Dial M for Mayhem


How welcome now?

It was sad in this season of joy to read of two recent murders. One was of a young medical student, Maria Landenberger, raped and drowned by an Afghan ‘migrant’. She was a volunteer at one of the refugee centres, and was biking home alone.  I don’t think this will do much for boosting the number of volunteers, at least of the female variety, nor of solitary bike rides, again by those of the fairer sex.  In fact, more and more of them will tend to stay home alone this Christmas.  Life is a changin’ in Germany, and there is Angela Merkel trying now to ban the burka.  Too little, too late, my dear Ms. Merkel.  Perhaps she could sell her burqa shtick by putting out a YouTube video of her dancing to the tag line ‘Ban the Burka’ to the Clash’s 1982  hit Rock the Casbah, which, recounting the good times to be had in North Africa, was released in a nostalgic time of somewhat happier Christian-Muslim relations.


Methinks that the likes of Merkel, like Obama, Clinton and the rest, are on their way out. Ironically, or tragically as one may see it, the young German murder victim was the daughter of a high-ranking European Union official, the same group of bureaucrats that helped foster this ungoverned emigrant-refugee disaster.  One can only hope that this motivates them to apply at least some modicum of reason to the influx of Islamic migrants across Europe and now North America.


Yes, I know that not all Muslims are like this (alleged) unfortunate and ungrateful murdering migrant misanthrope, but to let in nearly a million young, vigorous males whose moral code is, shall we say, quite different, even antagonistic, to your (even vestigial) Christian one, is not a recipe for societal cohesion. What is one to make of this report, that 1500 ‘jihadis’ have left the Middle East, dispersing throughout Europe to carry out, at least potentially, terrorist attacks?  Sure, some, most, may just drift away, but other will carry their zeal for Islam from the sands of Arabia to the pavestones of Brussels. Rock the Casbah?  One would fear even to rock Paris, even in the suburbs.


And, now, closer to home, the wife of prominent neurosurgeon Mohammad Shamji, also a physician herself, has been found murdered, her husband charged in the first degree.  He is a Muslim, she, a ‘white’ woman, was a convert to his faith upon her marriage. For some reason, the courts did not want her name released. I am not sure the deceased female doctor fully realized the strict Islamic view of women, which is not quite the same as the Christian one. Read further in the link provided above, and you will discover that she had recently applied for divorce, hoping to start a ‘new life’.  Perhaps her husband, in his mind, honorably disagreed, but we will allow the courts decide.


I will never tire of pointing out that some cultures just do not mix, for the basic reason that some religions, some ways of looking at the universe, just cannot get along, and no amount of ‘niceness’ can change that, without a deep and lasting conversion.  By ‘conversion’, I mean conversion to the truth, the fullness of which resides in the Church.  We need not look to Islam for extra truth, nor for clarity in our own revelation.  Sure, with ‘sunny ways Trudeau and the now-slightly-less-sunny Merkel, we can try to paper over with talk of ‘liberal values’, ‘toleration’ and ‘multiculturalism’, but reality will always, always eventually, burst on through, like Jack Nicholson’s grimacing face might have done in the sequel that was never made, the Shining of Sharia, with tragic results like these.


God rest the souls of these victims, and may the same God have mercy of those who carried out these nefarious acts.


I am the Immaculate Conception

I am the Immaculate Conception


These are the words Our Lady said to Saint Bernadette Sobirous, when asked by the young saint who she was.  This was in 1858, four years after Pope Blessed Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, with the bull Ineffabilis Deus, on this day, December 8th, 1854, proclaiming that the Mother of God was preserved from all stain (macula) of original sin, by the merits of Christ which God saw (praevisa) beforehand.  In other words, she was saved before the Saviour took flesh from her, as a unique and unrepeated privilege.



The Immaculate Conception demonstrates the utter gratuity of God’s grace, that He wills to save us by means we may not expect, by any and all means at His disposal.  And one of the greatest means was one of the least, an unknown and obscure Jewish virgin, living in a backwater town in Israel, who would be elevated to the status of the greatest and most perfect of all God’s creation. As Saint Paul declared in his first letter to the Corinthians, (and he may well have had Our Lady in mind)


but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.


So we should rejoice in our humility and lowliness, and let the world revel in its apparent and all-too-temporary power, pomp and splendour. For what a man, or in this case a woman, is in the sight of God, said Saint Francis, that he is, and no more.

Neo Pagan Micro Aggression

class-imageToday is the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception (see my post above), so it as with some dismay that I read this lead article on this glorious morning, a male teacher at an elite private school in British Columbia, fired for uttering four words that may soon become illegal:  “I am against abortion”. He was describing the distinction between people’s own private sense of morality and the public law, which do not always correspond, something I also do in class, covering Saint Thomas’ unsurpassed analysis of the nature of law in the latter section of the Prima Secundae (I-II, q.90, ff.). One of the (female) students complained that she felt the tremor, yes you guessed it, of a ‘micro aggression’, upon which the poor teacher was given his walking papers. Here is the summary:


For example, he (the former teacher, ed.)  told them (the students, ed.), many people might roll through a stop sign on a deserted country road, deeming it morally acceptable, even if unlawful.


In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.


“I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”


That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”


A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.


Alas, we are in strange times here, wherein someone cannot even mention a wrong opinion in passing, without being vilified.


Although, to be fair to the school, if someone were to mention at a Catholic school that he was ‘pro-abortion’, I would expect and hope that some disciplinary action would be taken, not due to some ‘micro aggression’ to a snowflake student, but rather because such a view would be inconsistent at the most fundamental level with the fullness of truth that Catholicism proclaims.


The school here, I suppose, was maintaining its own sense of identity and mission, which just happens to be muddled, mixed up and misguided, over-coddling their precious students, educated in a hermetically-sealed bubble.  In such schools, private and otherwise, a nation of neo-pagans is being raised, and, as I wrote at the end of one previous article, such a new paganism will be much worse, and more evil, than the old. Getting fired might soon be the least of our problems as these scared little children grow into scared little adults, with all the power of the State on their side.


It seems we just have to set up our own counter culture, and right-thinking parents should vote with their feet and their pocket books, sending their children to schools that will educate them rightly, in the full truth of who Man is, only understood, as John Paul II never tired of proclaiming, in the mystery of Christ.


immaculate-conceptionAnd the best way to Christ, as so many saints have said, is through His mother.  So pray to Our Lady Immaculate today, and may her reflected light guide us through the darkness of these times.


A blessed solemnity to all!


O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!


Further Thoughts on Pat and Sam

samAs I mentioned in the slightly revised version of my Sam against the Leviathan article, young Sam Oosterhoff, as the balanced but unsympathetic Michael Den Tandt makes clear this morning, is being vilified for his rather moderate traditional views, with one commentator spewing out that an hour in a massage parlour should cure what he likely sees as the uptight young prude.


As others have pointed out, it was curious and rather inexplicable that Sam’s swearing in was delayed until just the day after the vote on the momentous Bill 28, which basically re-wrote our notion of what constitutes a ‘family’ in Ontario.  Was this Patrick Brown trying to ensure a unanimous support for this law, to shed once and for all what he sees as the socially conservative albatross hanging around the neck of the Conservatives, who want to be seen as sort of only slightly less-liberal Liberals?


Of course, all these terms are nonsense.  Laws like this, described as ‘socially progressive’, are in fact socially regressive, undermining the family as the ‘basic cell of society’, without which no society has ever survived.  As Pope Saint John Paul II pointed out, as the family goes, so goes society.


I don’t think Patrick Brown has figured out that the reason the Conservatives have consistently lost elections to incompetents like Dalton McGuinty and deviant-incompetents like Kathleen Wynne is that they have not been conservative enough.  Of course, there are other reasons, of which I have written before, not least the fact that the Liberals can ‘buy’ most of their votes, bribing all those who work for or are dependent upon the government paycheque or dole (and there are ever-increasing legions of them), which has led us to the so-called tyranny of socialism predicted by de Tocqueville.


Perhaps, just maybe, there are enough disaffected ‘social conservatives’ out there to swing the tide a little, as Sam Oosterhoff discovered, a 19-year old homeschooled kid who grew up on a farm, as Den Tandt points out with I detect as some slight underlying derision.  But not a bad resume for others.


Is there, perchance, a viable and fitting leader in the wings of the current federal Political Conservative leadership? I think there may be, but what chance has he?  Alas, I would not hope for a ‘Trump’ effect here in Canada anytime soon.  Any nation that could elect Justin Trudeau to the highest office is far gone indeed, and our youth, and that includes all those well into middle-age, indoctrinated in all the inanities and insanities of the modern university, a veritable right-of-passage of mind and behaviour control, mouth all in unison the ‘liberal’ platitudes, unhinged from reality.


As I always say, however, reality has a way of bringing us back to, yes you know it, reality.  As Nietzsche pointed out, the test of a man is how much of the truth he can take.  Too many of us in Canada don’t seem able to take much, but we may be in for a bit of a dose soon.

Sam alone Stands Against the Leviathan

sam-scrumWell, I must eat some of my words about the newly-minted nineteen-year old Member of Provincial Parliament, Sam Oosterhoff, here in Ontario, and I will give credit where credit is due, in short order. First, the background: On November 28th, here in Canada, the provincial government of Ontario voted into law Bill 28, the ominously titled “All Familes are Equal Act”, which, amongst other things, removed the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from government documents, making the relation of ‘parents’ (now up to four allowed) to their ‘children’ a purely contractual agreement, no longer founded on the mother-father-child relation, based on biology and natural law. Many consequences will follow upon these confused principles:  The bond between children and their parents is weakened, the notion of parenthood gutted, and the State will have far more control over your children who, after all, aren’t really ‘yours’, except under the vague clauses of the aforementioned contractual language of the law.


Of course, there are a priori reasons for this shift in policy and language, namely, you guessed it, the LGBT community (add whatever new acronyms as required), some of whom would like to have children in the midst of their various polyamorous situations, two men, two women, one man and two women, two men and one woman, transgendered, transitioning and on and on it goes.  How quaint and backward, even discriminatory and spiteful, they say, for one to think of ‘parenthood’ as a husband and wife in lawful matrimony actually having children by normal conjugal means. Of course, most of these new forms of ‘couplings’ (insofar as that term applies) cannot have children by natural means. Hence, the recourse to ever-more bizarre forms of technologically-induced human reproduction:  surrogate motherhood, renting wombs, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, now even the genetic mixing of three parents.  After all, in the minds of our secular intelligentsia, no one, LGBT or not, should be denied the right to parenthood.  (Well, maybe all of us heterosexual bigots, which would be ironic indeed). Hence, the need to reconfigure and reconstitute the whole notion of parenthood and childhood, to accommodate all the new and bizarre relational situations that have arisen, and may yet arise:  ‘Mother’ and ‘father’ are no longer just passé, but downright discriminatory. After all, as the law now states, are not all families equal, whether they contain a father, mother, and everything in-between?


Which brings us back to the Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament, who voted this Bill into law.  Patrick Brown, the anemic, nose-to-the-wind leader of the so-called ‘Conservatives’, ordered his fellow MPP’s either to vote in favour of the bill, or absent themselves, and find something better to do that day (Oh, that you were hot or cold!).  The Liberals, already farther down the ideological spectrum, were never in doubt of their support.   The final tally was unanimously in favour, 79 to 0.  Even the so-called pro-life-and-family members did the bidding of their ‘leader’, either voting aye to this deconstructive legislative nonsense, or happened to be washing their hair.


Which brings us back to young Sam Oosterhoff.  He was not able to vote on the bill, as he was being sworn into office the day after.  There is a mystery to this, as an article today from one non-sympathetic journalist claiming that Sam’s swearing in was ‘unaccountably’ delayed, perhaps by Brown himself, I hope not by Sam, perhaps in a ploy to ensure a unanimous Conservative vote in favour.


But, nonetheless, Sam  did express public disagreement with this legislation in an interview in the Toronto Star newspaper, calling it ‘horrible’ and that he ‘definitely would not have supported it’. Kudos to him.  He was and has been vilified for this (see the article above); Sam alone stood up to his vaunted leader, Mr.Brown (can that be all that difficult?). But I will give him credit where credit is due, for none of the others MPPs, Conservative or not, did it. As Saint Thomas says, youth of body does not imply youth of soul, using as his example the many youthful martyrs in the Church, who withstood the most horrific torments for the Faith.  Sam, facing far lesser prospective torments, did demonstrate far more insight and maturity than those of his ‘colleagues’ more than twice his age, and I hope he continues this into his future voting record.


But here is the caveat: I would still maintain that true leadership requires more than just being, or even voting, ‘pro-life’, although that is a vital and necessary start. Every politician should be like Sam Oosterhoff at the most basic level of being able to recognize the idiocy and evil of laws like Bill 28.  Sam’s comments in public to that effect should not make him exceptional, and it is sad that they do.  I still hold that governing also requires prudence, experience, knowledge of the universal and the particular of morals, ethics, business, economics, a grasp of the high and the low, how the minds and affairs of men work in the main and in the exception, what makes for good economic growth, and what constitutes social justice, instantiating those conditions wherein all receive as close to their due as possible, in the complex circumstances of the given society over which you have authority.


Of course, as far as I can tell, modern politicians need almost none of these qualities, whether they have them or not.  They read reports, meet and greet, receive advice from permanent and well-sinecured bureaucrats, then vote with an aye or a nay, often in the end just braying the party line.  As Winston Churchill pointed out (following Aristotle, whom I presume he had read), democracy works for a certain size of society, wherein the leader knows, and can be influenced by, the citizens in a real, direct way.  Think of a village, or even a smaller city. Only in this way can men really be ‘led’ and authority exercised properly.


Once a society gets too big, however, democracy becomes unwieldy, even impossible, for how does one man represent thousands?  He cannot.  Most often, he sniffs the wind, and decides what policies will get him re-elected, claiming, of course, that he is following the ‘will of the people’.  He often also strives to maintain and curry the favour of the ‘leader’, so that he is first in line for the plum appointment, or assured a chance to run for re-election.


The good politicians, on the other hand, amongst whom we may hope to count Sam Oosterhoof, will vote according to their conscience, rightly and rigorously formed in the truth (an all-too-rare trait).


However, I, for one, am rather tired that we in the conservative camp are always fighting a rearguard action, begging the ‘Liberal’, more properly the secular, relativist, amoral and atheistic Leviathan, slouching ever forward like the beast in Yeats’ poem, to just please, pretty please, stop, or at least slow down a little?


Enough. Why can we not put forward just as unstoppable an intellectual and political ‘Leviathan’ in the cause of the truth? Or at least have people in office who can clearly and philosophically articulate why things like this law are wrong on a fundamental level, as Mr. Oosterhoff, in his youthful inexperience, is at least trying to do? But no. The ‘Conservatives’ are all too often home hiding, while destructive laws, too many of them now to count, are put into effect like clockwork, undermining and dismantling our society, and too few seem able or willing to do anything about it.  They have all the chutzpah, and it is about time more of us found our own corresponding, and far greater, parrhesia, that Christian courage which Saint Paul calls for so forcefully.


So I will conclude with this thought:  If all that is required of a politician is to vote the ‘right’ way (almost always futilely) on what are rather obvious life and family issues, then perhaps a nineteen year old can do it. But, like little Oliver Twist, we must ask for, no, demand, more, not just of our leaders, but of ourselves. Sam has made a very good first step; he seems keen, with his heart in the right place, and, with his subsequent public interviews defending his stance, I dare say he did his work far better and more courageously on his first day than everyone else in the House, and holds some promise for the future.


But please don’t make too much hay of that. You know what Our Lord says about the servant who only does what is his duty.  Would that more of our politicians at least began there.

Of Dubia and Infants’ Rights

cardinalsConcerning the ‘dubium’ put forward by the four cardinals, asking the Pope to clarify certain ambiguities in the recent post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, we can turn to Canon 212§3. of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which  states that


According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. 


If even lay people have this ‘right and duty’, one would think that bishops, who have the task of guarding and expounding Revelation as handed on from the Apostles, can also make known to their fellow bishops, including the Pope, ‘their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church’.  The decree on Bishops from Vatican II, Christus Dominus, declares


As legitimate successors of the Apostles and members of the episcopal college, bishops should realize that they are bound together and should manifest a concern for all the churches. For by divine institution and the rule of the apostolic office each one together with all the other bishops is responsible for the Church (#6)


Bishops have the right and the duty to be solicitous for the universal Church, for the clarity and purity of her doctrine.  There is, therefore, in the Church the long and venerable tradition of submitting dubia to the Apostolic See, wherein pastors may request clarifications on certain points of doctrine, previously ambiguous, or not clarified sufficiently for whatever reason.


Then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded to one such dubium (not that there was much doubt) after Pope John Paul declared that only men could be priests in his 1994 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.  When this was questioned, the Cardinal, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, responded with a reply that should have ended matters, declaring this doctrine to be infallible.


The cardinal-bishops in this case had the full right to ask for clarification. Of course, the Pope, with ‘full, supreme and universal power’, is also free not to respond to dubia, for reasons which he is also not bound to make public.  The only ultimate judge of the Pope is God.  Hence, I leave open-ended, for now, whether the four cardinals should have made their own (unanswered) dubia public.  I am not sure, for we should strive for a balance between making the truth explicit, and preserving unity in the Church (and I wonder if we even want the explicit truth here). I am just glad I am not a cardinal, whose red robes may mean something more than symbolic soon. We are in strange and unusual times, and perhaps strange and unusual methods are now required.


Everyone should read this forthright interview with Professor Jordan Peterson.  It is fascinating in its clear and quite damning analysis of the modern university, which he claims is ‘quite lost’.  I in the main agree, although might nuance things a bit (there are signs of hope at Saint Michael’s college, for example).  But, as I have written, beware sending your children into these denizens of ignorance, mind-control and indoctrination in falsity.


You may have read reported in the news recently, and described on LifeSite, of a young woman in Kamloops who drowned her new-born baby in the bathtub (she delivered him herself at home, apparently), disposed of his body, then went off to take an exam.  The troubled young woman, who was given a two-year probational sentence, since she was deemed ‘no threat to society’, is basically being let off scot-free. She claims the child was a result of a sexual assault while she was passed out inebriated at a party, and that she did not know she was pregnant until recently.  All very emotional and sympathetic, but what, yes I ask, what of the drowned baby?


This should surprise no one, for the judge could not but consider that if she had wandered into an abortuary just a few hours before, while the baby was still in utero, she could have had her baby killed, legally, with the full support of the State and medical system, no questions asked, all antiseptic and worry free.


baby-coffinYes, the effects of Roe vs. Wade and Morgentaler ripple on through, quite literally ripping apart the moral fabric of our universe. Once you open the Pandora’s box of death, it is difficult to keep it shut, for all sorts of evils come flying out.  Peter Singer, the infamous professor of ‘ethics’ at Princeton, has through his vaunted and ballyhooed career advocated for a legal right for parents to euthanize their babies and toddlers for up to two years, at which point, he claims, they (the children, not the parents) become ‘sentient’ and worthy of autonomous rights (which Singer also advocates for chimps and gorillas and other ‘sentient’ animals).  That would be more difficult since, unlike ‘infants’ (whose name means ‘unable to speak’), babies and toddlers can cry, kick and scream, or at least look at you with doleful eyes, on their way to the charnelhouse.  All a bit more troublesome, one would think, which is likely why Singer’s suggestion has never quite been carried out. But one never knows in our day and age. As troubling as what it implies, Texas’ new law requiring victims of abortion to be given a proper burial at least brings this evil more out into the open, declaring it to be what it really is.


Ideas have consequences, and there is a deep metaphysical basis underlying our societal ills, not least our misconstrued notion of ‘rights’, which many curiously think come from a benevolent State, and not, as they do, from God. A baby has a right to life not because the government or parliament says he does, or does not, but rather because he is made ‘unto the image’ of that same God, Who will demand a reckoning for all that is done, and not done, to and for His ‘little ones’.


So expect more such cases like this unfortunate woman and her lost child, whose conscience we hope is not fully at fault, until that reckoning takes place.  As we say in Advent, marana tha! Come, Lord Jesus…



Sam Against the Liberal Leviathan

Well, I have expanded my thoughts on young Sam Oosterhoff standing against the Liberal Leviathan, stumbling over our landscape and crushing just about everything in its wake. You can find the article for now on Crisis, and will be posted here soon.  The editor there gave me pause for thought:  Sam could not vote on the idiotic bill, for he was being sworn in the day after.  A clever ploy, perhaps from Patrick Brown, the Conservative ‘leader’, who demanded that all either vote aye, or stay home. Did he know Sam would disobey,  so delayed his swearing in by that one convenient day?  One wonders…


An ominous note I came across a couple of days ago from down south in America:  The government has decided to ‘forgive’ over $100 billion in student debt. This, dear reader, is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are over one trillion dollars in unpaid student debt floating around the financial house like some toxic sludge, just waiting to wreak havoc.  The same is true here in Canada, proportionately so, only, unlike the States, we already pay most of the cost of students’ education, with all the ballooning costs of professors and administrators, and they still whine and complain. Of course, the government cannot really ‘forgive’ anyone’s debt, for someone has to cough up, as many discovered in the 2008 financial crisis, with their retirement savings going up like poof to pay off Wall Street’s reckless and avaricious financing.  And the ‘government’ stands just for you and me, who are now on the hook for all those young minds wasted, deformed and all-too-often wallowing in ignorance in their four-five-ten year stint at what now passes for the modern university, replete with crying rooms and crayons, coerced speech and political correctness run amok, just like their debts.


But on a note of hope, I wish all readers a very joyous and blessed Advent, a season of hope and expectation, wherein we prepare our minds and hearts to welcome Christ not only as a child at Christmas, but also His final Advent, at the end of time and history, which, as He prophesied, will happen at an hour we, or perhaps many, may not expect.  So keep your loins girded and the lamps of your minds lit with the light of Truth, Who has indeed come into this world.