the NWO may be thought of as an attempt to reform the Tower of Babel. One people striving to build St Augustine's City of Man reaching up in defiance of God.
As it was God that scattered them all, I see the attempt to bring them together in an earthly Kingdom as defiance of God's will.
I recognise foreigners as human beings, and I don't wish any harm upon them and would be willing to give aid within reason to alleviate any undue suffering that is not of their own doing. But my first duty is to myself and my own kind. "Charity begins at home", after all

More probably I didn't make myself quite clear. I mean in a psychological/spiritual sense. People who don't do anything to 'earn' love, so to speak, but nonetheless demand it or the superficial expression of it. Perhaps 'Thou shalt not steal' covers this.

People who do nothing to earn love? Still not to clear on this, can you give me an example, mate?

Oh. Ok, then. I don't see them as particularly Christian, just... I have a conception of what I wish the world was like and I mould my ethics to fit that sort of world and live them through in this one.

Indeed. What you described was Chivalry, Christian Charity, Good Manners, opposition to the murder of defenseless innocents, Humilty, loving yourself and love of virtue.
These are all desirable Christian traits and saintly virtues.

I partly agree with it. For some arcane reason I don't know whether or not I'll do sex before marriage again (last time wasn't the best experience - about the only downside with vodka ) because I'm not even slightly promiscuous like most people I know. I have no problems with people having sex within love before marriage, but I understand and somewhat sympathise with the Catholic advocacy of strong family unity.

Sex is fine. But I too have felt that it is empty and devoid of meaning when done casually. Society loves to hype it up as the best thing since sliced bread, and perhaps for your average grunt it is. But I doubt it can hold a candle to the love freely given between a husband and wife who feel true love for one another. People who have dedicated themselves to each other in the eyes of God. And I concur that advocacy of a strong family unit is something that is sorely needed in these days of declining births and lands overrun by foreigners. If one thing can be said for many of these foreigners, it is that they know the value of a strong family unit. That is why they are so successful compared to us in these times. They are building on the strongest of foundations - a solid family unit.

I'll have to find one worth speaking to first. Most of the ones I know I simply don't agree with, who think the Church has to 'adapt to the times' by pissing the work of St Augustine and others down the drain. It's so revolting I'm inclined to go Orthodox (I'd like to go Catholic for reasons of history and heritage though) when I meet these people.

I can understand your point.
You would be lucky to find a Catholic among the Concilliar clergy these days.
Those who say the "Church must adapt to the times" are Modernists.
Point them towards Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" which condemnes their error as heresy
If possible, try to find a Traditionalist church. Perhaps the SSPX or someone like them are near to you.

That's another thing. I don't like the idea of pretending to be someone I'm not. I won't deny that there are some girls my age I find very attractive and get the instinct to go through the mating process with them But then I know that if I was in a position to do that I'd probably walk away because it wouldn't feel right.

Tell me about it, there's more than a few I would like to conduct mating with That is only human. But it seems you have an intrinsic sense of morality, which is something that seems lacking in too many people these days. It's important to follow what you instinctively know what is right, and not merely conform to what the world expects of you.

That's ok, I'll spend some time with you. Hey, you could have worse company

Who says Hell has the better company - I say Purgatory has the cream of the crop. All the good guys, just not quite perfect

[Taras Bulba]

I know somewhat where you're coming from Jack, I went through much of the same thing when I reverted back to the faith after several years of being an athesit. You're not alone. Here's something that may help you, about two famous Christians who went through much of what you had to.

http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v13n2p11.htm

Christianity in Literary Creation: Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky
Andrea Link

Many contrasts can be drawn between the lives of Francois Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848) and Feodor Dostoevsky (1822-1881): they came from different epochs, cultures and family traditions, as well as having opposing temperaments. Chateaubriand grew up as an aristocrat and Royalist in Combourg during the dawn of the French Revolution. Throughout his life, sentiments of melancholy and disillusionment about the world weighed heavily upon his heart. A founding father of French Romanticism, he lived as a Romantic hero whose suffering became a source of "self-limiting pride" (Jackson, p.29).

Dostoevsky, a descendant of the lower nobility, was brought up modestly in Moscow. He grew up under the shadow of the Decembrist Insurrection of 1825, which prompted Tsar Nicholas I to rule with severe military and bureaucratic discipline. In contrast to Chateaubriand, Dostoevsky had an energetic temperament and a "nervous, self-illuminating pride" (Jackson, p.29). Instead of trying to escape the despair of this world like Chateaubriand, Dostoevsky attempted to understand it through a profound examination of himself, those around him, and their environment. As a result, Dostoevsky developed as a post-Romantic or Romantic-Realist writer.

These authors do, however, share a common thread: their spiritual and religious developments follow similar paths. Each was brought up in a religious tradition; Chateaubriand was a Roman Catholic and Dostoevsky a Russian Orthodox. Their mothers served as the faithful, devout, religious role models of the family, and it was their faith that planted seeds of faith in the hearts of the young writers.

Yet as young adults, both Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky experienced periods of doubt. Instead of holding strong to their Christian traditions, they became ardent dreamers who quested after ideal notions such as beauty and justice. Their longings to find truth drew them to learn about the current ideologies of their age. For example, Chateaubriand embraced some of the ideas of Rousseau and Dostoevsky became involved in a Utopian-Socialist group. Their romantic quests, however, left both Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky feeling disappointed and disillusioned when they realized these current ideologies did not bring them to the truth.

Both men then experienced humiliating poverty and mental suffering when they were exiled from their countries, As an aristocrat, Chateaubriand was an enemy to the French Revolution and to save his life he became en emigré in England in the early 1790's. Tsar Nicholas I exiled Dostoevsky in 1849 for his political involvement. As a result of extreme suffering, both writers had conversion experiences which led them to embrace the Christian faith. When Chateaubriand's mother died, the grief caused him to accept the faith of his mother, Similarly, Dostoevsky, facing the horrors of prison life, experienced a rebirth of his soul."

Though both underwent similar transformations of their hearts through their faith in Christ, Chateoubriand and Dostoevsky developed different Christian world-views. Chateaubriand developed a dualistic view of Christianity. The fallen world, which is ruled by Satan, remains separated from God's spiritual world, the kingdom of heaven. Thus life in this sinful world is utterly painful, despairing and meaningless. The ideals of Christianity, including love, peace and joy, will only be realized in heaven. Chateaubriand believed that "the Christian always looks upon himself as no more than a pilgrim travelling here below through a vale of tears and finding no repose till he reaches the tomb" (Chateaubriand, 1976, p.297). Only Christians can be hopeful that they will die soon and enter into heaven, where they will experience redemption and the eternal bliss of communing With God.

Dostoevsky, in contrast to Chateaubriand, developed a reconciled view of Christianity. This world is fallen and Christians will ultimately experience the full abundance of the kingdom of heaven when they die. However, a Christian can begin to experience communion with God even while living in a sinful world. For Dostoevsky, Christ's statement, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17) meant that a reconciliation with God began once a person repented and accepted Christ's sacrificial death for their sins. Dostoevsky believed Christians could begin to experience the kingdom of heaven within their hearts. God's spirit, love and power can begin to sanctity and transform the hearts of those who have faith.

While both men embraced the Christian faith, questions of doubt continually challenged heir convictions, P. L. Jackson writes that Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky shared "a paradoxical affirmation of faith " (Jackson, p.30). At the end of his life Chateaubriand stated, "As it grew, my religious conviction has devoured my other convictions, (but) in this world there is no more believing Christian and no more doubting man than I" (ibid.). In a similar fashion, Dostoevsky wrote in 1854: "If somebody proved to me that Christ was outside the truth, and it really were so that the truth was outside Christ, then I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth l am a child of the age, a child of lack of faith and doubt till now and (this I know) this will be true till the coffin closes over... " (ibid.). Since Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky understood the dynamics of being both a strong believer and a wavering doubter, they were able to vividly portray this inner baftie which their characters experience when they are faced with the Christian faith (e.g. Chactas, Rene and Raskolnikov).

Dostoevsky and Chateaubriand's own spiritual struggles consequently helped them debate the ideologies of their respective times which were undermining Christianity. Since Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky believed that their countries were facing spiritual crises, they saw their mission as apologists of the Christian faith.

Chateaubriand grew up during the rise of religious doubt and atheism of the Enlightenment, as he described in Le Genie du Christianisme: "Religion was attacked with every kind of weapon, from the pamphlet to the folio, from the epigram to the sophism. No sooner did a religious book appear than the author was overwhelmed with ridicule, while works which Voltaire was the first to laugh at among his friends were extolled to the skies" (Chateaubriand, 1899, p.124). Many philosophes, such as Denis Diderot, Jean le Pond d'Alembert and Voltaire, were skeptical of the Christian faith because they believed it was based on superstition and irrationality. Enlightenment thinkers assumed that the problems of humanity and society could be solved simply through the application of laws and reforms based on human reason. Many during the "Age of Reason aspired to positivism and scientism, and not to faith in God, as the hope for humanity. When the French Revolution broke out in 1789, angry revolutionaries destroyed stained glass windows, religious statues and entire cathedrals to make the statement that the Catholic Church must be extirpated since it represented the oppression and corruption of the fallen monarchy.

Chateaubriand debated against the notion of the Enlightenment that humanity is by nature rational, as he said, "Man's heart is the toy of everything, and no one can tell what frivolous circumstance may cause its joys and its sorrows (Chateaubriand, 1899, p.124). He vehemently disagreed with the idea that rational reforms would solve humanity's problems because he saw the inhuman violence of the French Revolution, Chateaubriand believed it was his mission to show that Chris- tianity was a divinely inspired religion. He argued that the aesthetic beauty of Christianity including the mystical rituals and the ornate cathedrals proved that only God could have inspired Christianity. Through his writings Chateaubriand called France to return to its Christian faith, values and traditions.

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the skepticism of the Enlightenment had also permeated the ideologies of the Russian intelligentsia. Atheistic thought became prevalent among the forefathers of Russian socialism (who also founded Russian literary criticism), including Vissarion Belinsky. Alexander Herzen, Nicolay Chernyshevsky and Nicolay Dobrolyubov. They believed in the Western European ideals of positivism, scientism, materialism and utilitarianism.

Through his works, such as Notes from fhe Underground and Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky argued against the Enlightenment ideal that humanity is rational and perfectible, and that all knowledge can be ascertained through science. For Dostoevsky, humanity's only salvation is through the Christian faith; he saw the rejection of God and Christ as dangerous since it caused people to "engage in the impossible and self- destructive to transcend" their condition (Frank, 1986, p.198). Dostoevsky claimed that the spiritual crisis in Western Europe would eventually lead to its decline and self-destruction, and that the Russian Orthodox faith would be Europe's saving grace. Like Chateaubriand, Dostoevsky argued that the aesthetic beauty and moral perfection of Christianity proved that God divinely inspired it, Thus, Dostoevsky's evangelistic mission was to call his country to return and stay true to its Orthodox heritage.

Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky incarnated their defense of Christianity through their women characters, Atala and Amelia in Chateaubriand's stories Ataia and Rene, and Sonia in Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment embody the Christian faith. Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky's symbolization of women as redemptive figures can be explained partially because women played a major role in their own conversion to Christianity. Their mothers were the guardians of religious faith since they passed the faith on to their children. In addition, the feminine soul has been traditionally depicted in literature as embodying the Christian virtues of compassion, self- sacrifice, gentleness, faithfulness, devotion and love.

Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky used these characters to defend the idea that God's transcendental truths are not revealed through human reason, Atala, Amelia, and Sonia are women whose passionate faith dominates their reason, yet they have God's wisdom. Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky depict the faith of these women as divinely beautiful, which coincides with their view of the aesthetic perfection of Christianity as the basis for its divine inspiration.
Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky's portrayal of these women does, however, differ because of their contrasting Christian world-views. Atala and Amelia long for their death so that they can leave the despair of this world and enter into heaven. Atala and Amelia's carnal desires, especially the desire to love a man, torture them because they believe they are evil and inferior to a spiritual longing for God. They hope for the day when they will be freed from the yearnings of their flesh. Only their spiritual reunion with God in heaven will alleviate the ache in their hearts to be deeply loved.

Sonia, on the other hand, sees that her eternal life has begun on earth, so her faith in God gives her inspiration and hope amidst the pain and sorrow she faces. Her communion with God gives her the strength to carry on, even though she faces the humiliation of poverty and prostitution. Sonia is aware of her sinful nature, yet her acceptance of God's redemption allows her to experience His unconditional love and compassion while in a fallen world.
Atala, Amelia and Sonia all serve as messengers of God's truth for the unbelieving male characters, Chactus, Rene and Paskolnikov. While Atala and Amelia communicate their relentless faith to Chactus and Rene, their testimonies do not have a transforming effect upon them. Chactus and Rene are bound in an earthly world which prevents them from experiencing God's spiritual and eternal realm.

In contrast, Sonia, as the messenger of God's salvation, leads Raskolnikov to faith and salvation. Her words, prayers and actions reflect God's love and forgiveness, and it is her testimony that helps engender a change in Raskolnikov's heart. According to Dostoevsky's Christian world-view, God's spirit can transform the human heart in a fallen world. Thus, Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky respond to the spiritual crises in their countries through their literary creations. These two writers used feminine voices of faith in the hope of combating the growing skepticism of their times.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BIBLIOGRAPHY



Francois R. Chateaubriand, Les Memoires d'Outre Tombe. Paris: Garnier Frères, Libraires-Éditeurs, 1899.
Francois P. Chateaubriand, The Genius of Christianity, Charles White, translator New York Howard Fertig. 1976.
Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky The Seeds of Revolt, 1821-1849. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Robert Louis Jackson, "Chateaubriand and Dostoevsky: A Posing Problem," Scando- Slovico, Tomus xii. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966.

[Verslingen]

http://www.truecatholic.org/

an intereting site

V

[Milesian]

http://www.truecatholic.org/

an intereting site

V

If that guy really was the Pope, things might be better for the Church.
However, this is the danger of Sedevacantism. People start electing their own Popes without an authority to do so, thus they begin to turn into Protestants.
The deal with this guy is that he was a traditionalist priest, then I think he fell out with the SSPX, and basically was independent. Then he decided to appoint some Cardinals (which he couldn't do as he wasn't Pope), and then had them elect him the new Pope. Quite entertaining, but anyone who knows Canon Law knows that it's meaningless.

He has also been accused of using a pendulum for divining purposes.
Regardless of one's opinion, he isn't a valid Pope.

There's also a Pope Gregory been elected in Spain. He's 10x more looney and seems to be obssessed with apparitions of the Holy Virgin

[Jack]

Personally, I don't have much problem with people simply for being foreigners.

I don't think I do either, I became best friends with a Swiss exchange student a few years ago, and then converted him to European nationalism.

I do have a problem with foreign immigrants though. This doesn't contradict my Faith though. Being charitable is one thing, eagerly allowing foreigners into your country and supporting Multi-Culturalism however is quite another.

I wonder what the Catholic Church had to say at the time Attila's armies were marching on France... because I think that'd be very interesting to find out, and could be considered quite relevant.

Christ told his disciples to "Preach to the Nations", he didn't say "Form a New World Order, One Government, One Culture". In fact, the NWO may be thought of as an attempt to reform the Tower of Babel. One people striving to build St Augustine's City of Man reaching up in defiance of God.

Agreed.

As it was God that scattered them all, I see the attempt to bring them together in an earthly Kingdom as defiance of God's will.
I recognise foreigners as human beings, and I don't wish any harm upon them and would be willing to give aid within reason to alleviate any undue suffering that is not of their own doing. But my first duty is to myself and my own kind. "Charity begins at home", after all

I agree definetly.

People who do nothing to earn love? Still not to clear on this, can you give me an example, mate?

Ok. I don't know if you've ever read some of Ayn Rand's work *shudder* but she's done some good illustrations of these types of people. The kinds of people who demand to be loved but don't measure up to the standards of spirit and conduct of those they want to be loved by, but demand to be loved anyway.

Indeed. What you described was Chivalry, Christian Charity, Good Manners, opposition to the murder of defenseless innocents, Humilty, loving yourself and love of virtue.
These are all desirable Christian traits and saintly virtues.

Saint Ken of Melbourne...

Sex is fine. But I too have felt that it is empty and devoid of meaning when done casually. Society loves to hype it up as the best thing since sliced bread, and perhaps for your average grunt it is. But I doubt it can hold a candle to the love freely given between a husband and wife who feel true love for one another. People who have dedicated themselves to each other in the eyes of God. And I concur that advocacy of a strong family unit is something that is sorely needed in these days of declining births and lands overrun by foreigners. If one thing can be said for many of these foreigners, it is that they know the value of a strong family unit. That is why they are so successful compared to us in these times. They are building on the strongest of foundations - a solid family unit.

As I've mentioned before, I agree with you, but I don't so much agree with the idea of the nuclear family as the extended family - aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents etc. all helping out the development of the youngest generation in the family.

I can understand your point.
You would be lucky to find a Catholic among the Concilliar clergy these days.
Those who say the "Church must adapt to the times" are Modernists.
Point them towards Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" which condemnes their error as heresy
If possible, try to find a Traditionalist church. Perhaps the SSPX or someone like them are near to you.

I've looked up for them, but I can't find any nearby. I know there's an Orthodox Church not too far away though. My local parish priest, an Irishman, said that the Church must 'adapt to the times'.

Tell me about it, there's more than a few I would like to conduct mating with That is only human. But it seems you have an intrinsic sense of morality, which is something that seems lacking in too many people these days. It's important to follow what you instinctively know what is right, and not merely conform to what the world expects of you.

I know what's right and wrong, I just don't immediately chastise myself for 'thinking sinful thoughts'. I just think 'No. It wouldn't mean anything'.

Who says Hell has the better company - I say Purgatory has the cream of the crop. All the good guys, just not quite perfect

Ah well. As long as I've lost a sense of time so I don't know how long I'm being tormented for

[Rhydderch]

maybe we have to ask the question, "Who is my neighbour?"

Very interesting question. Someone asked Jesus exactly that question and he responded with the story of the good Samaritan.

Perhaps you already knew that.