The Deadly Sin of Lust - Who's to Blame? Men and Women, Please Read

**DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN AND EARLY TEENS; IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 PLEASE CONSULT WITH YOUR PARENTS PRIOR TO READING THIS ARTICLE**

There is in this world one thing that I believe is unanimously agreed upon, and that is that nobody is perfect; everyone sins.
However, with that acknowledgment typically comes a tendency to compare ourselves to others and what we perceive their level of sinfulness/imperfection to be in relation to ours.

I could write/cite much more on this topic, but I think it goes without saying that there are a number of evident flaws in this line of thought. Right off the bat, we have Matthew 5:48, "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Sort of feels like a Catch 22, perhaps, because we know that we will never be made perfect until fully sanctified in the Kingdom of God whilst enjoying the Beatific Vision. However, it is nevertheless a poignant verse in that it does two things:
1. Reminds us of our present imperfection and reliance upon God's mercy
2. Reminds us of what we ought to be striving for and of our reliance upon God's grace to overcome sin

All this being said, I still for a long time had a bad habit of believing that my particular vices and long-standing battles with certain sins were somehow harder than others' vices.
I'm not ashamed to say outright that among those and perhaps foremost, aside from pride (which plagues us all), would be lust.
I don't struggle much with wrath, nor envy, nor greed. Sloth can get to me at times.

Anyhow, every time I would do a good examination of conscience, I seemed to defend myself and try to fool my own conscience into thinking that this tendency toward lust was somehow harder to overcome than, say, someone else's tendency toward wrath.
Why are they so easily angered and enraged? That's not hard...just take deep breaths, picture babbling brooks or conjure up the voice of Sting singing about "fields of barley."
Wrath? Psh. That's just for unrestrained hotheads. They clearly just aren't exerting themselves, right?
But LUST, now LUST...that's hard to overcome.
That's, well, that's IMPOSSIBLE!

WRONG.

Matthew 19:26 - "And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible."

This goes again back to needing to be reminded of our complete dependency upon God's grace, but also the proper disposition and exertion of the [free] will to cooperate and accept and use that grace.

Amare est velle bonum - To love is to will the good.

Now, I have heard/read that lust and gluttony are the two most "naturally unnatural" vices because of their disordered relation to basic and fundamentally good human desires - to eat & drink and to procreate.
This does not, however, mean that my battle is any more difficult than another's, just perhaps more common (and many, many men [if not most to all] struggle with lust). I think any priest would tell you that the most common sins confessed by men have to do with this deadly vice.

Mt 5:28 - "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart."

That's a big deal. Jesus is telling us that what we desire, if we let it manifest within our imaginations by first consent with the eyes, we are already guilty of it.

So, what is lust? We need to understand it...

DEFINITION:

lust

  [luhst]  Show IPA

noun

1.

intense sexual desire or appetite.

2.

uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite...

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)

One might take note of the word "uncontrolled" above. That is in many ways very true. Again it ties into the fact that we are fallen, with a tendency toward concupiscence of the flesh and a potentially fatal exaggeration of our "lower nature" (our higher or superior nature being that which abandons the flesh and strives for things eternal by way of the Cross).
I have observed many men behaving badly over the years, and the word that has so many times come to mind is "primal" or "animalistic," acting upon pure instinct and sexual desire with no restraint, no independent thought process or adherence to conscience which is written on all men's hearts and in all men's minds.

It is true that this tendency is uncontrollable except by "the grace of God with [us]." (1 Cor. 15:10)

So wait, the title of this post said for women to read too, right? What do women have to do with this if they don't struggle with lust? After all, I said it's mostly a man's problem, right?

WRONG.

Galatians 5:19-21 - "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcraft, enmities, contentions, emulations, wrath, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."

Now first of all, as an aside, I should like to especially call attention to this verse as a whole to any Protestant who may be reading this article who believes in "once saved always saved."
St. Paul is here, not to mention about a hundred or more other places in his epistles, telling the Galatians that if they persist in any of these sins listed above.
For "blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive a crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him." (James 1:12)

There are a lot of sins listed in those three verses from Galatians; I have bolded and underlined one word: immodesty.

Take a look at the company in which that word finds itself: idolatry, witchcraft, fornication, murders, etc.!

All of these are amongst the "sins unto death" spoken of in 1 John 5:17.

This is where it applies to you, ladies.
So what does this word mean, immodesty?

im·mod·est

  [ih-mod-ist]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

not modest in conduct...indecent; shameless.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)

ETYMOLOGICAL SYNONYM of IMMODEST:

petulant (adj.) 

1590s, "immodest, wanton, saucy," from Middle French petulant (mid-14c.), from Latin petulantem (nominative petulans) "wanton, froward, saucy, insolent," present participle of petere "to attack, assail; strive after; ask for, beg, beseech" 

(source: http://www.etymonline.com)

Indecent. Shameless. These could also be described as having no respect for one's self or those in one's proximity. A complete disregard, whether intentional or unintentional, for the way in which one is perceived by others and, more importantly, the way in which one is seen by God.

Now, before going any further on this matter, I fear that some may do a quick Bible search to see where else that word "immodesty" appears and come up blank.
So naturally the argument may surface, "that's not what St. Paul meant! Go to the original text..."

Fair enough.

The Greek for immodesty in this verse is aselgeia (ἀσέλγεια) which can also be translated as “lascivious” or “sensual.” This same Greek word can be found in Mark 7:22, Ephesians 4:19, 2 Peter 2:7, 2 Corinthians 12:21.

The word lascivious is defined three ways:
1. lustful
2. arousing sexual desire
3. indicating sexual interest

Thus the onus can be placed on both the party lusting (typically the male, as per the first definition) and the party inciting lust (typically the female by her dress and/or behavior, the latter two definitions).
Essentially, if we are to understand the nature of lust we must understand it like its punitive equal of actual fornication which our Lord described, meaning that just as fornication requires two people, so too does lust.
A man cannot lust at what does not present itself to be lusted after (unless he has a real problem, in which case he still envisions a woman improperly though she be properly clothed, this would be comparable to rape with singular culpability).

So, how might we describe a woman who dresses immodestly? A common Biblical term used is "harlot."

har·lot

  [hahr-luht]  Show IPA

noun

a prostitute; whore.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)

harlotry (n.) 

late 14c., "loose, crude, or obscene behavior; sexual immorality; ribald talk or jesting,"

(source: http://www.etymonline.com)

This loose, crude or obscene behavior is the act in itself of dressing immodestly.
As I quoted in a previous post, "Clothes are meant to conceal the body not reveal it...[If you dress immodestly,] you're not helping in the salvation of souls you are contributing to the damnation of souls." (Fr. Michael Rodriguez)

Just a few examples of what the holy book of Proverbs says about harlots:

Proverbs 5:2-5 - That thou mayst keep thoughts, and thy lips may preserve instruction. Mind not the deceit of a woman. For the lips of a harlot are like a honeycomb dropping, and her throat is smoother than oil. But her end is bitter as wormwood, and sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down into death, and her steps go in as far as hell.

Proverbs 6:25-26 Let not thy heart covet her beauty, be not caught with her winks: For the price of a harlot is scarce one loaf: but the woman catcheth the precious soul of a man.

Proverbs 7:  - And behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's attire prepared to deceive souls; talkative and wandering, Not bearing to be quiet, not able to abide still at home...[saying] 'Come, let us be inebriated with the breasts, and let us enjoy the desired embraces, till the day appear.'

This one above is SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY speaking to dress as it says "harlot's attire," while also making reference to "inebriation with breasts," an anatomical part which I would venture to say not a single woman on planet earth is ignorant of knowing of man's attraction to a woman's bosom and their profoundly significant role in procreation and sustenance of infant life. So, do I need to point out that this is at least implicitly making reference to any cleavage bearing garment, much less more "out in the open" garb?

A few more notable verses:
Sirach 9:6 - Give not thy soul to harlots in any point: lest thou destroy thyself and thy inheritance.

1 Corinthians 6:15 - Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot ? God forbid.

That second verse is really calling attention to the fact that we, body and soul, makeup the Mystical Body of Christ on earth and need to strive to rightly order our bodies and tendencies thereof toward their natural intent, not to dress as if we - as the definition of "pestulant" said - "asking/begging for it."


Now, I must point out that there are two different scenarios which I believe women fall into with respect to immodesty: ignorance and full knowledge.

If a woman is unaware or ignorant that what she is wearing is immodest, and I do believe this is the case at least largely with many women (those who believe what they are wearing is just "super cute" or "très chic"), then it would likely not be a mortal sin (unless you have done something to essentially keep yourself ignorant) and you would only be potentially viewed as a harlot by men.
Here, it is possible that the man is committing a mortal sin of lust while the woman remains in venial sin, though one that can easily lead to other mortal sins.

HOWEVER, if a woman is aware of what you she is doing, the emotions and passions she is evoking in men, and that is her intent, to be noticed, to be sought after, to be craved, this is where we have a real major problem...namely a problem called "vanity," and she would be by the very definition a harlot, whether she acts on the fornication or not (again, go back to Matthew 5:28).

There is so much that could still be said on this subject matter.

Immodesty is rampant. It is at times seemingly as present as the air we breath, and yet noxious, supplanting the place of the oxygen needed to breath and slowly asphyxiating countless men's souls like being in a closed room for hours until all the oxygen has been replaced with carbon dioxide and they die.
Eternally, following those "steps of hell" described in Proverbs.

Now, if I still don't have the women out there fully believing what I have written ,iIf they still think I am trying to defer the blame and share it with them for what is clearly "my problem," let me use a few more scenarios.

If a parent leaves a loaded gun in an unlocked gun case around, say, a 10 year old who knows what a gun is but is in many ways not capable enough to know how to use it responsibly and, not thinking clearly just jokingly pulls the trigger at his friend and kills his friend, who is to blame?
The child should have thought more, should have been a little more cognizant and less reckless...but is not the parent who introduced the fatal weapon into the situation as culpable if not moreso?
The latter cannot even possibly happen without the former. Again, a man cannot lust at what does not present itself to be lusted after.

How about another example.
If I invite a friend over who I know is an alcoholic trying to stay sober, and I decide it's prudent for to still make a cocktail, pop a bottle of wine or crack a few beers while he is over, and he goes home and on his way stops off to grab a few for himself, who is to blame? What about if it gets worse? What if he stops at the bar, and then drives drunk home and kills someone on the way?
This is perhaps more truly comparable to the relationship of immodesty and lust as both are fatal offenses worthy of damnation.

The woman introduces the occasion of sin; the man consents through a weak will due to negligence in prayer and a fallen nature.

And here lies the true problem.
The occasion of sin.

Any good confessor will tell his penitent to avoid the near occasion of sin.
If you have read my post on dancing, you will know that St. John Vianney was so strongly opposed to dancing (well, the Church was opposed and he was enforcing it) that he would not absolve anyone until the promised never to even attend a dance again. Eliminate the occasion of sin, and then there will not be any sin.

So, alcoholics keep alcohol out of their house and work with a tight support network of friends to ask that they also do not drink around them so as to aggravate the wounds trying to be healed with time and grace.

Drug addicts get rid of old friends, bad ones, change cell phone numbers, even move away sometimes after a stint in rehab, and have to make a clean break from their past lives.
This is in fact part of the end of a good confession: "for these and for all the sins of my past life, I am heartily sorry."

The idea is that we leave that confessional a new man or woman, once again in God's sanctifying grace and eligible for entrance into His eternal Kingdom.

But the problem is that this occasion of sin, because of both ignorant and knowledgeable women all over the world and on every street and in nearly every building save maybe Traditional Catholic Churches, is COMPLETELY inescapable! Unavoidable!

It is EVERYWHERE!

Men today cannot go to the hardware store, a place where men do man things and buy man things, without being confronted with a desire to act impulsively and immorally with their "manly thing." Sorry if that seems tasteless, but sometimes bluntness is a must!
We can't go to the grocery store because even if somehow by some Providential and merciful act we make it through the entire store staring at the linoleum floor and never see another woman anywhere, we get to the checkout line and look to put our groceries on the belt and there's "Jane Harlot" the actress with her "womanly things" hanging out all over! Right next to the Cosmo or Maxim or Redbook that says something like "50 RED HOT SEX TRICKS" or "20 WAYS TO MAKE HER MOAN!"

Is this too graphic? YES!
IT IS!
So why are we allowing out society to be led straight into HELL!?

Our Lady appeared to three little children in 1917 and said, "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend our Lord very much." She also went on to say that "more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for anything else."

WAKE UP!!

So, to give women an idea of what they should NOT be wearing:
- Yoga Pants!! Oh may Almighty God have mercy on whoever started this horrifying trend of indecency!
- Mini skirts (nothing above mid calf)
- Short shorts (really, shorts period)
- Strapless or spaghetti strap tops
- Tight clothing that shows off the figure, including jeans and really pants in general
- BIKINIS or other beachwear. This was part of ALL examinations of conscience "in the old days" regarding occasion of sin, beaches! Does this seem hard? Unreasonable? Outrageous? Well that is what the rich man thought when Jesus told him to sell everything and be his disciple. Is our Lord's request to deny ourselves, suffer and bear our crosses unrealistic? Is our Lord unreasonable?

What it really boils down to is, "would you be comfortable if Jesus showed up and saw you wearing that?"

I mentioned one of the reasons why St. John Vianney would not absolve people.
St. Padre Pio would not absolve women who wore skirts higher than 8 inches below their knees until they vowed never to do it again.

I will quote one final source, the authoritative voice of one of our former Holy Fathers:
"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God." - Pope Benedict XV (sacra propediem)


A final word to men: we must, must, MUST resist the temptation of lust with all our hearts, minds and souls. We must flee any near occasion of sin whatsoever and whenever possible, be it beaches, bars, or especially situations alone with women. The most important key, and though I have not mastered it by any means, is to stay rooted in prayer especially mental prayer.
As Dom Chautard wrote in The Soul of the Apostolate, either you forfeit mental prayer or you forfeit your soul.

A final word to women: please, please, PLEASE consider what is written here. Please. And go immediately BURN anything that violates the code of honor laid out so clearly by Sacred Scripture for the appropriate behavior and attire of women. If you have to check in a mirror to see how it makes a part of you look, throw it out. Vanity is the equal and complementary evil vice of women to men's lustful hearts. We love you modest and helping to contribute to the salvation of our souls, not to our damnation. But it doesn't stop there. It's not just about you. That is not Christianity to only look inward. You must help us fight the fight. Unfortunately, some women don't give us any confidence or the time of day when it comes to this. We need YOU to speak up! Be our advocates! Stop telling other ladies they look cute or sexy or snazzy or flashy or beautiful in clothing designed in the bowels of hell by the vile demon Asmodeus!


Let us pray that Our Lady shows us all the way to pure hearts so that one day we might see God (Mt 5:8).


For more information on this, and for a fantastic sermon by a holy priest, please also visit a former post I put up:
http://tylernethercott.blogspot.com/2013/05/fr-rodriguez-on-modest-women-and-purity.html

www.defeatmodernism.com

Religious Freedom? How about a Catholic United States instead...

I have written frequently on the subject of religious freedom and the false premise that our USCCB has decided to take following in the footsteps of Second Vatican Council having to now make concessions to Liberalism trying to use Liberalism against itself while Liberalism in the mean time forges ahead trying to remove all marks of the Most Holy Trinity from America.

This push for a "Second Annual Fortnight for Religious Freedom" is, well, bogus.
I have to be blunt.

If you want more information, scroll through my blog or go to www.sspx.org or, better yet, just read Libertas by Pope Leo XIII and you will see what the authentic and 2000 year old Catholic teaching is on religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and you will understand why he is exactly right.

Consider that it is precisely because of "religious freedom" that the following are legal:
- Abortion, even full-term abortion (in some states)
- Pornography
- Contraception, including morning after pills
- Sodomy
- Binge drinking (which is a grave sin and leads to drunk driving)
- Marijuana (in some states)
- Assisted Suicide (in some states)
- Immodest dress (bikinis are considered acceptable attire, and overall fashions keep getting worse)
- Divorce and remarriage (infinite times)
- Satanism
- Wicca and witchcraft (which is VERY real)
- All other false religions

Feel free to add to the list and let me know what I have missed...it's vast.

Now, nearly fifty years after the "New Springtime Council" ended, the USCCB finds themselves having to capitulate to all of the above on the grounds that we too (Catholics) be able to practice our religion freely...along with all others.

How is it that seemingly nobody can see the problem here?
Being an accessory to sin is a sin in itself, essentially equal to committing the sin. That's part of any good examination of conscience.
In other words, if you see a man beating his wife and do nothing to stop it or report it, you're guilty of it. This is a fundamentally Catholic belief, lest I need to quote the Good Samaritan passage.

So how can we go about our lives professing to be "faithful and orthodox Catholics" when we profess that others should be allowed to do all of those aforementioned grave offenses against God, those which cry to heaven for vengeance, simply on the grounds that we be allowed to "do what we we do" as well?

What horror. What shame. What blasphemy.

Sign me up to be decapitated, scourged, tortured, electrocuted, burned at the stake or even crucified before I will sign my name to affirming that I believe those acts are permissible based on "the innate human dignity" and "freedom of conscience" of others.

Personally, I believe in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." In "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," outside of which there is no salvation.

This is Catholic teaching.
Not the promotion of pluralistic deism (aka freemasonry) sparked by the French Revolution and now turning toward the Bolshevik Revolution.
By the way, remember Our Lady said that Russia would spread her errors around the world if it weren't Consecrated to her Immaculate Heart?
Well 2017 will be the 100 year anniversary of the Communist overthrow of Russia...and look where things are headed.
In four years, the US could be entirely red states...but not Republican, Communist.
And full of the blood of innocents just like the Soviet Union.

So, instead of praying to God in July that "religious freedom" be upheld (a prayer which will not be heard because it is not His will), let us pray that Our Lady's wishes (which are God's wishes) be heard, starting with the Consecration of Russia and the salvation of souls from eternal perdition.

To close, I found this list (credit to Dr. Taylor Marshall) of what we could imagine a Catholic United States to be like.
Read this over, and if you are a baptized Catholic and do not agree that the list below would be infinitely superior to the present state of affairs, you probably should consider abstaining from Holy Communion until time for deeper prayer, contemplation and fasting can take place.

Credit to Taylor Marshall:

• The newly elected president would recite his oath of office, not only with his hand on the Holy Bible, but kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance held by the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC. within the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. In other words, the President would make his oath directly to Christ.
• January 21, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, would be a perennial day of national penance.
• Holy Matrimony would be honored and recognized as the most fundamental unit of American culture.
• Large families would be encouraged and assisted through the US tax code.
• The White House would no longer have a basketball court or bowling alley, but a glorious and beautiful chapel where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be celebrated daily by a presidential Catholic chaplain.
• Abortion, contraception, sodomy, euthanasia, and divorce would be illegal as these sins are contrary to the natural law. Of course, abused wives would be protected and assisted under law.
• Public blasphemy and the abuse of the most holy name of Jesus would be forbidden in film, television, and music. Think about it: why is not okay to say the F-word on TV but actors are allowed to mock and blaspheme Jesus? Which is worse, abusing God's name in vain or the F-word?
• The United States would have the greatest foster care system in the world. 
• The Catholic Church, not the State, would organize and perform the Seven Corporal Acts of Mercy (feeding the poor, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, etc.)
• US courtrooms would have both the Ten Commandments and a Crucifix of Christ on the wall to proclaim the Justice of God and the Divine Mercy of God.
• All Holy Days of Obligation would become federal holidays and Days of Obligation would not be transferred to Sundays since they would become holidays for all citizens. Ash Wednesday and Good Friday would also become nationally recognized holidays.
• According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the natural law prescribes that parents, not the State, are primarily responsible for the education of children. Saint Paul says: "And you, fathers...educate your children in the discipline and correction of the Lord.” It is the job of fathers, not the State, to educate. This truth of Saint Paul would be recognized by law and encouraged through homeschooling, educational co-ops, parochial schools, and locally governed public schools on the pattern of subsidiarity. 
• Mary under her title "Immaculate Conception" is currently the patroness of the United States. She would become featured on our national seal and on our currency.
• Streets, landmarks, parks, national monument, and our currency would be marked by the names and images of great American saints (St Elizabeth Anne Seton, St Katherine Drexel, St John Neumann, St Francesca S. Cabrini, St Rose Philippine Duchesne, St Damien of Molokai).
• American foreign policy would conform to Catholic teaching regarding just war and prohibiting global policing and so-called "preventive wars."
• A cross would be placed on top of the Washington Monument.
• The solemnity of the Immaculate Conception would be a day in which the American bishops and all the faithful annually consecrated the nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
• Under the patronage of the Immaculate Conception, the United States would become known for its Marian devotion in a way that would rival medieval France and England.
• The principle of subsidiarity would apply to our economic and political arrangement - which would include things like the encouragement of local natural food, local water, local governance, etc.
• The sin of usury in form of credit cards, school loans, and other disadvantaging lending policies would be criminalized as contrary to natural law.
• Our immigration policy would be firm, merciful and just by including a clear and regularized process for citizenship.
• Pornography and even unwholesome advertisements and billboards would be outlawed.
• America would be known as a place where the dignity of women, especially motherhood, is celebrated.
• The bishops nationally or locally could ask civil leaders to appoint certain days as days of national thanksgiving or as days of penance or mourning.
• The meetings of the Senate and Congress would begin with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and with prayers and benedictions from the clergy.
• Red Masses invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit would be celebrated regularly to beg prudence for  judges, attorneys, law school professors, students, and government officials.

~ Pax Domimi sit semper Vobiscum

What do Stanley Kubrick and Vatican II have in common?

Several months back, I was emailing an individual in the Church hierarchy with questions about the Church and her direction since the Second Vatican Council.
This was still while I was feverishly searching for answers and fervently praying for God to give me - if possible - answers and - more importantly - direction.

Well as I have emailed to a number of friends (or former friends I might now say), I now attend mass at St. Margaret Mary in Allendale, a chapel run by the Society of St. Pius X.
God gave me that clarity, direction and many of those answers I was searching for in a sweeping act of mercy and grace.

I was reviewing some of my old emails and found that part of this dialogue with this man, let's call him "Novus Ordo Joe," responded to my questions about Vatican II with the following:

A few months ago, one of my sons brought the movie “Room 237” to my attention.  It is a documentary about Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 film The Shining.  Here is an article from the NYT about it (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/movies/room-237-documentary-with-theories-about-the-shining.html?_r=4&hp&). While I have not yet been to a screening, I have read much about

Gaudium et Spes...by Stanley Kubrick?

this documentary and watched some similar videos on the web.  The premise is simple:  Kubrick was a genius who crafted The Shining to tell the basic plot (taken from a story written by Stephen King) but changed specific details and filmed/edited the visuals in order to also communicate another, deeper message.  But – and this the interesting part to me – no one in the documentary can agree on what that other message is.  One person says that all of the details in the film are about the Holocaust.  Another says that if you carefully examine the movie, it’s plain to see that it is about the genocide of Native Americans.  Another says that it is Kubrick’s not-so-veiled admission of his role in faking the Apollo 11 moon landing.  And so on … and on … and on … through nine different (and contradictory) interpretations.

My point is that these scholars, movie critics, Kubrick fans, college professors, etc. all look at the very same data (142 minutes of film) and come up with widely (and wildly) different interpretations of the exact same details.  But if you listen to them make their case … point-by-point … image-by-image … symbol-by-symbol … you can find yourself nodding your head, thinking “of course that’s what it all must mean,” and buying into their interpretation.  Until, of course, the next interpreter does the exact same thing … and the next … and the next.  Then you quickly realize that they all can’t be right and wonder if any of their interpretations are correct at all.  And, in the end, there’s no way of knowing which of them is right (or, in fact, if any of them are).

And that’s what came to my mind when I read your e-mail.  None of the content you shared is new to me.  I have read these same arguments for years from the pens (and keyboards) of others.  But here is my problem with it (and please understand that I only say this because you asked for my thoughts and I mean everything I am about to write with respect for you as a seeker of the Truth):  I am not the Magisterium … you are not the Magisterium … the websites and books and authors that interpret the details of the past five Popes to prove that they are heretics or sadly deluded modernists are not the Magisterium.

People who make the arguments who have listed below have dismissed the Magisterium and claimed to need “Tradition Alone” to judge whether or not anything is true or false, good or bad, necessary or superfluous.  And they now cherry-pick from the Tradition to prove their points. This is elevating their personal opinion and interpretation above that of the Church that Christ established and promised would never defect from the Truth. They got rid of the Magisterium Christ established … but then ended up establishing themselves as the judges of Truth in a Magisterium of their own making.

"You'll never know what it means!"

This is not Catholicism.

None of the interpreters of The Shining in “Room 237” are Stanley Kubrick … they can put out whatever theories they want but only Kubrick himself knows what he was doing when he crafted that movie …and unless he told someone or wrote it down before He died, any proposed deeper meanings – no matter how plausible – are simply alternative theories from people trying to personally interpret the data.  When it comes to the Church, however, our “Kubrick” is still alive.





Well, he is right about the last part. I am not the Magisterium. Although, Archbishop Lefebvre was part of the Magisterium and a close friend and favored prelate of Pope Pius XII, but that is another discussion...

Here was my response:
I find the Kubrick analogy to be at best a bad comparison and at worst an overall red herring. Kubrick is an "artist" of sorts whose intent is to create controversy and ambiguity. To cite your words, "this is not Catholicism." The popes have never had intent to deceive, confuse or confound. Emily Dickinson spent several years of her life living in the upstairs of a house talking to no one. After her death, they found a number of poems in a chest which to this day have their meaning debated. This is not the same situation as when encyclicals were written by Popes with the express intent of clearly conveying certain messages and clearly stamping out heresies and false doctrines.

Pope Benedict has first alluded to a "hermeneutic of continuity" and more recently to a "media hijacking" of the Council. It is true he is still alive (though threats of assassination have leaked and of a possible resignation). So, if he acknowledges that the Council was ambiguous and easy to misunderstand, why does he not, before he dies, put out a summary, a Syllabus of Errors version 2.0, of what is and what is not the correct understanding and interpretation of the Council? Because, I would say, those who ran the council intended for it to be ambiguous. Because many, the likes of Hans Kung, Congar, deLubac, Rahner, etc. wanted to open the windows to let the world into the Church (not to bring the Church to the world to convert it).

Finally, I am not advocating for "Tradition Alone." I can provide countless quotes from Sacred Scripture to you to support our Sacred Catholic Tradition. Ironically, the times I have done that with others they have accused me of advocating for Sola Scriptura and wanted to remind me that we have a Tradition...catch 22.

His response:
What you are doing is engaging in Protestantism: elevating your own personal interpretation of texts (whether Scripture quotes for the Protestants or Pope/Saint/Magisterial quotes for you) over the interpretation of Holy Mother Church, as embodied in the Successor of St. Peter in Rome and the Successors of the Apostles scattered throughout the world.
You may not like the comparison I made about Kubrick, but that does not change its validity.
The fact is you consider your own understanding/interpretation of these texts to be true and the Magisterium's self-interpretation of them to be false (or flawed).  This is Protestantism.

I understand your frustration.  As one who was a Protestant for many years, I know how it feels to be intellectually confident of my own interpretations and at the same time disappointed that the overwhelming majority of others disagree with what seems so clear to me


(Notice that he does not actually address any of my questions...he simply continues to reiterate a wrong interpretation without explaining the correct one, and makes [false and unfounded] accusations; this is a very common response by those whom I consulted in the last year. When they had no answers, they just resorted to saying "you're not the Magisterium, you're understanding is wrong." But they could never elaborate.)

My response:
I must disagree with your assertion that your Kubrick example is still valid whether or not I like it. I am not quite sure if you understood the foundation for my statement that it was a bad example. Kubrick intended to be ambiguous. People consider this artistic ambiguity to challenge the viewer. This is not the intent of a papal writing. Papal writing is intended to be (and is successful in its goal) to be clear to the faithful. To say the popes intended to be ambiguous, or even that they were somehow ambiguous...well let's consider the following scenario between a father and a son (that likened to Pope to laity):

ACTION: Son calls his mother a tricksome, wicked old hag
RESPONSE: Which is the more appropriate response of a prudent father?
a.) "Son, what you have just spoken. What you have just called your mother...this is truly perceived by many to be troublesome indeed. As to whether or not it is definitively right or wrong, however, well that is in fact in our modern times open to debate. Those of an older, more medieval, ultramontane, outdated position may state that to speak to one's mother in such a fashion is less than desirable. However, one need not go any further than to dial into ABC Family reruns of Full House to see DJ or Michelle talk to their father - played by the underrated yet oddly perverted Bob Saget - in a similar tone of disrespect or lack of consideration for his paternal authority. It can therefore be said that one could justify your reaction based on your surroundings and doing what your conscience has even perhaps told you to do. Above all, after all, one must follow his conscience which is indeed inspired by the seed of the Holy Spirit living within each man due to the innate human dignity of man made known to him by the incarnation of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. I believe, as your father, that your actions could have been founded in good will and therefore perhaps are not as reprehensible as what those ultramontanes who would protest might say. Allow me to take some time to explain why the other avatars of the world's great faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Islam - each avatar the Christ figure of their respective faiths - faiths worthy of great praise, respect and admiration for their truth of the one, true God - would agree with what we now have come to know in these modern times through historical-critical understanding of parental role and children's ethics. Son, let us first, however, take time to acknowledge and esteem the truths within those other great faiths and to pray that we - in our Catholic faith - may find 'mutual enrichment' to come to a 'greater understanding' of the truth and to hopefully correct any errors which our ancestors may have believed in the past."

b.) Son, if you ever speak to your mother like that again you better believe I will beat you so upside down and sideways from here into next week that you will be lucky if you can ever even speak again. This is the woman who carried you for nine months, birthed you, fed you from her bosom and loves you and would die for you. The fourth commandment says you will obey your mother. If you have a problem with something she says to you, you bite your tongue and do what she says anyway and maybe you can learn to bring it up more politely at a later time so that we can discuss as a family any misunderstanding you might have. In the mean time, as a punishment (aka penance), you are going to go split wood for an hour. Make no mistake about it, what you just did is evil and a grave sin. You will go to confession tomorrow first thing in the morning lest you should die at school tomorrow and lose your soul for having committed mortal sin. Do I make myself clear? Any confusion about what I have just said? I'll repeat it just to make sure we are on the same page. Raising your voice and profaning your mother is evil and comes from the devil. Understood?

You see, response A is like the writings during and since Vatican II. The average encyclical length is much longer than historical average of their predecessors. They are full of many words, and as I mentioned before, even the staunchest defenders of the post-conciliar Church and Vatican II have conceded that many of the texts were in fact ambiguous. Quite contrary, we could indeed sit down and go through the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX to validate together that there is nothing left to the imagination or questionable about statements like the following:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true - CONDEMNED

If I am misunderstanding that sentence, which quite clearly says that the notion of unrestricted religious freedom (and by association freedom of conscience) is condemned...please explain to me how I am misunderstanding that.

As for the accusation of Protestantism, from NewAdvent.org on the definition of Protestantism: "The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants." 
I have no intent of not tolerating Catholicism. Quite the opposite! But I know that what has been written prior to 1962 is Catholicism and cannot be subject to revision. Pope Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is the one who stated quite clearly that Gaudium et Spes is a countersyllabus to the Syllabus of Errors (which Pius IX said no one could contradict lest he be anathema). 

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-382
"Gaudium et Spes is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus...Since then many things have changed."

Now, I beseech you to explain to me how I am misunderstanding that quote from our now present Pope.
Especially once one reads Gaudium et Spes and the Syllabus to find that they are quite a striking contrast (take numbers 4,5,8 & 9 from the Syllabus and compare, for example, to Gaudium's position on the evolutionary development of the human mind with respect to its own self-perception and self-knowledge and his yearning for all that the modern world can offer today).

Finally, as for knowing what it is like to be outnumbered:
We know that truth does not lie in numbers (St. Athanasius, or Jesus with just Mary, Mary Magdalene and St. John there with him on Calvary, or St. John of the Cross, or St. Catherine of Siena, or Noah, or Jonah, or Lot, or Amos, etc. etc. etc.). 
One quote from a book I highly recommend: "Amongst the illusions entertained by a certain class of Catholics, there is none more pitiable than the notion that the truth requires a great number of defenders and friends. To these people, numbers seem a synonym for force." - What is Liberalism? (Fr. felix Sarda y salvany 1899 - Imprimatur)


His response:
[None; no response...stopped emailing me after that]

My final email back (part of it):
As for your analogy of the Kubrick film, it turns out maybe you were correct. Walter Cardinal Kasper - not sure if you heard or not - said that the Vatican II documents were in fact ambiguous and able to be left open to interpretation in either direction.
So it turns out that Frs. Kung, deLubac, Congar, et al. do perhaps have a lot in common with Kubrick, aiming to please a broad audience and keeping things open to multiple interpretations.


"For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis....In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper,  L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

When they "run amok" in The Shining...

I think the example given of the disrespectful child and the father's correct approach summarizes it best.
If children are given ambiguous directions, seldom or never reproached and rebuked, and allowed to run amok (0:28 from the trailer) and destroy things and to do what they want, never taught right from wrong and encouraged to hang out with/spend time with/get to know people of bad reputation and untruth...who is to blame?

Someone has to be held responsible...and I don't think it can be the children.

I don't think that "Good Pope John" meant for anyone 50 years later to be comparing his Council to Kubrick's ambiguous horror flick...although one may wonder whether or not he ever opened the doors and proclaimed, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" (1:39 in the trailer).


Praying as always for Holy Mother Church, for the conversion of sinners and the salvation of souls.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

~ Pax Christi sit semper Vobiscum

Traditional Catholics