You are here

Conclaves, papal revolutionaries and weblogs

For some interesting discussions of the upcoming conclave see the pieces by “Sandro Magister,” an Italian journalist with a pen name, at www.chiesa. It appears from the April 7 and April 14 articles that a rather strong party, led by Ratzinger and other top cardinals, is proposing quite forcefully less outreach of the Assisi variety and a much stronger emphasis on Catholic distinctiveness and decisiveness, especially in opposition to secular modernity. We shall see.

UPDATE: So Ratzinger himself has been chosen as the revolutionary leader/sacrificial lamb. I was surprised. Quite possibly he was also surprised. A Catholic journalist, I forget who, saw him in St. Peter’s Square a day or two before the conclave and described him as “happy and relaxed,” which suggested to me he thought there would be someone good as pope but he wouldn’t have to step forward himself and maybe could go back to writing books about theology. As it was, I thought he looked rather ill as he was greeting the crowd as Benedict XVI, at least when he wasn’t directly facing the public. A German cardinal reported he was looking better by dinnertime, but he needs our prayers.



Greetings and blessings to new Pope. I will post something something on Ratzinger later. Reads Dominus Iesus Encyclica,in order to grasp ideas on the way these Papacy will be.

In Sandro Magister’s article of April 20, “Benedict XVI: The Pope and His Agenda”, in a later paragraph devoted to Humanae Vitae, the claim is made that “even at the summit of the Church’s leadership calm discussions have begun again about the prohibition of ‘Humanae Vitae’ as not definitive or rigid, but open to future corrections.” Magister writes this within the context of the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

I would have thought such a development unlikely.


Zmirak approves, calling the choice of Ratzinger “very good news indeed for those who treasure the heritage of the West.”

Long live Flanders!


I agree this was an excellent choice, and I have very high hopes he will lead the Church, as perhaps it has not been led since St. Peter, with his traditionalist and intellectual ideas. He hopefully will take on the hegemons intellectually and will make clear statements about specific evils without fear of stirring up a firestorm of intellectual debate, which we here would love to see.

Extremely unlikely.

North Africa, which is primarily Muslim and has strong social forces limiting promiscuity (especially female promiscuity), does not suffer from an AIDS crisis. I also seem to recall that Uganda also has little problem with AIDS, and this has been attributed to Christianity and its influence as a regulator of sexual behaviors.

If a society, or part of a society, is promiscuous or engages in random, repeated sexual encounters, is it likely in such a culture or subculture that the men will carry and use condoms as an act of responsibility and/or in respect for the women (or even themselves)?



Ad Jesum Per Mariam

October 23, 2005
23rd Sunday after Pentecost

Greetings in the Holy Spirit of Truth who enlightens all who desire to
know the truth and adhere to it!

Finally, by the grace of God, the compilation of the Catholic Tract: “101
Heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI” has been completed. The tract follows
the similar method employed by this same orthodox Catholic author in
exposing the infamous damned warlock and heresiarch Karl Wojtyla that was
published under the title “101 Heresies of Antipope John Paul II”:

Nevertheless, it can never be forgotten that these errors are certainly
condemned forever under divine anathema since they are contrary to that
apostolic and divine doctrine once preached and received in sacred
tradition (cf. Galatians 1: 8). Hence, anyone ascribing to these errors is
not Catholic nor has the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. For, as Leo
X infallibly declared:

“And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement
contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we
strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all
those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies
which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as
detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the
catholic faith.” (Pope Leo X, Bull Apostolici Regiminis, 19 December 1513,
with the submission of the Fifth Lateran General Council, Session VIII,
Tanner, Norman P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London:
Sheed & Ward, 1990), Volume 1, pp. 605-606).

Thus through the syllabus that we have painstakingly compiled with all the
necessary scholarship and documentation concerning true Catholic doctrine
and the misfortunate heretical tenets of Joseph Ratzinger, anyone with
right reason will clearly see that such a man is not the legitimate
successor of St. Peter, but an usurper of the Apostolic Chair, an
antipope, and a heresiarch of the Modernist Sect.

We sincerely pray that Joseph Ratzinger and his Modernist sectarians will
realize their heresies, abjure, do public penance, and make amends to all
the damnable evils they have caused. For the Lord of Mercies will not turn
away from a true contrite heart proven by unwavering orthodoxy and the
zeal to do His Will in all moral acts. We also pray for Divine Providence
to more abundantly aid the Church Militant in fulfilling their Christian
duties during this unprecedented persecution of the Apostolic See, which
has remained publicly vacant (Sede Vacante) since the death of His
Holiness, Pope Pius XII in October of 1958. For the great majority of
so-called “Catholics” are in communion with this Great Apostasy of
Modernism, and for this they have all incurred the divine anathema from
Almighty God and His Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

The following hyperlink will direct you to my web site wherein the online
text of the “101 Heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI” has been publicized
for the Greater Glory of God and the salvation of souls:

In conclusion, we must bear in mind the declaration of Pope St. Martin I
at the Lateran Council held in Rome concerning the duty of all to declare
the perpetual divine anathema to any innovator of divine dogmas and sacred

“If anyone according to the wicked heretics in any manner whatsoever, by
any word whatsoever, or at any time or place whatsoever illicitly removing
the bounds which the holy Fathers of the Catholic Church have rather
firmly established (Prov. 22:28), that is, the five holy and universal
Synods, in order rashly to seek for novelties and expositions of another
faith; or books, or letters, or writings, or subscriptions, or false
testimonies, or synods, or records of deeds, or vain ordinations unknown
to ecclesiastical rule; or unsuitable and irrational tenures of place; and
briefly, if it is customary for the most impious heretics to do anything
else, (if anyone) through diabolical operation crookedly and cunningly
acts contrary to the pious preachings of the orthodox (teachers) of the
Catholic Church, that is to say, its paternal and synodal proclamations,
to the destruction of the most sincere confession of the Lord our God, and
persists without repentance until the end impiously doing these things,
let such a person be condemned forever, and let all the people say: so be
it, so be it [Psalms 105:48].” (Pope St. Martin I, The Lateran Council,
649, Canon 20, Denzinger, Rev. Henry (ed.), Enchiridion symbolorum,
definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, (Barcelona:
Editorial Herder, 27th ed., 1951), n. 274. )

We pray that this tract will invigorate souls unto the conversion to the
Holy Will of God, which they may ever follow unto their eternal salvation.
We ask that each one of you pass this letter and link along to as many
souls in need of this firm testimony of Catholic Truth, outside of which
no one is able to attain eternal salvation nor the remission of sins.
Finally, may Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary help spread these saving
truths expounded in the Catholic Tract, so that She may rightly
exterminate all these heresies of the Modernists, as She is the Immaculate
Crusher of All Heresies and the Mediatrix of All Graces. This we pray.
Amen. So Be It. God Alone!

I remain sincerely yours in Jesus Christ Crucified,

Patrick John Pollock

No an authorized theologian. Why to trust the opinion from an obscure blogger,when every catholic blog was babbling on the possibility a liberal Clintonlike can be get elected Pope.
Even some was discussing, as Latin American Cardinals can be blamed on this tragedy if it was to happen.
Reads instead official materials,with Ecclesiastical Imprimatur,some here…
A Cardinal famous by forbide to priests to give advice on Life Issues to teenagers in public offices,only because German Laws signals it must to be teached abortion is a legal option in these cases,no is credible to be transformed now as Pope,in a supporter of Libertinage.
Consider who is his right-hand,reads his documents,search in Ecclesiastical papers.

On the face of it there could be some fine-tuning. Condoms wouldn’t act as a contraceptive in the case of most acts that transmit AIDS in this country. And in the case of normal sexual relations I’m not sure use of a condom would make fornication worse since the true mutual self-giving that I think the late Pope said was the key to sexual morality isn’t there anyway. Even within marriage when one party is infected one might argue that contraception should be treated as a permissible side effect of condom use under a double effect theory although the argument seems doubtful.

Maybe the basic issue overall is whether it’s a good idea to have a public program telling people how to do bad acts in a technically more correct way. Would the enlightened for example favor classes in condom use for convicted serial rapists and child molesters who have served their terms and are about to be released from prison? “Abstinence is best, of course, but if you’re going to do it here’s how to do it safely etc.”

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I agree that the double-effect argument is doubtful. In double-effect a neutral act is performed which has an intended good effect and an unintended bad effect. But a contracepted sex act is not a neutral act; it is an intrinsically evil act. And as I discuss at my blog, something is not “unintended” just because one wishes it were not the case but does it anyway.

…in the case of normal sexual relations I’m not sure use of a condom would make fornication worse since the true mutual self-giving that I think the late Pope said was the key to sexual morality isn’t there anyway.

Casti Connubi, as I recall, says that any act (call it act A) performed prior, during, or after intercourse (call it act B) intended to deliberately frustrate the fertility of that intercourse is in itself an evil act. So fornication and contraception are morally distinct acts, each act in and of itself evil. Just because I murdered a man that doesn’t make it OK to steal his money, even if I intend to give that money to the poor.

P.S. Comments that are editable by the commenter are awesome!

He is Bavarian,very hard against New Age and Meditation(SEARCH FOR ARTICLES IN STERN MAGAZINE). He is TradCon in German sense.

He is Venezuelan,but Government tries to block him…

Religion is a celebration of Mysterium,according him. Reads his famous dialogue with Umberto Eco.

I just heard Roger Hedgecock (substituting today as host of the Rush Limbaugh radio show) say he expects us to have a pope either today or tomorrow. He said Ratzinger was the current favorite, and his analysis (Hegdecock said he himself was Catholic, btw) was that Ratzinger, “viewed as a conservative,” is the preferred candidate of the Asian, Black-African, and to some extent Latin-American cardinals who, he said, are on average a force against modernism in the Church, unlike the European, North-American, and Anglosphere influences. Thus, he said, the Asian, African, and to some extent Latin-American influences on the Church tend to go against homosexualism, against one-worldism, and against the sort of policies commonly thought of as being favored by, for example, the WTO (exporting jobs in the name of greater profits and efficiency in disregard of domestic social disruptions, etc.). Hedgecock, who is known to be a very strong opponent of the Bush open-borders policy (and, as the former mayor of San Diego, he’s in a good position to know what he’s talking about on that score), didn’t mention what the prospects would be in regard to the Catholic Church’s stance on excessive incompatible immigration should Ratzinger be chosen. Nevertheless, on the basis of the other things he said, I’m somewhat optimistic. Ratzinger obviously looks like a good choice but I put it in quotes, above, that he was viewed as a conservative—remember they said exactly the same thing about Bush as president (about both Bushes, actually), Arnold Schwartzenegger as Governor, Ross Perot as two-time presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich as Speaker, this man Stephen Harper in Canada as head of the right wing, and David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor as Supreme Court Justices, all supposedly “conservatives,” and look what we ended up with in all those cases—a non-conservative. So, we won’t know until the man is in office.

(Hey, too bad there isn’t there a Slovak cardinal in the running! After seeing the moral strength and clear thinking of some of those folks recently, at least we’d know we’d be getting a genuine conservative!)

Long live Flanders!


He is Bavarian;reads my post,nobase your opinions on secular media. Proves to reads ecclesiastical media/books,respond my e-mail;if hierarchy led by God/according to catholic doctrines/ don`t have similar opinions as minority catholic paleoconin America,it proves:a)The minority is wrong.
b)the hierarchy is no led by God,and it`s time to change to another denomination.
C)The issue concerning,and worrying catholics paleocon is no spiritual,and God himself is no concerned with it-immigration,lunar design architecture,neo-Victorianism,etc.-because it Holy Spirit no led to leaders to knos the truth on it;as was promised in Sacred Scriptures.

Andre writes (4/18, 3:03pm) (I’ve smoothened out his English a bit—I hope I’m getting it right),

“If the Catholic Church hierarchy—which is led by God, according to Catholic doctrine—doesn’t hold opinions similar to the minority of American Catholics who are paleocons, that proves one of the following:


“a) The minority is wrong, or

“b) The Catholic Church hierarchy isn’t led by God and it’s time to change to another denomination, or

“c) The issues that have Catholic paleocons concerned and worried—immigration, lunar-design architecture, neo-Victorianism, etc.—aren’t spiritual, and God himself isn’t concerned about them, because the Holy Spirit hasn’t led Church leaders to know the truth about them, as was promised in Sacred Scriptures.”

Andre, you may be assuming that concerns voiced at Turnabout by Jim Kalb and/or certain reader-commenters (in regard to, as you put it, “immigration, lunar-design architecture, neo-Victorianism, etc.”) are issues Catholic paleocons in general are concerned about. As for my own interest in immigration (I’d say I’m the one most concerned about that particular subject among all Turnabout readers who post comments), that’s not typical of paleocon Catholics, I don’t think (furthermore, I’m not a typical Catholic). Catholic paleocon John O’Sullivan is interested in it, for example, but Catholic paleocons Joe Sobran and William F. Buckley, Jr., aren’t especially. I would say someone like Jeff Culbreath (who blogs at El Camino Real and Hallowed Ground) is way more typical of traditional paleocon Catholics in not being especially interested in the subject of immigration (I hope I’m not misrepresenting Jeff here). Similar things can be said about lunar-design architecture and neo-Victorian values: that these have been broached at Turnabout doesn’t necessarily mean there’s lots of interest in them among paleocon Catholics.

That said, you bring up a valid point which I’m not sure how to answer: What does someone do who disagrees with official policies of the Church he belongs to? If I’m convinced the Catholic Church is wrong about immigration, what should I do? Should I leave Catholicism?

First, I’d try to get the Catholic hierarchy interested in it. I’ve posted comments at Turnabout and elsewhere calling on the Catholic hierarchy to explicitly affirm (or, if it’s already been affirmed somewhere in Catholic doctrine, to re-affirm it in a public way) the right of Catholics to support reasonable, humane measures aimed at preserving their communities’ and nations’ traditional racial and ethnocultural identities. (Not all Catholics will want to do that of course, but those who will will understand they have the perfect right to, under Catholicism, and no one can call them un-Christian or un-Catholic for wanting to. That’s what I’m getting at—so people don’t vote against it in the voting booth or act against it in politics for the reason they think Catholicism requires that. I don’t believe it requires it at all. The reason this principle isn’t what leftists mean by their Marxist term “racist” is that the identical principle applies to all races and ethnocultures: it’s OK, according to this principle, for all of them to seek to preserve their distinct racial and ethnocultural identities provided they go about it in reasonable, humane ways.) I don’t know what I’d do if the Catholic hierarchy did something starkly against this principle, such as explicitly deny its legitimacy. I imagine at some point I might have to seriously consider rejecting Catholicism. I repeat, however, that relatively few paleocon Catholics are interested in immigration—or, in any case, certainly not to the extent I am.

Long live Flanders!


You are Turnabouter more near to me.
I endorse your stand anti-immigrants;you understand my broken English,thanks to God because it.
My concern here is,you in Turnabout are very hard against some people loved by me and another normal people-by the way I endorse your preference toward this word,this is Biblically based-,by certain minor defects.
By example,Will considers to Hero Lech Walesa to be two cents value,it is very irritating;while stand indifferent to very obvious excesses from Queen. I think somebody risking his life under Communism is worthy to be respected as an influential leader.
In similar ways,remember your attacks on Kerry as communist and as it was discussed here.
Particular concerns from white -conservative- catholic(a minority in a minority in a minority ) can’t be the guide in order to judge life,work and ministry from nobody.
Reads again my post,Ratzinger is a Bavarian-you know what it meabs for immigration concerned people?-. Reads HIS works;no Chronicles or The American Conservative,or National Review or Time Or Pravda,or Seventeen or similar Liberal,Conservatives in Name Only,Christians in Name Only Magazines in order to know and understand his mindset.
Dominus Iesus Encyclica,declarations Rason Et Fides,on New Age,etc.
Lord bless you and your family.

He is considerated a candidate by Ratzinger and Martini themselves.