DID you ever hear a plumber say, "I hate unblocking pipes. I hate it! I wish there was no such thing as the sewer line?" Did you ever hear an electrician say, "I can't stand wiring houses! Oh, I just hate electricity and wish it didn't exist?" Or how about a construction worker? Have you ever heard one say, "I hate nailing. I wish we all lived in grass huts so I didn't have to nail anything together ever again?" Probably not. For it is only the modern woman, under the influence of the Great Home-Hating Feminist Psy-Op, who goes about saying how much she hates, hates, hates the menial labor she has to do, as if she were a forest-clearing slave in the Siberian gulag rather than an independent domestic boss surrounded by nifty home-cleaning innovations that would be the envy of pre-industrial peasants. Frances Gabe (1915-2016) was a housewife who detested and resented housework. She became especially ticked off when her children got fig jam on the walls. Jam on the walls! Oh, how boring, tedious and totally beneath the "educated" (or miseducated) woman! Gabe reportedly was so fed up that she decided to invent and build a self-cleaning house (we don't know whether she tried to teach her children how to clean instead). She invented one over a long period. The result was entirely impractical and necessarily ugly due to the need to encase everything in plastic or other waterproof coverings to withstand cleaning…

THE “editorial board” of this website does not recognize the heretical, modernist Vatican II Church as the Catholic Church. But in the eyes of the world (and many sincere Catholics), it is the Catholic Church, and thus allegations of crimes by its clergy are publicly imputed to the Catholic Church. The media coverage of sex abuse charges, when that coverage is slanted or false, and the prosecution of false allegations, constitute a war against the Catholic Church.

The headlines recently announced that Australia’s “Cardinal” George Pell had been formally charged with “sexual assault.” This was a big, big story. People all over the globe were told, in so many words, that Pell was an evil scoundrel.  But in the first few days, the stories were uniformly and glaringly scanty on details, leaving the public to assume very ugly deeds. Here’s a typical story by ABC. It made note at the top that Pell was the “most senior Vatican cleric to ever be charged in the Roman Catholic Church.” The New York Times managed a lengthy, soberly-alarmed report with no mention of the actual events that allegedly occurred or anything about the accusers.

If it had been more explicit, readers might have been suspicious about why this story made top headlines. You see, the accusers are both criminals and the accusations do not involve actual sex acts but allegedly inappropriate touching under water in a swimming pool 40 years ago. All sex abuse of children is heinous and extremely serious. Let me repeat: sex abuse, including fondling, of children, is serious criminal activity. But these accusations of foul waterplay are highly suspicious. A full interview with the details left out by so many reports can be found here. Judge for yourself.

LYNDON MONUMENT: He’d play games like throw the kids out of the water, like, and you’d put your leg in his hands and he’d, “One, two, three,” and then he’d throw you out of the water. But it was only ever with boys.

DARREN MOONEY, FORMER ST. ALIPIUS STUDENT: There was never any girls flying off his shoulders or playing with him in the pool, it was always boys.

Monument says that Pell touched his private parts under the water. Damian Dignan says the cleric was very rough and grabbed him in the wrong places when he was throwing him in the water.

According to TheMediaReport.com, a website covering the sex abuse scandal as reported in the press: (more…)

AMY writes:

I am a longtime blog reader and appreciate your unique website dearly. Your entries are always thoughtful and challenging, compelling me to ponder a multitude of important topics.

I was recently pursuing your archives on beauty after a rather shocking experience. I saw a facial tattoo in person for the very first time, and on a woman no less. Tattoos have always repulsed me but with their prevalence in our culture, they no longer shock me. This facial tattoo left me speechless and frankly I was thankful my young child was not present to witness this disturbing sight. It seems almost demonic to alter one’s face in such a way and I cannot begin to imagine what convince a person such a body modification is a good idea.

I’ve noticed body modifications of all kinds being more grotesque in recent years and am terribly disturbed to consider why these trends are happening. It seems to suggest a wicked bent in our culture, one wholly out of touch with all that is beautiful, good, and right. I loathe the idea that we must all accept such ugliness and pretend as if it’s a mere aesthetic choice and not indicative of something being very wrong.

What are your thoughts on the ever more disturbing tattoos and so-called “body modifications” that becoming frighteningly mainstream these days? (more…)

FROM Tumultuous Times: Twenty General Councils of the Catholic Church and Vatican II and its Aftermath by Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI and Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI (St. Joseph’s Media, 2004):

In 1534 St. Thomas More and a relatively small number of faithful Catholics refused to sign King Henry VIII’ s Oath of Supremacy because it amounted to a denial of the Catholic Faith. “If More had sworn the oath as it was presented to him. . . he would have concurred the forcible removal of the Pope’s jurisdiction and the effective schism of the Church in England. This he could not do, even at the cost of his life.”

When St. Thomas More stood before Parliament he was taunted by Audley, Duke of Norfolk:

‘Indeed, Master More, you wish to be held wiser than all the bishops, all the nobility, all the realm entire!’ It was the old sneer he had heard so often, and now he flung back challenge for challenge in a voice ringing with the glory of belonging to Christ’s Mystical Body. ‘My lord, for one bishop of your opinion I have a hundred saints of mine; for one Parliament of yours, and God knows of what sort, I have all the General Councils of a thousand years; for one kingdom I have all the Kingdoms of Christendom! ’

Unafraid of the violent death awaiting him, the saint joked with the executioner as he mounted the rickety scaffold: “I pray you, sir, see me safe up, and for my coming down let me shift for myself.”

More’s last words portrayed his deep faith and courage: “I am dying in the faith and for the faith of the Catholic Church, the king’s good servant and God’s first.”

It would be a mistake to claim that traditional Catholicism is false simply because it is not what most people now believe.  … [T]he Catholic Church is distinguished by the purity of its doctrine, not defined by the number of followers. In the fourth century, such multitudes of the faithful were seduced by the Arian heresy, that it appeared to be Catholicism’s great defender “(St.) Athanasius against the world.”

Catholicism is not defined by the possession of church buildings. During the sixteenth century hundreds of Catholic churches were occupied by “Catholic” priests who were, in fact, subtly replacing the true Faith with Protestantism. Catholicism is not guaranteed by those who bear titles of authority; during the Western Schism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, several of the men who bore the title of “pope” were not popes at all.

The New Church created by Vatican II is not the Catholic Church. Because its “popes” are illegitimate, there is no moral obligation to follow such men or their new religion. On the contrary, we are obliged to follow the doctrines handed down by  Christ and His Apostles and to avoid this New Church as we would any other false religion. (more…)

  READERS WHO enjoyed Alan's terrific essay on a long lost St. Louis drugstore might also enjoy "The Bluff of the Big Shops," by G. K. Chesterton. Doesn't everybody hate big retail? Then why do we put up with it? There is no physical law of evolution that demands stores get bigger and bigger or that colossal retail chains exist, as opposed to many more independent stores. Chesterton argued that big stores are not better stores. They also lead to the concentration of wealth. Thus he wrote in 1926: Twice in my life has an editor told me in so many words that he dared not print what I had written, because it would offend the advertisers in his paper. The presence of such pressure exists everywhere in a more silent and subtle form. But I have a great respect for the honesty of this particular editor; for it was, evidently as near to complete honesty as the editor of an important weekly magazine can possibly go. He told the truth about the falsehood he had to tell. On both those occasions he denied me liberty of expression because I said that the widely advertised stores and large shops were really worse than little shops. That, it may be interesting to note, is one of the things that a man is now forbidden to say; perhaps the only thing he is really forbidden to say. If it had been an attack on Government,…

  Call Me Jorge writes: Francis says that the biggest expenses in life are the essentials: food, medicine, and clothing.  After that follows cosmetics (beauty products) and then pets!  Don’t believe him?  Francis says he has the statistics! His answer AUSTERITY!!! Francis conveniently omits usury, rents, insurance, automobile costs,mortgages, taxes, regulation, children, and education!  This is telling as it shows truly who his bosses are.

A READER writes:

    ALFRED SCHAEFER'S home in Germany was recently raided by police and his video recording equipment confiscated. It was the second time the Canadian engineer has been harassed by police, who were taking orders from B'nai Brith, the extremely powerful, Jews-only secret society, for his videos protesting pervasive psychological warfare (the videos are posted online). Schaefer says, "1984 is here today. We have lost our ability to think and to speak clearly. " He stands unofficially accused of "hate crimes" for his challenges to the public understanding of the "Holocaust" and 9/11. He writes: Dear Friends! A few days ago, on July 6 at exactly 6:00 AM, our door bell rang ferociously, as if some berserk madman was about to kick in the door. My wife and I jumped out of bed. I told her do not open just yet, but hold them off for a few seconds. OK, then in they came, seven armed thugs with guns, bullet-proof vests and handcuffs, accompanied by one “witness” from the town administration. Fortunately, Schaefer is amassing supporters around the world, including Jewish supporters -- those who know they also have been victimized by lies and want to fight them. He writes: The timing of this raid and the consequences are amazing. I just returned from a Canadian speaking tour that consisted of 14 presentations in 11 cities, from Toronto to Victoria. After arriving in Toronto I learned that Global TV wanted to…

  JOURNALISTS typically deal with questions about 9/11 with abrupt dismissal and ad hominem attacks. The scientific evidence does not support NPR Neal Conan's claims in this radio clip.

  "When a child is born, his soul leaves the hands of God with the seal of God’s image and likeness. This image and likeness, a potential of great force, will attract the soul to God throughout his life. For this reason a child has a strong tendency to see the image and likeness of God in the ensemble of the universe or in each one of its parts. This tendency toward contemplation, nourished in the child, can develop in the man and become one of his most precious possessions. “The child is father to the man,” wisely observed the poet. Thus the man, to the degree he keeps his innocence, continues to see the reflection of God in the things around him. In this state of innocence the child has a tendency to communicate with the angels. This makes the child open to a kind of world that is different from the concrete and pragmatic world of adults who have lost their innocence." --- From "Nourishing an Appetite for the Marvelous," by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

ALAN writes:

My first job was as a clerk in a corner drugstore.  Most of the people with whom I worked are gone now, and the drugstore was demolished more than 35 years ago.  It was locally owned and operated.  It was one of a kind.  Not a trace of it remains.  There is no historic plaque reading: “On this corner stood the only drugstore in downtown St. Louis that was open all day, all night, every day of the year for 62 years.”

It was in some ways a relic from a time when Americans had some understanding of proportion, form, and function.  It had one purpose:  To offer prescription medicine and sundries.  It catered to ordinary, unpretentious people, most of them working class, some of them poor, most of them middle age or older.

There was a steady stream of customers and prescriptions, but the soda fountain/lunch counter kept the store afloat.  The floor was white ceramic tile.  The store had glass display cases with marble foundations.  Pharmacists filled prescriptions on the catwalk-balcony.

It was not a fun house.  We did not sell toys, tires, or beach balls.  The only sound was that of conversations at the lunch counter or sales counter and the bell on the cash registers.  It was never annoying.  You could hear yourself think.  Try that today in the midst of the noise absurdly called “music” that large chain drugstores love to inflict on their customers.  Mercifully, it was long before the cell phone was invented.  We had one pay telephone for customers.  On one wall were dozens of shelves and small wooden cabinet drawers.  Candy, cigars, and cigarettes were always in demand.  We sold Fatima cigarettes, Velvet tobacco in tins, and Bull Durham tobacco in the pouch.  We had “Prince Albert in the can”, and thoughtful people would phone in to say we should let him out.

To borrow a line spoken by Margaret Sullavan to James Stewart in “The Shop Around the Corner” (1940), I was an “insignificant little clerk”.

When I worked in the basement, my only companions were the mice.  One day a pharmacist and I were standing down there talking.  One of our mice was unaccounted for and we were concerned.

I delivered prescription medicine to elderly residents who lived in tall apartment buildings nearby.  There were no locked doors in my path, I needed no push-button security code, and I never had to justify my presence.  All I had to do was walk through the entry door and to the elevator.  And Americans today think they are “free”.  Self-deluded fools.  There is no better guarantee of arrogance than ignorance of the past.

The midnight shift was quiet and uneventful.  We sold and served no liquor.  There were no security guards at the drugstore because none were needed.  There were no spy cameras in the store and no bars on its door or windows.  I never saw more than one police officer in the store, and he came in every evening to talk with the pharmacist or the cashier.  (more…)

  We fly to thy patronage, O Holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

JANE S. writes: There is a scene from Willa Cather’s Death Comes for the Archbishop that takes place in a remote Spanish mission in colonial New Mexico. An old man is lying on his deathbed, while the priest administers the Sacrament. Others take turns praying at his bedside while the rest of the community keeps vigil. Watching beside a death-bed was not a hardship for them, but a privilege—in the case of a dying priest, it was a distinction. In those days, even in European countries, death had a solemn social importance. It was not regarded as a moment when certain bodily organs ceased to function, but as a dramatic climax, a moment when the soul made its entrance into the next world, passing in full consciousness through a lowly door to an unimaginable scene. Among the watchers there was always the hope that the dying man might reveal something of what he alone could see; that his countenance, if not his lips, would speak, and on his features would fall some light or shadow from beyond. The “Last Words” of great men, Napoleon, Lord Byron, were still printed in gift-books, and the dying murmurs of every common man and woman were listened for and treasured by their neighbours and kinsfolk. These sayings, no matter how unimportant, were given oracular significance and pondered by those who must one day go the same road. I often recall that passage and think:…

"The Cabinet raised the Arabs to fight for us by definite promises of self-government afterwards. Arabs believe in persons, not in institutions. They saw in me a free agent of the British Government, and demanded from me an endorsement of its written promises. So I had to join the conspiracy, and, for what my word was worth, assured the men of their reward. In our two years’ partnership under fire they grew accustomed to believing me and to think my Government, like myself, sincere. In this hope they performed some fine things, but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was bitterly ashamed. It was evident from the beginning that if we won the war these promises would be dead paper, and had I been an honest adviser of the Arabs I would have advised them to go home and not risk their lives fighting for such stuff: but I salved myself with the hope that, by leading these Arabs madly in the final victory I would establish them, with arms in their hands, in a position so assured (if not dominant) that expediency would counsel to the Great Powers a fair settlement of their claims. In other words, I presumed (seeing no other leader with the will and power) that I would survive the campaigns, and be able to defeat not merely the Turks on the battlefield, but my own country and its allies…

    "Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years we were in exile there. We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity… .. Even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity’. ‘And now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for .... Jews must pray that the Islamization of most of Europe will not harm the people of Israel’."  --- Rabbi Baruch Efrati, 2012