Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke Rebukes Feminization Of Catholic Church

I recently came across an interview with Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke about how the Catholic Church’s focus (or obsession) on women has neglected the important role of masculinity. Keeping in mind the irony of noting the words of a cardinal to help describe the problems that men face today, here’s what Burke had to say:

All children need fathers

A child’s relationship with their father is key to a child’s self‑identification, which takes places when we are growing up. We need that very close and affirming relationship with the mother, but at the same time, it is the relationship with the father, which is of its nature more distant but not less loving, which disciplines our lives. It teaches a child to lead a selfless life, ready to embrace whatever sacrifices are necessary to be true to God and to one another.

Feminism has scared men from marriage

I recall in the mid-1970’s, young men telling me that they were, in a certain way, frightened by marriage because of the radicalizing and self-focused attitudes of women that were emerging at that time. These young men were concerned that entering a marriage would simply not work because of a constant and insistent demanding of rights for women. These divisions between women and men have gotten worse since then.

Sex is but one of several shallow means of entertainment

The gift of human sexuality is turned into a means of self‑gratification often at the expense of another person, whether in heterosexual relations or in homosexual relations. A man who has not been formed with a proper identity as a man and as a father figure will ultimately become very unhappy. These poorly formed men become addicted to pornography, sexual promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, and the whole gamut of addictions.

A boy can not gain manly virtue without a father

Families should have at least one meal together each week where the whole family is together. A boy or young man is unlikely to build proper manly identity and the manly virtues unless he lives with a father and mother, where he can witness that unique and complementary interaction between the male and the female in a home life in which human life can be welcomed, nurtured and developed.

The church has become overly feminized

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out.

More people are realizing the brokenness of the West

The culture in which we live is bankrupt and young men, especially, recognize the brokenness of the culture. Young men and young women want to hear words that are directed specifically to them to use their virtues and gifts for the good of everyone.

You cannot choose your own sexual identity

Fathers and mothers are wonderful gifts that are given to us by God.

So too is the beautiful gift of our human sexuality as God intended it, not as, sadly, the many sick abuses of the gift of sexuality that are occurring in the world today. The dark confusion of gender theory deceives people into thinking that they can create their own sexual identities based on urges and emotions. We are so blessed God gave us this gift of being a man or being a woman. It’s a matter of us to respond to God’s will to develop our gifts of being a man or woman.

You can read the entire interview here.

While I agree with the above excerpts in spirit, a man who listens to the cardinal would get eaten alive by a modern woman, even a modern Christian women, who will likely get bored and take away his children. Encouraging masculinity in men will have little cultural effect unless we also encourage femininity in women.

The cardinal’s words do seem at odds with Pope Francis’s recent positive statements on homosexuality, causing us to wonder if there a rift is brewing in the church. Perhaps ROK’s resident monk can shed light on this issue.

Read Next: A Dialogue With A Pious Monk

182 thoughts on “Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke Rebukes Feminization Of Catholic Church”

  1. The Catholic Church cardinals must have read manosphere blogs and sites like this one here and others to say those things! Or maybe they read some recent statistics.

    1. Or maybe the recent feminization and castration of Western Catholics is a historical anomaly and the Manosphere will ultimately be helpless without a restoration of the Western Church. Just as Europe won’t be saved from Islam without returning to Christianity, the Western male won’t be revived without returning to the Church.

      1. I agree and besides, the church has always been a male-governed institution for everybody, but in recent times it is for females. It may be time to change that.

    2. it’s all about marketing and with attendances flagging and the odd pedophile priest scandal / coverup… they’ll do anything to get bums on seats at church…..women and homos are the best chance for that…. not much difference in the political arena….. the article is great, but the church is already obsolete…. as are the cardinal’s opinions, the mainstream media will burn him at the stake like a witch….

      1. Why would women volunteer to support Catholicism?
        I guess I can think of two reasons…
        1) The religious brand Catholicism will bend to whatever women want in order to maintain/increase its profits.
        2) Modern Catholicism plays into the idealistic minds of betas, who then believe that monogamy is actually a thing in the modern world. In this way, modern Catholicism provides women with hordes of beta bux… Also, if the women attend mass, their betas will attend mass as well.

        1. Is that the same reasoning you use to explain the many Western women converting to Islam?

        2. I have a Catholic background so I have more insight into that state of affairs.
          My off-the-cuff thoughts on why women turn to Islam is that they are attracted to Patriarchy. Muslims where I live have long ranging meaningful family connections (more than Catholics now IMO) and belief in their way of life.
          Compared to the average western dude who is struggling to get footing in this world Muslims take care of their own and they institute a degree of gender roles. Their men appear as more masculine and powerful even if only through the social institutions they maintain within their large and traditional communities.
          Westerners and their way of life have already been absolutely corrupted by the modern consumerist way of life. I predict that either immigrant Muslims will ignore and gradually redefine the predominant culture, or they will be assimilated and suffer the same fate as the groups that lived in the west before them.

  2. This is very much in line with what the Catholic church has always been about. The monstrous disaster that was the Second Vatican Council opened the church’s gates to all sorts of leftist nonsense and it lost more than a fourth of its followers. Only now they are beginning to acknowledge the enormity of that mistake. And as it is so often the case, the problems are not solved by those who created them, nor by those who got used to them, but by newer generations who have had enough of this Gramscian charade.
    In recent years I’ve seen numerous examples of ‘course corrections’ inside the church. It’ll take time, and they know it.

      1. I simply got paid $13000 Working off my laptop computer this month.& I just purchased Porsche 911 after it – 4 weeks past and-in excess of, $13,000 this past-month . without a question it is my favourite job I have ever had . I actually started 6 months ago and immediately started earning over $82, per-hour .
        Learn More here=,
        ☛☛☛{={ why not check here ITS PROOF PAGE–>

    1. The disastrous policies championed by Karol Wojtyla greatly damaged the church. He was a neo-liberal, proselytist politician, not a man of god.
      The church has survived worse challenges, and may be one of the few institutions which, hopefully, may help to avert the cultural collapse currently happening.

    2. I can’t praise this enough. I’m an older hand here and I remember in my childhood the pre Vatican 2 Church and to say I miss it would be an understatement.

  3. From the article: “While it is important to find ways to welcome gay Catholics, gay marriage is still not on the church’s agenda, Francis said.”
    The Pope doesn’t condone sodomy. Never has. To prove otherwise will require clear citation, especially in light of his past remarks to the contrary (e.g., calling same-sex unions satanic).
    You’re right to say there’s tension in the Church. Cardinal Burke, a favorite of traditional Catholics, was recently demoted by Francis.

    1. Demoted? To where, double or triple A? Didnt know that was possible.
      I guess hes not Jesuit then?

        1. you know how hard it is to make the pivot to steal a base in those long robes? 🙂

        2. The patron saint of the gratuitous stolen base- Rickey Henderson….he’ll get in eventually.

    2. I’m not convinced he was demoted, He seems to have more influence now.
      I’ve read all the media’s claims about this new pope, but in the background I see him finding any reason possible to remove homosexual priests from service.
      For in stance, in Philly 5 priests were defrocked on one day They only gave details in the non gay priests case giving shield to the removal of the four perverts.
      I’m hoping this means we have a media savvy Pope who knows how to work the secular media biases to his advantage.

    1. Someone told me once how excomunion works. If someone challenges fundamental truths of the faith, his reasons are analyzed by experts in the faith. If they conclude he is wrong, he is then told so and asked to stop. If he refuses and insists in challenging these truths, then he may be excommunicated as last resort. But this cardinal has not challenged any fundamental truth of the faith (like the divinity of Christ, for example), so no need to worry about excommunions.

      1. That is not how it works in the Roman Catholics anymore .
        Once someo ne declares a contrary belief in core Christian beliefs, they are excommunicated . No trial necessary. They excommunicate themselves, which means they can not truly take Communion with the church until they come inline with it.

    2. He ordained a trannie as a nun. He may be too conservative for the Marxist in Chief’s taste, but he ain’t going anywhere.

      1. According to that article “Sister Julie Green in no way espouses a sex change operation as right or good”. One key point in christian doctrine is that absolutely no one is past redemption if they repent sincerily about something wrong they have done. So even if you changed your sex, if you repent from having done so, you can be close to God.

  4. “The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course.”
    So wonderful that …..
    “The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved”
    Subtext: the catholic church is being overrun by zombie nuns

        1. I do not think that the sentences “activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women” has any relation to nuns, unless I am missing what you actually mean with “zombie nuns”.

        2. Probably self-appointed feminist ‘spokespeople for the church’, with neither the authority nor the knowledge to be such a mouthpiece.

        3. its was a throwaway comment more about teasing out the cardinal’s feelings about the feminist takeover of the church than about nuns per se (although technically you could be guilty of white knighting nuns!)

  5. “Encouraging masculinity in men will have little cultural effect unless we also encourage femininity in women.”
    I realize that is outside the scope of ROK and for a good reason, but I think if red pill is to replace feminism as the dominant ideology, eventually there will have to be a greater context for women within it.

    1. they now enjoy radical freedom, and are currently on the temporary high that accompanies the ‘freedom from’ being expected to do x y z (i.e. oppressive gender roles). Once the burden of that freedom hits them, they will be facded with the opportunity to choose whether to be men or women. They will do so I imagine on the basis of whether they think they look better wearing a skirt or as at present wearing a pair of trousers that extends almost up to the neck.
      In trousers they look ridiculous. It may still fall to us to persuade them that they can still look beautiful. But we too must be convinced that that is possible

      1. Why does everyone assume we have to ‘convince them’, or ‘change their attitudes’, or ‘encourage them’, or even ‘persuade them’?
        That DOES NOT WORK. women do not do the right thing ‘naturally’. They cannot behave ‘logically’ on their own, even with full knowledge.
        There’s a reason why women crave domination. They cannot behave rationally without being forced. They despise men who refuse to force them, and even the basic tenets of game recognize the fact that women want to feel like they have no choice… they want to be dominated, overwhelmed, seduced, made to feel like property and thus have value.
        Fuck persuasion. Women always win at persuasion, and hurt themselves through winning. Men do or you do not, there is no persuasion.
        Any whining a woman does about being treated as property, or ‘objectifying’ them, stems not from the fact that they are treated like property, but because the individual doing the whining doesn’t feel like her price is high enough.
        ‘objectifying hot models’ is code for “It’s not fair that she’s worth more than me”. Women fall naturally and easily into being property, and their entire world view is dominated by their perceived price.

        1. I learned from ROK not to debate with feminists and for that matter women for the most part, not least because they have a somewhat different evaluative apparatus to us. But how can we not try to influence or persuade – even if indirect persuasion is more persuasive that a frontal onslaught.
          As for women craving domination. Yes, but they’re also at war with themselves over this. Its like when feminists say “yes, women might fantasise about being raped but they’re in control of the fantasy’.

        2. So the argument you can make then is that it’s not women who have changed, it’s men. Women, we can say, have been the way they are for thousands of years and the women are they way they are now because men have changed.

        3. The more you try and persuade a women, the less persuaded she’ll be. Just saying…
          Women want to generally live in the moment/now and are thus only interested in immediate consequences. And if you can’t provide that without any hesitation, then that’s no good.

        4. that’s why I stressed indirect persuasion. Perhaps influence would be a better word. I’ve learned the hard way that you can’t argue a point with women, and certainly not with regard to issues relating to sex. On the other hand seduction is complex. They are often extremely taken by high-falutin airy fairy ideas and always want to believe in something. The best persuasion may well be to give them that

        5. That’s generally my point of view, yes. Women have not changed in any way shape or form, it’s was the failures of men to keep them under control.
          Honestly, ANY man can dominate ANY woman… there are a very few minor exceptions, but in general we are faster, stronger, tougher, smarter, more agile, have better responses, better reasoning ability, and in all ways are simply better and more capable creatures than they are. Dominating them is a genetic given.
          Add that into the fact that women crave domination (See the popularity of bodice-ripper romances, 50 shades of grey, anne rice/rampling, and billions of other examples), are terrible at running their own lives without men, and are more-or less incapable of taking care of others without a male presence (and often not even themselves).
          So clearly, Women not only didn’t ‘win the war of the sexes’, they couldn’t even have CONCEIVED a war of the sexes without men guiding them, giving in to their whims, pushing them to buck off their instinctive submission, organizing them, and lastly ALLOWING them to become dominant.
          Admittedly, those men may have had other goals in mind… putting women on juries, putting financial control into female hands because they are more impulsive buyers, ‘wrecking the family’ through no-fault divorce and abortion to bring better control to government sponsored education/propaganda, and whatever.
          It’s not even a real conspiracy. It’s a bunch of men, one after another, in positions of power, that have allowed themselves to be led by their dicks or greed instead of common sense.
          Men that have failed shit tests spectacularly, men who earnestly believe that women need to be protected from their own folly, or who are so desperate to get laid that they will do anything for a woman, no matter how stupid or horrible it is for other women and men long-term.
          It is the wealthy elite diving so far into their worlds of financial intrigue that they stupidly allow their women to run their lives, and use their power for stupid things.
          It is the mistaken assumption that ‘a woman should be able to lead as well as a man’, ignoring all of the retarded new rules that a woman puts into place that MEN then enforce, rules that impede productivity to the point where yes, men and women DO perform similarly… but only because the men have to work with both hands and a foot tied behind their necks.
          It is men buying votes from women by catering to their short-sighted clamoring for instant gratification.
          Every bit of feminism, in the end, is the fault of the men that were weak enough to allow it to happen, or the men that enforce, with violence, the epically stupid rules that the weak men have allowed women to put into place to ‘placate’ instead of ‘dominate’.

      2. Actually they already do that.
        The “tomboy thing” that a lot of little girls do seems to end around when puberty hits. Why? Because that’s where the survival wiring of being like a boy falls to the wayside and yields to the “power” of being a woman, the power over men they have.
        So they go from wresting with the boys to having the boys wrestle each other over them.
        If they come into a second chance to make that decision again, it’s predictable. The Goodwill is going to have endless racks of used pantsuits.

        1. feminism is also a second chance to be a child-like tom-boy, and indeed corresponds neatly with the idea that such behaviour reflects a failure to understand the real power they have over men. Feminism has sold many immature women a facsimile of power. And some point they will realise that and then as you say we will have a problem with a lot of unwanted pantsuits. (I’m sure Hillary will never get rid of hers though)

    2. The first dose of “red pill for women” would be to get men to live by one rule:
      “If she won’t give you her best years then you don’t have to be there for her worst”.
      And then at the same time, make sure women know this rule and that men are going to be adhering to it.
      Most of what feminism is sold on is this kind of empowerement from their writings to the TV shows that teaches them they can “have it all” which means be an “empowered” office troll in her twenties sucking cocks by the bag with men wrapped around her little finger and then shift a gear and it’s Mr. Right with a house and kinds and white picket fence (while she gets fat and is accepted the way she is).
      For women to be shown that this is bunk, that life’s decisions have consequences, would be a dose of red pill for them.

  6. No need to welcome gay Catholics into the congregations; all the homos are already in the clergy.
    N.B. It’s “Suffer the little children” not “Make the little children suffer….”

    1. By itself, “being gay” is not a sin. It is performing gay activites that is a sin. If you are gay and you acknowledge the gay life style is wrong, and you stay away from it, then there is absolutely nothing to object to you.
      The problem are the gays that not only fully embrace their sinful urges, but also try to persuade everyone else that their abhorrent lifestyle is perfectly normal and acceptable instead of a sin that you should try to avoid.

        1. It think it is more like asking water to stay in the jar instead of spilling around and splashing everyhere. I admit that being a chaste gay must be difficult, quite the bumpy road, but if you sincerely apology to God for your sins and you do your best not to sin again, then you are back in the road for saintdom. I am sure there are plenty of recognized saints who were gays. You just will never know which ones, because they were not marching around the gay pride parade like other unrepentant degenerates do.

      1. “Being gay” doesn’t mean shit. Stop spreading homosexualist propaganda, purposely or not.
        It’s as absurd as “being an alcoholic” without “alcoholic activites”.
        Or “being a killer” without killing.
        This is the core of their propaganda system, and yet even the catholics belive in it now.

        1. If you like, we can say “having gay tendencies” instead of “being gay”, so someone with gay tendencies would not be gay until he actually does something gay? But even if he does something gay, if he repents from it, the Church has to accept him back, because forgeviness is the base of the Church. So what would he be, someone who was gay, but now he is not, until he falls into temptation and becomes gay again? Sounds kinda confusing.

        2. No, the church is based on ‘relieving guilt’.
          It has amazing therapeutic effects. I think the elimination of confession/contrition is the greatest failure of all protestant-originated faiths.

        3. Look, we all have some “tendancies” of all kind.
          You’ve probably already think about killing someone you hated and never acted on it, or trying some drugs, and never done it.
          I just wanted to point out that the reasoning you use find its roots in the anti-psychiatry homosexualist propaganda of the 80s, and I think it’s sad that everyone adopted it.
          Just wanted to tell you about that precise point because as a catholic you could use it to defend your ideals.
          I’m not a believer, so I don’t care what happens inside the catholic church.
          Once you get educated about their lies, the SJW are really easy to defat.

        4. Boning has great therapeutic effects. Unhappily, most Christian variants seem to be dead set against it…with the exception of pederast priests.
          It would be the central pillar (pun intended) of the Church of Mistral. “Come here, young lady, so my rod might comfort thee…..”

      2. actually, according to catholic doctrine, being gay IS in fact a sin. sin of thought. It’s like deciding to go to a prostitute but changing your mind at the last moment… the sin was committed the moment you decided to commit it. Not the moment you succeeded.

        1. According to that, if you are married and look at a woman, if you find her attractive, you would be committing a sin of thought. I do not really think it works the way you are explaning here. I am married and I still find other women attractive. I just try to avoid imagining myself banging them silly. Of course if i try to cheat on my wife and fail, that is a sin too, even if I did not manage to perform the deed, either because I was rejected or because I changed my mind at the last moment.

        2. If you look at another woman and find them sexually attractive, then you ARE in fact committing a sin of ‘lewd thoughts’ . I am sorry that you do not understand Catholicism, but that is the way it has always worked.
          That is why ‘confession’ was invented. You commit a sin, admit it, get it out of the way and move on.
          Frankly, confession has proven in times past to be a thousand times more effective than the entire field of psychology. and giving someone something tangible to ‘feel bad about’ and then a way to get it off their chest has amazing cathartic effects.

        3. I went to a school with religious formation and they never told me that liking women was wrong. It was the fact of having “bad thoughts” about a woman and “recreating in these thoughts” (not sure how to say it exactly in english) instead of discarding them and thinking about something else that was a wrong. Actually, one of my tutors (who was not a priest, but seemed quite knowledgeable about these subjects) even said that it is normal that in a moment of weakness you feel attracted for someone of the same sex, because “flesh attracts flesh”, or something like that, but as long as you remain vigilant against these thoughts and discard them, you should be ok. That is why I have this idea that gay people can still be chaste and dont fall into sin.
          Anyway, I guess I will have to talk to my confessor next time I see him and ask further clarification on the issue, thank you so much for your kind intentions to guide me in this matter.

        4. was it ‘religious’, or was it ‘catholic’?
          There’s a huge difference between protestant definitions of sin and catholic definitions.
          And having ‘impure thoughts’ IS okay.. as long as you don’t dwell on them, and take them to the confessional.

        5. It was a school with priest and teachers from Opus Dei, so I am assuming their definitions of sin were more catholic oriented. Also, if a gay person has “impure thougths” about men, but does not dwell nor act on them, he would technically be in the same position as us heterosexual men who do the same about women?

        6. Why should anyone have to “confess” that they want to bone women? It’s perfectly natural, not some silly “sin” by the warped believers in some silly Invisible Sky Wizard who, even if he did exist, would not give a toss about what consenting adults do with their spare time…..

        7. Spoken like a true leftist, Mistral, I am surprised at you.
          I think maybe you should take the same route in religious exploration I did… I too used to think of the religious in George Carlin terms, but then I started asking myself what purpose religion served.
          Once you do some historical research into what Galileo was REALLY like, what the crusades were REALLY about, the reality behind the spanish inquisition, and what the world is like WITHOUT supreme authorities paying lip service to a deity.
          It helps to think of the well-known ‘atheistic’ governments, ie Mao’s china, Hitler’s Germany, and Stalin and Lenin’s Russia.

        8. Absolutely. historically, men who had no interest in women and impure thoughts about men often joined the priesthood… not in order to turn it into a hotbed of homosexuality, but in order to be able to control their urges, confess their sins and be shriven quickly and not allow themselves to be distracted by the festering sickness of impure thought.
          Much like many psychologists chose the field to get to the root of their problems, many priests chose the life in order to address their urges directly.

        9. There is nothing more blue pill than living in fear of offending some Invisible, Wish-Granting Sky Wizard if you (a) get laid, (b) think perfectly natural thoughts about attractive, fertile, young women, (c) eat meat on Fridays, (d) don’t do whatever the pederast in the black cassock commands or (e) eat oysters.
          If one wants to be religious b/c one fears that the lack of social control will lead to communism or Nazism, then why not pick a better religion than the Abrahamic ones? Look at the fucktards in the Middle East. These are the MFers who created the socio-religious structure that you want to bow down before. Think about how fucked up they are *now* and you want to be governed by what they came up with 2000 years ago when they were even crazier.
          I greatly prefer the Church of Mistral, which involves good food, good wine, and lots of sex….no stoning, no sneaking around hiding shit, no death camps, no shaming for perfectly natural impulses, etc.
          If you have to pick a modern one, at least when the Dali Lama say, “My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.” it at least makes sense.

        10. “That is why ‘confession’ was invented. You commit a sin, admit it, get it out of the way and move on.” Is that biblical? Why do you need an intermediary to confess your sins? It’s not like God can’t hear you without a middleman.

      3. Homosexuality is a sin? People are still using the word ‘sin’ with a serious face?

        1. Actually, yes, they do, and a twelve second google search would show you, but I am not going to waste my time explaining it to a hand-flapping retard.

        2. But nobody has taken this magical nonsense seriously since the turn of the twentiefth century surely? I mean, are you joking or just an American?
          The rest of Western culture isn’t living in 1115.

        3. Trolling: making statements designed to provoke an emotional or aggressive response in others to gratify your ego, without having an actual stance or position on the subject.
          In point of fact, your statement “neither of them mean anything in reality.” is clearly and factually false. they have very clear definitions in the english language.
          How about you state your position, instead of simply trolling?

        4. Well I’m not used to this, it being 2015 an all. Ok, though. By ‘reality’ I mean an existence outside of the text they feature in.
          So we can say Huckleberry Finn exists within the fiction of Mark Twain, but not within reality.
          If a book mentioned the Pacific Ocean, then that DOES exist within reality.
          That was the definition I was using.

      4. To each its own, Muslims and Hindus believe eating certain food is a sin, no much different from a religion who believes loving a certain sex is a sin. Actually abstain yourself from eating a food is easier than demand to stop LOVING, try to tell a straight guy to stop feeling love for women, to see how it feels.

        1. if you’re a proud feminist girl you should correct your avatar. It should be Yin only

        2. When you look at most ‘religious laws’ from a secular point of view, It has to do with health and safety.
          Eating pork without practicing safe methodology is dangerous, and a lot of people still do not understand how to handle pork safely. Thus a sin.
          Assfucking without proper safety precautions causes plague. and faggots apparently don’t know how to assfuck safely. and of those who do, apparently they often assfuck and straight fuck those who do not. Thus sin.
          Basically what it boils down to is that it only takes a few stupid people to cause a plague (Think HIV) Thus, anyone that is a plague carrier because they are stupid and risky is a sinner. Frankly, I think that anyone that willingly flirts with plague IS a criminal… and if it takes killing faggots to free our species of threats of plague, kill ’em.
          And if you do not understand exactly how dangerous the sexual practices of homosexual males as a community are, you seriously need to educate yourself. Their sexual mores are not ‘just like straight people’.

        3. I think you mean “lust” not “love”, and they do actually try to do that. It’s a mistake….

        4. Homosexuality has nothing to do with love. Love is not sexual desire, Sexual desires, especially peverted ones, are not love.

  7. Many of the bishops are not pleased with Pope Francis’ pro liberal stance, and some have called it an empty seat in the papacy in some Latin term i cannot remember. Some believe that he may be the Anti-Pope that aligns with the world leader later revealed to be the Antichrist. I personally believe that claim. There are certain statutes of the faith that cannot be deviated, lest they be heretics themselves. With this new Pope, they are going to open the floodgates for any sexual deviant to enter the faith with open arms and endorsement.
    The Cardinal starts key facts in the decline of marriage and the equal decline of masculinity. It’s no surprise there it’s a drop in marriages. Would any sane man willingly walk into his own financial death because the laws in the United States are so skewed and fucked up that there would be absolutely no benefit from marrying anyone in this country.

    1. The doctrine of papal infallibility means that, if Frank is wrong, it is clear that he is NOT the pope.
      Directly contradicting Catholic doctrine, laid down by other popes (under papal infallibility) simply proves it. The papal throne IS empty.

      1. He solemnly canonized the Koran-kisser John Paul II as a “saint”. There’s your proof right there. Even if JP2 did escape hell (which I doubt), those in purgatory are ineligible for sainthood.

        1. So you think you are more suited to decide where John Paul’s soul went to in the afterlife than the Church’s experts. Did you know that if someone in his death bed sincerily repents of his sins, he goes straight to God’s side? That is the power of God’s infinite forgeviness. So even if you consider that John Paul sinned (and no doubt he did so, because humans have a hard time not to sin at all during their lives), that does not mean he cannot be with God now.

        2. The evidence isn’t good. And if “the Church’s experts” are as blinkered as JP2, then yes.

        3. In any case, Pope Francisco would be solemnly canonizing JP2 after hearing to the advice of the Church’s experts, so if they were “blinkered”, surely Pope Francisco is not to blame.

      2. Papal infallibility only applies when the Pope talks “ex cathedra”. A Pope can say a lot of things, but he is not infallibile unless the Holy Spirit is actively inspiring him.

        1. Another problem is that heretics like Francis, being non-Catholics, are ineligible to be pope.

        2. yes, but several statements frank has made ex cathedra HAVE directly violated some things previous popes have made doctrine.
          Seriously, it’s a major battle going on right now in the vatican.

        3. Pope Francisco has talked ex cathedra? Do not they make a big deal when a Pope talks ex cathedra? To my knowledge, the cases of a Pope talking ex cathedra are very well documented in history and they have defined the path of the Catholic Church. You probably are confused about some interpretation of Pope Francisco regarding something previous popes said.

        4. It’s you who are confused. Your rationalization hamster is going full-blast. Pull your head out of the sand.

        5. It’s possible. But the fact that frtank is directly disagreeing with things in history that HAVE been spoken ex cathedra strongly implies that he is a ‘false pope’.

    2. You’re a little late. John XXIII and Paul VI, who started Vatican II and brought us the new fake sacraments, are to blame. Those bishops unhappy with Francis are just like the corrupt Republican Party complaining about Obama: window dressing, and no substance.

  8. “Keeping in mind the irony of noting the words of a cardinal to help describe the problems that men face today, here’s what Burke had to say:”
    What is ironic about a cardinal speaking the truth about issues men are facing today? It’s just another case of the Catholic church being acutely aware of the state of our society. The church has been growing for over two thousand years and has survived the fall of countless cultures…does it really surprise you that they know a thing or two about human nature?
    That being said, his quotes are pure wisdom. “The gift of human sexuality is turned into a means of self‑gratification often at the expense of another person, whether in heterosexual relations or in homosexual relations. A man who has not been formed with a proper identity as a man and as a father figure will ultimately become very unhappy. These poorly formed men become addicted to pornography, sexual promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, and the whole gamut of addictions.”
    It may be an unpopular insight in this community, but this quote partly refers to those who sleep around without the intent of a long-term relationship. Make no mistake, our biological goal is not just to father, but to BE a father.
    That is why our instinct to protect is stronger than our desire to breed. This truth is part of the reason why so many who have mastered game and keep a harem remain unfulfilled. They set out on their journey and forgot their destination. Having protected sex with a revolving roster of sluts is not our deepest desire, and it’s not how men who have reached their potential choose to live.
    So learn game and meet girls, but don’t forget that the goal is to wed, not to bed. You will not be satisfied with anything less.

    1. I am sure this is not a popular insight, as you say, but if truth is not spoken once in a while, people will have a harder time finding it by themselves.

      1. Many facts are not popular. Just because men have learned red pill philosophy in many areas, doesn’t mean they will happily accept the truth in all areas.

    2. The church has been growing for over two thousand years and has survived the fall of countless cultures…does it really surprise you that they know a thing or two about human nature?

      One, you don’t need a god to tell you about human nature. People can figure this out on their own by paying attention.
      Two, the Enlightenment broke the continuity of the christian tradition, so that today’s christians basically practice Creative Anachronism. They can imitate the forms of this nearly lost religion from what they’ve read in books. But they can’t replicate the real experience because too many key pieces have gone missing in the last several centuries.
      Three, the Catholic Church faces an idiocracy problem. A few centuries back the smartest guys went into the Church because they had few other career options. (In the Otherish communities, the smartest boys similarly became rabbis.) Now that intelligent men have so many more rewarding things to do with their lives, becoming a clergyman falls way down the list of desirable careers. That has resulted in the dumbing down of the Catholic Church and its loss of status relative to other areas of male excellence.
      Basically christianity in general has probably gone into decline, and it will eventually disappear. Ironically christians themselves seem to have invented the idea that aging religions have expiration dates.

      1. Three, the Catholic Church faces an idiocracy problem.
        Absolutely false. Islam is far worse in that regard. Vocations to the clergy have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. The top source of new religious now is Africa.

        1. Disagree. In traditional christian families, the most intelligent child of the family was generally sent in a religious order.
          That had a more than positive impact, I believe, on the Churche supremacy.
          This is not the case today.

        2. You’d have to explain why European IQ went up since the Dark Ages rather than down, whereas Islamic IQ went down. What possibly happened was the nerdier sons with poor social skills were sent off to the Church (and even then, it had to be voluntary), while the charismatic ones got married. This is in contrast to, say, China, where nerds who did best on rote-learning tests became Mandarins and reproduced more than other Chinese.

      2. Whatever you consider the source of Catholicism’s knowledge of the truth, it remains the truth. Therefore, it should come as no surprise when they speak the truth.

      3. Three, the Catholic Church faces an idiocracy problem.
        Funny that you mention this. I had always liked those first minutes of the movie thinking that they were very witty. Until I spent some time in the most Catholic neighborhoods in Spain and realized that those were not only the most prosperous families in the nation but also the ones with more kids. And those streets were the cleanest and most orderly that I saw. Meanwhile, useless leftist hipsters remain mostly childless. This is indeed a Catholic counter-idiocracy.

      4. “One, you don’t need a god to tell you about human nature. People can figure this out on their own by paying attention.”
        But the question is whether atheism gives any motive to rise above the base aspects of human nature. Darwin explicitly denied that it does (no wonder he was so depressed in later years). Good luck looking for evidence to refute him on this.
        BTW, your remarks about Christianity dying out are so opposite to the global reality (including significantly, in China) that I fancy you’re one of those Merkins who’s never had a passport, and maybe never left the North East, etc.

        1. For the most part, atheism doesn’t give any motive to rise above. For the most part it just takes a wreaking ball to what could have been a massive part of someone’s moral foundations.
          That being said, the concept of anti-aging therapies are monumentally more important to atheists than religious followers. And since 1st gen anti-aging therapies might be ~50 years out, atheists might give a much needed push to get us there. Everyone has their uses.

      5. “Basically Christianity in general has probably gone into decline, and it will eventually disappear.”
        This is a mistaken assumption made by most atheists, who fail to take into account the very real disparity in fertility that exists (and will always exist) between religious people in general (and Christians in particular), and the irreligious.
        Christians long ago stumbled upon a pretty good plan for maintaining relevance: they have children. Irreligious people do not.
        Religious people have a distinct evolutionary advantage. They outbreed others. Modern, easy birth control basically sealed the deal – the only people having children nowadays, particularly above replacement rates, are those willing to sacrifice their own comfort, i.e., religious people. You may not like it, but the world will eventually be more religious than it is now, and christianity will no doubt be around.
        You may type a lot of great arguments on the internet as to how Christianity will disappear, but while you’re doing so, your Mormon neighbor is raising five kids. Guess who wins.

    3. So, I guess that means that the Catholic Clergy is entirely populated with poorly formed men……

  9. As a young boy I learned that a sadistic, miserable woman could get away with taking her frustrations out on children, especially boys, by becoming a nun.

    1. No. Nuns are just as either tender or harsh towards girls as they are with boys. If they’re tender, they treat both boys and girls like angels. If they’re angry, they hate both genders of kids equally.

    2. Most, but not all of the nuns I dealt with were kind and patient. Also very educated in a classical sense, far intellectually superior to the rabble leading today’s classrooms from pre school to graduate school.

  10. Society is past the point of no return, the Church will have to go even further if it doesn’t want to lose the women as well to Unitarianism where they can go to be blessed for being bitchy sluts by the lesbian pastor. You can’t fill a church with bachelors

  11. I think we’re seeing a theism comeback, as part of neo atheism. Neo theists believe in teleology as a way explain the unknowns of the world, but aren’t militant about it. Neo atheists reject creationism and intelligent design, but are tolerant of those who do believe

    1. you know, technically, wouldn’t ‘no belief in either the existence OR the nonexistence of god’ being the actual definition of atheism, and all other forms of atheism (disbelief in god or Dawkinsist unitarianism) be more appropriate as ‘neo atheism’?

      1. This “No belief in either the existence OR the nonexistence of God” is not what agnosticism is about?

        1. Huh. I suppose.
          Well, then it looks to me like Atheism is founded upon the ‘faith’ that there is no god. Thus, it is a religion without a god.
          Heh. which means that it is absolutely NOT ‘rational’.

        2. I already edited my post cause I looked it up.
          Huge fan of history, not so great about arguing semantics, which I mostly see as a waste of time.

  12. I think there is a way to right the ship but remember this is one of several components. You can call this a dark arts thought or unfeasible but I think there are some methods to this madness. Everyone on this site must become ‘alpha’. Everyone. It has been discussed every so often that most of the women will sleep with a small percentage of men. One solid influence of the behavior of women is ego. They, in most cases, aren’t prone to joy from within themselves alone so there is a shot here.
    I propose all of the men here become alpha. Maximize our health, wealth, joy, palates, mind, and learn some of the dark arts of pick-up that facilitates easy threesomes and can sway best friends and sisters to sleep with you at the same time. We each must have dabbled in some aspects of it. It might be time to bring it all together.
    The truest power that will be gained from becoming superior men will be, some of us will be more influential in our worlds beyond just a sexual capacity. We will be social and community leaders. Second, we will be in a stronger position to reinforce femininity, but on the back end. What does it do to a woman when she realizes she was too pathetic to keep a good man? Nothing much as her friends will boost her ego. What does it do to a woman who ostracized socially by men and women who don’t want to be left out of the fun? She goes crazy, weeds herself out of the gene pool and one less detrimental influence on the feminine nature. Obviously, this is by no means a quick fix, but it can shift things immensely in five years time or less. The men in relationships stay as you are so women can dream of you. The men out of relationships improve yourselves and become that unattainable trophy set aside for only the best. We control the sex, we control the relationships, we control social approval, we will control femininity.

  13. That’s refreshing to hear. But I am afraid that eventually this church will adopt the same homo-friendly agenda of the Protestant Churches. Fuck! In Sweden the church even marries faggots and dykes! That is why the Russian Orthodox Church broke relations with it. If you are serious about tradition, about faith, about being a father and about being a man, the Russian Orthodox Church is your place. No pussy-footing around her with feel-good, liberal-theology!

      1. Good move. Nothing corrects people’s behaviour as efficiently as economic sanctions.

        1. Isn’t that a form of government control?
          Aren’t we against that? I am confused.
          If the Fed banned guns and alcohol in America there would be a shit-storm and everyone here would yell “Socialism!”
          But if we banned gay people would we be yelling “Justice!?”
          I don’t see how that is any different than feminazism to be honest…

        2. It depends on what type of system one wishes to endure. In a more libertarian situation women would not have acquired the destructive power they currently have since big government would be completely unavailable as her husband/father.
          If one wishes to have a large government then one must control it in such a manner that does not allow secular religions such as political-correctness, and by extension, feminism, to grow and thrive. However, maintaining big government with a moral compass is nearly impossible, if not impossible since it is a corrupt institution by its very nature. Therein lies the problem with the latter option.

      2. Yes indeed. A law was passed in the Duma where it prohibited mentally ill people from obtaining a driver’s license. And since trannies are obviously mentally ill, they don’t get to drive!

    1. Except for the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does nothing while Russian women engage in massive abortions, which basically shows them to be even greater traitors to the Faith than any Vatican 2 Hippie can ever be. The Church Fathers and Jesus wouldn’t tolerate infanticide. As far as Rome has fallen, they’re still fighting abortion. So while God might forgive Rome for failing to uphold masculinity, God certainly won’t forget the Russian Church posing as manly while doing nothing as Russian babies are massacred in the womb.

      1. The Russians have a lot of work to do before they can be the paragon of Christianity and traditional values that Putin makes them out to be.

        1. Indeed. As far as they are now, to me, they’re posers. Some of them might have good points, but when they try to one-up Catholicism, they’re acting like posers because Catholics are fighting the real battles in the moral sphere despite the fact that they’re losing.

      2. Perhaps you should look at your own Catholic Church and what is happening WITHIN it!!! Take a close look and you will find cases of child molestation, homosexuality amongst the clergy, money laundering within the Vatican bank…Need I say more in order to make my point. Let me correct you on something. The Russian Orthodox Church is against abortion and speaks out against it regularly. Check any of their sites in English and you will see!. But in the same way The Catholic Church in America and Europe CANNOT prevent good Catholic girls from aborting their unborn, neither can the Orthodox Church prevent women from doing this in Russia, or in Greece, or in Serbia. Like the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church has to operate within nation-states with their secular laws. And these laws permit abortion. The Orthodox church does acknowledge that this a problem and does not pretend that it doesn’t exist in the way that the Catholic Church tries to hide its repeated cases of sexual abuses and the endemic problem of homosexuality within the church’s clergy!

        1. Except the Orthodox are far worse than that. They’ve allowed infanticide to be an acceptable practice in a land ruled by one of their own. And unlike the Catholics, whose loss of power led to the legalization of abortion, the Orthodox are in full control, with Putin at the helm, and they could easily wage a double campaign of pressuring Putin to outlaw it just as he outlawed the gays, while at the same time preaching to the masses how evil Abortion is and how they can find alternatives. Wherever Catholics ruled, they outlawed abortion. Pro-abortion parties in Spain, Italy, and Latin America are always on the lookout for a resurgence of Church power, since whenever the Church gets control of politics, they outlaw abortion like they do in Philippines. But where the Orthodox rule, despite the politicians being members of the Church and in their pocket, they still allow for abortions to happen.
          And the child molestation cases were a result of new-age homosexual movements infiltrating the seminaries in the 60’s. Back then, the Orthodox Church was too small to even be considered by gays and homosexuals for infiltration, since they only had a few countries within their sphere of influence, while their Russian brothers were being enslaved by the Communists. John Paul II saw fit that the victims were compensated, and when the scandal blew up, Benedict XVI went on a duck-hunt for the abusive clergy. In other words: they ignored your kind because your kind were way too weak to even be considered for infiltration. And given how weak they are on the topic of infanticide, something which the Church Fathers sternly opposed, it seems that the homosexuals are right: your Church makes no affect on political matters. They were beta males under the control of the state back then, and they still are now.

    2. And the reason why we Catholics broke off relations with the Orthodox Church is that they were beta males controlled by the Emperor/Tsar. The Roman Church, for a good 1500 years, was its own nation with cardinals and Bishops who controlled its destiny on their own, answering to no power but God. The Orthodox Churches were puppets of the state, hence why the Catholics split off from them.

      1. The monopolization of power in the Roman Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head, could not tolerate the theological challenges that the Eastern Church posed to its hierarchy and to its power structures. That is a fact! The true teachings of the first century Church were preserved by the Eastern church (and still are) without getting polluted by the political intrigues and power struggles of the Catholic Church. “Render unto caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”, The Catholic Church has always wanted to play the role of Ceasar and at the same time be right with God.! You can’t have it both ways, my friend! Besides the fact that Archbishops, Bishops and Priests cannot get married opens the gates to all types of sexual deviations WITHIN the Church. And we all know how homosexuality runs rampant in the Catholic clergy.

        1. Except for the fact that unmarried priests were something encouraged among the early Church, since that freed them from family obligations. And for 1900 years, the sex abuse crisis and sexual deviations didn’t exist in the Roman Church. Also, the Roman Church was right to exercise power over all Churches, since just as God made an earthly king of Israel, so did Christ made an earthly head of the Church under Peter, the First Pope, and the tradition didn’t end with Peter’s death, since all the Church Fathers saw the Pope as the rightful head of the Church on Earth. The teaching of the Orthodox that every patriarch can do as he chooses is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, who established a clear chain of command, with Peter as His First Lieutenant. The First Century Church would’ve also been horrified at how the Eastern Roman Emperor controlled the Church and elevated patriarchs at will, and how the Easterners committed sacrileges and atrocities against the West: they trampled upon the Eucharist in Latin Churches prior to the 1054 split, encouraged by Michael Cerularius, and in 1182, they massacred every Latin Citizen within the walls of Constantinople in the massacre of the Latins. The Fourth Crusade was simply a retaliation by frustrated Latin troops against Byzantine forces who repeatedly attacked them, since even during the Third Crusade, they were a puppet ally of Saladin.
          So, if the First Century Christians were to come back from the grave and see the Byzantines, they’d be horrified at how the Byzantines desecrated the Body of Christ simply for being in a Latin Church, they’d be horrified at how Byzantine Christians slaughtered Latin Christians at will with no shame, slaughtering all the men, most of the women and children, and selling the survivors as slaves to non-Christians. The First Century Christians would be horrified at how the Byzantines casually attacked Western Crusaders who were trying to weaken Islam’s hold on the Holy Land, and how, instead of having the Bishops elect the head patriarch like they do in Rome, the Byzantines allow Caesar to elect the head of the Church. Not only have the Orthodox Church sold out the Church to Caesar, they also attack other Christians for not following their ways.
          Not the same in the West. In the West, popes and kings are in separate offices. They can cooperate, but one doesn’t interfere with the other. Before the Pope can crown an Emperor, he has to be approved of by his secular compatriots. Other monarchs are elected or elevated without the need for Papal approval. The pope, too, doesn’t need the approval of monarchs to become pope and to work. And the last time a Pope tried to act like a God-Emperor of mankind, it wasn’t the Byzantines who disciplined him-but other Catholics. Boniface VIII tried to tell everyone that all living things must subject themselves to him to be saved, and the Catholic world first laughed at him, then the King of France and some Italian nobles got together and beat him to near-death. The subsequent Popes accepted this gesture as a rightful disciplining of an errant pope, and accepted that the Popes should rule on spiritual matters alone. It was WE who corrected our errant popes. Not the Byzantines, who let the Emperors rule over the Church and let the Church run rampant with xenophobia and hatred against other Christians.
          Hell, the Christians of the Middle East would rather slum in with the Muslims rather than congregate with Byzantium: it was Byzantium’s harsh discipline upon the Levantine Churches that led them to defect to the Muslim side, giving the Muslims technology, science, and philosophy in exchange of getting rid of the hated Byzantines for them. Some of the Middle Eastern Christians are Orthodox, others are Catholic, but they shared one thing: their revulsion at Byzantium and her followers.

    3. The Catholic church can never adopt a homo-friendly agenda or be pro choice or be pro contraceptive etc. Basically, God and the church want/need you to live a perfect life or completely straight edge. Being gay or having pre marital sex or any other “sin” is an imperfection that will cause harm to ones self or others around him/her. These choices, according to the scriptures, will lead you to an empty life without substance, fulfillment, and enlightenment; temporary pleasures are not what Catholics are seeking. We are looking for an everlasting life which is achieved by doing Gods work and being a good human. As soon as the church bends to allow some of these “sins” to be committed the whole ideology of what the Catholic faith stands for will break. So then what would be the point of Catholicism?

  14. Heads up Cardinal Burke. Keep the vigil. The GREAT BITCHMONSTER grows while we sleep. ROK team and all others keep the counter attack going 24-7 in shifts. Keep the snowball rolling.

  15. the church was feminized long ago. I grew up traditional catholic, its all about the Blessed Mommy, seriously these women, starting with the baby boomers, are simply impossible, and the men cave every day to then pray to Mary. The idolize the ideal women as an escape from dealing with the hen-pecking, knit-picking shrew they married. Also, there is an Our Lady of this that and the other going back centuries, they are more concerned with “private sources of revelation” than the actual faith. Fatima 3rd secret blah blah blah. Still they pray for the conversion of russia lest she “spread her errors” as forwarned at Fatima. Um, in case you don’t know 100 years, the Jew Bolshiveks came and went in Russia and have spread the errors already, look around the USA !!! Many of these people play right in to Fox news and the neocon establishment.

    1. I disagree with the intercession prayers to Mary , but I don’t think that’s an example of feminization .
      Christ himself forgave a whore of her sins, promising someday the whole world would know of her.

  16. This is why I never criticize someone that believes in the church. I believe it started out as codes to help build society for the better until people started to go Mad max with the beliefs and take them to a dark place.
    In order for a man to become a better version of himself he must first find a system in which can help him advance past what his environment and biology expect of him. Just because his father and mother didn’t achieve much in life doesn’t mean that the same faith will wait him. If more boys in school and just kids overall were thought some alternatives about how life REALLY will be once they leave the 12th grade a lot more minds can be opened and saved.
    By them rejecting feminism it keeps some ounce of masculinity around that seems to be destroyed everywhere you look. I really can’t think of any place a man can go to just let his balls hang and talk his shit expect the barbershop or of course the typical “man cave” which even then can be invaded by women at any moment. From the NFL, NBA, Music, TV, Books, etc it seems as if men are backed into a cage and forced to behave by a set of rules that back then would of been laughed at by the elders of a time now forgotten.
    After you see the bullshit the “blue pill” world provides and find truth, the best thing to then do is develop yourself and craft a better version of yourself in which can’t be defined by what women and society think is a REAL MAN. By this happening women will have no choice but to become submissive and reach for some femininity. Even though I am afraid that by that time (hopefully) men would have smarten up and see this is just another ploy women are using to sneak in before they malfunction again.
    Basically, do you and the fuck the rest of the world. Feminism has invaded every area and soon will want the Cardinal Raymond to do the same if they ever heard of there stance on the modern world. They, I am glad have addressed the issues and kept it moving. Find the truth and advance yourself.

  17. Another call to the “resident monk” to shed some light on an issue regarding the church. Quintus, is this going to happen?

  18. too little too late
    Vatican 2 was heretical and schismatic
    conclavism seems to be the answer

  19. Im a big fan of what the pope is doing and im equally a fan of what the cardinal is saying. As the pope makes all these wonderful statements and reforms, this cardinal is saying that men have been alienated and have straight up lost influence and participation and need to be brought back in. Theres a lot of common ground. Im sure the rift within the vatican is more pronounced about other things.

    1. You’re a fan of a pope who denounces free markets, who embraces Islam and prays in their temple (blasphemy) and who in all ways is a flaming leftist?

      1. Im not 100pct clear on his points. Id like to know how hes opposed to free markets.
        Christianity Islam and Judaism have been at eachothers throats for millenia. To extend an olive branch of acceptance from one dogmatic/passionate religion to another is alright by me. I dont think its kowtowing i think its reasonable respect.
        i did an anthropological study in college with mormons. It was nothing special. They came to mass with me once they didnt remove their name tags, they didnt do communion amd they didnt kneel but they did pray.

        1. “Christianity Islam and Judaism have been at eachothers throats for millenia. To extend an olive branch of acceptance from one dogmatic/passionate religion to another is alright by me. I dont think its kowtowing i think its reasonable respect.”
          This is a great point. If the religious leaders could actually get Imams to become peaceful and rational, the world would be infinitely better. Religions shouldn’t be butting heads for the length of their entire existence.

  20. “More people are realizing the brokenness of the West”
    Is there anyone who actually can’t see this? I personally don’t care as I have no offspring and plan to just live a life of travel and promiscuous sex but for the young fathers out there do they actually think there is a great future for their children?

      1. I used to believe that hope sprung eternal, but as an aging grandfather with sons yet to enter the meat grinder, I find I have had a loss of faith. I see no hope for western civilization. Christianity may survive the fall of the west, and it may not. In any case the west cannot survive because what cannot continue won’t.
        BTW atheism is the denial that a god exists. The open mind that takes neither a position there is a god nor that there is not a god is agnostic.

  21. Pope Francis called on Europeans to open their arms and hearts to the Africans and Muslims that are flocking to Europe via the Mediterranean. In effect what he called for was the abolition of Europe. He is no friend of Europe and her people.

    1. Francis is the most obviously SJW “pope” yet. And yet, it may get even worse once he goes.

  22. I’m very concerned with the efforts of Pope Francis to “Marxify” the Catholic Church.

    1. The sooner Catholics realize that the Vatican was taken over by non-Catholic SJWs the better.

      1. Yes, exactly, thank you.
        An argument can be made that Vatican II was the other shoe dropping which allowed the infiltration of the Catholic Church by leftists, homosexuals and other assorted evil forces.

      2. It certainly seems that way. Awful Pope from a traditional sense with a massive amount of catering for absolutely no reason.

  23. This is the appening at all levels of the Church and schools too many mealy mouthed women running around being bosses which leads to the kids being little brats especially the spoiled little girls look at me look at me the greatest was when the boys were separately educated from the girls until a certain age

  24. I was entirely prepared to write a detailed response, especially since I received the nod at the end, here. But, God has smiled upon you and spared you from such a fate. I’ll keep it brief (relative to my usual prolixity).
    This crisis has been percolating for two centuries, has been a reality, at least a latent one, for about a century, and has been an open, bleeding sore in the Church for 50 years (since the Second Vatican Council). Men like Cardinal Burke (and Benedict XVI, bishop Athanasius Schneider, etc.) are beginning to correctly perceive and describe the problem. They are correctly noting that the official teaching of the Church is Patriarchal and anti-equalitarian, and absolutely condemns theological and political Liberalism of all kinds (though they still feel some pressure not to be seen as “extremists,” and therefore blunt the message and try to leave Liberal premises in place). But they are not yet stating the only rational explanation for what has happened in the Church since 1960 – namely, that much of what presents itself as “the Catholic Church” is no longer the Catholic Church, and that, shockingly, this is the case even in the highest offices of the Church and in the decrees emanating thence. The Church officially teaches that it is a sin for women to work or be distracted from the domestic life except for grave reasons, that “error has no rights” (i.e., there are no carte-blanche rights to engage in activities irrespective of their morality, like a blanket right to Free Speech, etc.), and that men should have authority in all spheres – the Church, civil society, family life. To reject this, as many clergy and laity do, is to sever one’s self from the Catholic Church. Most “Catholics” have done so.
    Francis is the “Obama” of this false system of Catholicism that has dominated for the past 50 years, precisely because he is not so much the sign of a newly-opening rift, as he is the proof of the institutional degradation that was required for his accession to office in the first place. He is not an opening rift; he is the proof of the chasm that has opened beneath our feet while we paid too little heed. Every pope since Paul VI has taught heresy or impiety (John Paul I excepted, since he died within a month of his election), John Paul II took this to a new level, but Francis is the first one who is so bad, that even mainstream Catholics are starting to use the word antipope, albeit still with a question mark after it.
    Anyone who wants, can get onto Google and read some of the reporting related to the “Synod on the Family” this past October. At that Synod, the mask came off. It became clear that the ostensible pope was himself directly responsible for the heretical doctrine and scandalous manipulations surrounding the “Relatio Post Disceptationem,” which were so egregious that it prompted some rather public interventions from men like Cardinals Burke and Pell. For his trouble, Burke – easily the most brilliant and accomplished Cardinal in the Curia – won a staggering demotion from Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (aka “Chief Justice of the Catholic Church’s Supreme Court”), to Head of the Knights of Malta (i.e., “Grand Exalted Ruler of the Elk Lodge”), a position normally reserved only for very elderly, retired cardinals who cannot be expected to do anything. This has polarized the Curia very sharply, and many princes of the Church have privately expressed their exasperation and disgust at the people running the show at present. I won’t even get into the Red Dossier…
    In any case, men interested in learning about what has happened in the Church since Vatican II may enjoy two books: 1) Iota Unum, by Romano Armerio; 2) Catechism of the Crisis, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron. The former is more scholarly and thorough; the latter more concise and popularizing. I enjoyed both of them. The take-away, is that Francis is not introducing anything new, in terms of the rift; he may be the man who blows it wide open and removes all pretense of unity, but he certainly is not the author of the tensions that brought us here. He is the product of those tensions.

    1. Then you obviously didn’t see Churchmilitant.TV’s videos on Pope Francis. A lot of his “liberal” and “Marxist” statements don’t actually exist, and his actual teachings are conservative, even traditional. In the Philippines, his main message was keeping the family together-which is an agenda that opposes the modernist crowd.

      1. I was addressing, primarily, his direct involvement in the Synod on the Family. On that issue, and on the issue of divorce more broadly, he seemed to clearly indicate that he was ready for a “new approach ” to marriage. He referred to Kasper’s book as “pure theology,” theology “done on one’s knees.” As is often the case with revolutionaries, there is much talk of fighting for the very thing you are working to undermine. I tend to believe that recent popes know what their job is: keep the vital energies of the Catholic faith safely neutralized, while walking that fine line that avoids spooking the horses and revealing that the jig is up. “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.”

        1. And yet again, he recently relapsed, saying that gays and contraception are bad for the family. All I see in Francis is that he’s willing to give the gays, atheists, and divorced a chance to redeem themselves-just as Christ did with all the hookers, tax collectors, sinners, and unclean people during His time. But His constant advice for them was “Sin no more.” Again, watch Churchmilitant.TV’s videos on Francis. A lot of his supposed leftist statements aren’t really leftist at all.

        2. Yes, I will have to check it out. I’ve relied on the widely disseminated reports that he has said such things as “I don’t believe in a Catholic God,” and overplayed the chances of just about everyone getting into heaven, explained that of course we should expect to get punched if we insult someone’s mother (in reference to Moslems killing folk who speak ill of Mohammed), etc. His ecumenical activities are well documented, as well… or, so I thought. If it’s true that these reports are inaccurate, I suppose in justice I should learn of the fact and acknowledge it.
          By the way, happy feast of St. Agnes. I’m up till the wee hours after doing Matins/Lauds for her feast day, and now I can’t sleep!

  25. Christianity has always had an inherently feminizing effect on the men of the West. Forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, and rendering unto Caesar are slave morals that servile betas eat right up. Just as a man who listens to this cardinal will get eaten alive by modern women, so will a civilization that follows his ideas get eaten alive by the long term effects of encouraging masses of weak, emasculated men to thrive and reproduce generation after generation.

  26. does anyone think the church will stick with being masculine? I see gay marriage and all the rest of the crud seeping into this cauldron.

  27. There is no rift between Francis and Burke. If anything, homosexual men hate women, because they’re the main competition homos have with gaining the affections of other men.

  28. A split coming? It’s already there — a great big fracture in the Roman Rite between the ‘trads’ and everyone else. The ‘trads’, short for traditional, go to the old Mass — the one that has existed for hundreds of years before Vatican 2, hold deeply to the old style of Catholic faith, and brook no liberal traditions. Everyone else has gone to Novus Ordoland and bartered away the Deposit of Faith — or maybe that’s my trad showing. The point remains — the rift is there and real. If you’re interested in ‘real’ Catholicism, look up the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter — they keep the tradition alive. If you want to see what deep, masculine, faith looks like, attend one of their Masses.

  29. When this dude acknowledges that you can’t choose your sexual identity, is that his way of embracing gay men and women in the church? This seems like a new thing

Comments are closed.