Monday, 25 April 2016

Could Paul Nicholson by any chance be referring to me?

Quoting via detours:

"That is why there are groups and individuals who can make a living off of bashing bishops. They survive on poorly formed Catholics. Do not follow or listen to anyone who bashes the sacred hierarchy. It is an evident sign they experience self-loathing." source, via secondary sources A and B

Er, no.

That is psycho-babble.

Expressing self loathing is, barring suspicions of facetious intent or deceptive intent, which suspicions may exist in individual cases, an evident sign that who is expressing it is experiencing self loathing.

Expressing loathing for someone else, like an evolutionist bishop, or for something else, like the fact some bishop (or supposed such) is an evolutionist, which I suspect the ecclesiastcial "Robber Baron" (guess whom I mean) to be, is instead an evident sign of who is expressing it experiencing loathing either for an individual man or for an act of such. In the case between me and Robert Barron, I am not loathing him, I just loathe his theory and try to bring it to him with some charity.

But this kind of psycho-babble which Paul Nicholson expressed here was rampant among Modernists, including Anglicans such as the late Tony Palmer.

Is it a coincidence that it comes into the open among "Catholics" (was perhaps there among MOdernists even earlier) just a few years after they accept Tony Palmer's friend Bergoglio as Pope of Rome and of the Catholic Church?

And this may just be a fluke, but the earlier of the sources I was citing was from Saturday .... the day on which I had made a comment about Antipope Wojtyla on Paul Nicholson's blog:

Telephone Newspapers: Blessed Timothy Giacarrdo
Thursday, October 22, 2015
by Paul Nicholson | on

He had written:

Happy feast day of St. John Paul II!

Happy feast day of Bl. Timothy Giacarrdo!

Did you know that the founder of the Pauline family, Fr. Alberione, foresaw the internet at the dawn of the 20th century. How excited he would be to use the internet to set the world on fire with the Gospel.

I expressed no reservation against Blessed Timothy Giacarrdo, nor against Fr. Alberione, but one against "St. John Paul II".


Of Saint who?

His two Healing miracles are incomplete, the French nun had some relapse after miracle was recognised, the woman from South or Central America had delay before the complete remission.

His own rules (if you consider he was Pope) in Lourdes state that Healing miracles there must be both sudden and without any relapse or remaining complications.

And check out who Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka was!

Would you canonise Lancelot or Tristan?

Of course, that affair is also a kind of refutation against Dimond brothers who maintain he was the First Beast.

That entity would perhaps not be so normal.

Also, if that female philosopher had influence on his decision of Assisi meetings (in them selves great offenses to God), he may have had the excuse of an infatuated man following a bad idea from the woman he loved.

[In other words : his sin makes him too normal to be an apocalyptic beast]

Antipope Labor Solis indeed, male sunshine obfuscated by a female Moon ... if you get the symbolism.

But Pope or Saint, no.

Did Paul Nicholson answer in so many words? No.

Can the above words be construed as referring to me?

It is a coincidence that first source for them is found quoting them same day as I wrote the comments.

It is also a coincidence that some have tried to stamp me as a sodomite. Even if I have little direct evidence, I have very plentiful indirect such, like Muslims spitting when they approach me begging in the street or like that confessor of St Nicolas du Chardonnet who told me I had to make a resolution, but he would not tell me which one (could also have been another rumour).

But one sentiment I do agree with, basically : it is wrong to attack the hierarchy, at least unless it has attacked you first.

However, I consider neither Antipope Wojtyla nor Antipope Bergoglio as duly part of hierarchy. I consider one was and one is an excommunicate heretic.

And is this kind of attitude such an "attack on hierarchy" as Paul Nicholson is talking about?

No, if that hierarchy has friendly relations with people like Tony Palmer who implicitly attack the hierarchy of a very LONG past, by the fact of adhering to a schism rejecting it, how can such a hierarchy become so virulent about a Catholic (or at worst in their view a recent schismatic) for rejecting very recent parts of their "hierarcvhy"?

Most of the time, I am leaving presumed (even if wrongly so) hierarchs alone. I am dealing with subjects, like Creationism. Sometimes this is construed as implying a rejection of the recent "hierarchy", which I have actually also done recently, in favour of Pope Michael (with some reservations of prudence).

But my comment was not a virulent attack on Antipope Wojtyla as a person, after writing it I actually went over to the Dimond brothers in order to defend him from charge of being in Hell and of being "the first beast". Perhaps I was wrong to do so. Perhaps I should have attacked him with more virulence. Anyway, I did not.

It is a remarcable coincidence that:

  • Paul Nicholson makes a statement apparently general, but which can by some reading me be construed as implying I were a self loathing sodomite, which I am neither of;
  • Michael Voris "sets a good example" by coming out as an x-sodomite (which I cannot do, since I do not have that kind of past);
  • this is set in a setting where Michael Voris is said exercising "an apostolate" which I cannot in the proper sense be considered as doing, since having no missio apostolica for it;
  • but Apologetics is here equated with formal apostolate in such a manner as to necessitate morally a "coming clear".

If Chesterton had had the past of Oscar Wilde (which he hadn't), I don't see why he should have been morally obliged to divulge it.

Chesterton was not in the proper sense exercising an apostolate, he was not guiding souls to virtue, he was simply pointing to truth - which you have a right to do even if not an apostle. Perhaps some Anglican puritans did insist he should come clear of his past in mediums and such, which he did in Autobiography, but he did not foreword this with any remark of this being his intention.

At any rate, no Catholic superiors were openly demanding he did so, that I know of, and if anyone prompted it from that kind of perspective, he did so secretly - in a way suggesting that this mania for equating simple intellectual apologetics with an apostolate and cura animarum was an Anglican fad and stranger to the Catholic discipline. But one to which prudentially Chesterton might give a sop, at least if doing so in a way NOT suggesting he had any formal duty to do so.

I intended in 1988 to convert to the Catholic Church that Gilbert Keith Chesterton found. I found another and much colder one. That and neither vocation per se nor homosexual guilt per se, is the sad story why, unlike Chesterton, I am still unmarried decades after my conversion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Feast of St Mark, Gospeller
and Major Litanies


It may be a bit unclear also why a writer who "experiences self loathing" (if so doing) should for that reason be considered avoided reading.

I don't think the index congregation ever indexed a book as forbidden to ordinary Catholic readers just because its author expressed self loathing.

And I am of the at least vague impression that self loathing or sth like it was even recommended, like by Scupoli in The Spiritual Combat or by Our Lord in Sermon on the Mount.

This aversion to reading anyone expressing self loathing seems more Pharisaic than Christian./HGL

No comments:

Post a Comment