I was quite enjoying my respite from publishing on CatholicEclipsed, but I am afraid something has happened that has forced me from my cryogenically induced coma to write to you today.

You see, Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics has written an article, “What does the Church really teach about: woes today,” which seems to be so unthinkingly wrong and scandalous as to cause my wife to quite literally gasp and exclaim, “Oh my goodness!”

The remarks in question are as follows:

“Those already praying at home who now are seeking release from marital situations or suffering from anxiety about the validity of their marriages will be surprised to learn that they are not considered validly married under Canon Law if they were married by a Traditional or Novus Ordo minister whom they believed to be true priests, but who in fact had no jurisdiction over them and could not validly witness the marriage. This is stated in Can. 1094: “Those marriages only are valid which are contracted either before a pastor or the local ordinary or a priest delegated by either and at least two witnesses…” 

Further on, she writes: 

“Those truly unable to remain in marriages apparently invalid under Can. 1094 may today consider themselves free to leave or divorce civilly, if married in the Novus Ordo or by a Traditionalist cleric.”

This is so bizarre a conclusion based upon Canon. 1094 that I am hard pressed to conceive of a motivation founded in anything reasonable or Catholic. For a Catholic blogger to say that a man and woman who exchange vows in good faith before a non-Catholic minister do not actually marry validly and are thus free to divorce civilly is as unconscionable as it is un-Catholic.

And it must be kept in mind that, just as any Novus Ordo wedding requires at least two witnesses, the requirement of Canon 1094 is always met, but more on that in a moment.

Perhaps in my simplicity (I am no canon lawyer), I am misunderstanding what Teresa Benns is claiming here. I ask her to clarify publicly what she means by the above statements, and the justification for these in law and religion on her website or in the comments here–Teresa Benns, you are always welcome.

On which point of welcome and good will, this post has nothing to do with launching a vendetta against Teresa. I am argumentative by temperament, but I am never quarrelsome. I love Teresa, and I would have enjoyed a long and friendly and cooperative relationship in the spirit and fight for authentic Catholicism with her for many years; but, alas, differences of understanding of Church teaching and law have made that impossible. But what is at stake at present is beyond any dispute between CatholicEclipsed or BetrayedCatholics. What is at stake is the destruction of families and the commission of sacrilege:

BC. 1027. The evils that follow divorce so commonly claimed by those outside the true Church and granted by civil authority are very many; but chiefly: 
   1. A disregard for the sacred character of the Sacrament and for the spiritual welfare of the children;
   2. The loss of the true idea of home and family followed by bad morals and sinful living.

BC. 1024. Divorce granted by courts of justice or by any human power does not break the bond of marriage, and one who makes use of such a divorce to marry again while the former husband or wife lives commits a sacrilege and lives in the sin of adultery. A civil divorce may give a sufficient reason for the persons to live apart and it may determine their rights with regard to support, the control of the children and other temporal things, but it has no effect whatever upon the bond and spiritual nature of the Sacrament.

Let me offer an alternative interpretation of Canon 1094, not based upon my own reading, but rather in light of the exception which just follows the ellipsis Benns ends her citation with, which is so helpful and illuminating during this time of Apostasy and necessarily remaining home. It goes like this:

Canon 1094: Only those marriages are valid that are contracted in the presence of the pastor, or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either, and two witnesses, according to the rules expressed in the canons that follow, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in Canons 1098…, (emphasis added). 

Canon 1098: If the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest who assists at marriage according to the norm of Canons 1095 and 1096 cannot be had or cannot be present without grave inconvenience:

1.°: In danger of death marriage is contracted validly and licitly in the presence only of witnesses; and outside of danger of death provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition will perdure for one month…

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage” says the same thing as Canon 1098:

“The marriage law, known by its initial words, “Ne temere”, went into force on Easter Sunday, 18 April, 1908. The principal changes it made in the Church’s matrimonial legislation relate to clandestine marriages (which it makes null and void for all Catholics of the Latin Rite) and to questions incidental thereto. The law enacts that a marriage of Catholics of the Latin Rite is licit and valid only if contracted in the presence of the ordinary, or the parish priest, or a priest delegated by either, and at least two witnesses. Any priest may revalidate a sinful or an invalid marriage of those who, through sickness, are in serious danger of death, unless their case is such as admits of no revalidation — as for instance, if they are in holy orders. Again, in the case of those who live in districts where no priest resides, and who cannot without serious hardship go to one, the new law provides that, if such condition has lasted a month, they may marry without a priest, but in the presence of two witnesses, the record of their marriage being properly made as prescribed,” (Emphasis added). 

As Home Alone Catholics, this should be very consoling for those would like to marry or have married without a Catholic priest–unless you are the few likely among us who exchanged vows before an actual Catholic priest. We have certitude that the Church teaches that vows exchanged before two witnesses, where there are no impediments to the Sacrament of Matrimony, is lawfully and validly done.

I understand that there are difficult unions out there, that married people today are very much tried by fire, from infidelity, impurity, poverty, and so many numerous and nameless vices. The demonic forces converge and conspire against the family such that, next to the Hierarchical Church, the Divine institution of the Family is on the verge of near extinction. So few marriages actually exist as holy unions of husband and wife and children, not so much through impediments to Matrimony, but through divorce and remarriage. Man and woman marry, then divorce, then remarry, sometimes multiple times, and in the wake of which there are countless children who will never know normal, happy home life. It is, next to the death of God, the saddest thing in the world, because it is the death of childhood, which is the most beautiful and purest thing in the world, and the whole point and purpose of Matrimony.

And BetrayedCatholics is only making it worse by promoting divorce.

I cannot understand why Benns would say marriages officiated by non-Catholic ministers are invalid. I ask Teresa again to support this seemingly outlandish claim with sources in authentic Catholic teaching. For the love of God, for the love of men and women validly and licitly held fast in matrimonial bonds, do not armchair-theologian this one. Please. Don’t. For the love of the children.  

CE in Cryogenic Sleep

After much prayerful consideration, I have decided that CatholicEclipsed should go into cryogenic sleep mode.

It has become obvious to me these last several weeks that, no matter what kind of content I produce, or how much, the traffic here never seems to pick up, and the interaction via comments or email has been few. This is not to be unexpected, since I am targeting a very niche group: those who keep the Commandments of God and believe everything that the Church teaches, or, in other words, I am targeting Catholics.

Unless you have produced media, written articles, done podcasts, produced videos, or run a website of your own, you cannot appreciate the amount of stress this puts on one or the amount of work involved–especially when that one is myself, who tends toward laziness and the easy way out always. I did not work as hard at being a photojournalist on an aircraft carrier or a philosophy student at a university, as I do at running CatholicEclipsed.

Because of the desperately low traffic–literally less than twenty visits a day–I have decided to put CatholicEclipsed on autopilot, while I get some much needed rest from the hustle and bustle of producing content every week which is hardly seen by anyone. I leave the orbit of CE in the hands of the Almighty, to do with it what He will. I have produced solid, Catholic content here, which anyone of goodwill may use to their advantage to understand the crisis.

I must consider how my energy is spent, and how my life and the hours of my days are used, especially because my natural life expectancy is somewhat diminished on account of my chronic kidney disease. Do I want to continue to produce content very few will ever see, or, which is just repetitions or variations on an apocalyptic theme? I have time and talents which may be better spent elsewhere, like writing books for my children, producing artwork, or, above all, helping my wife classically homeschool our six children.

Forever Faithful

That is not to say I am never going to produce content for CE. I will write an article here and there as the inspiration to do so comes, and perhaps produce a Chromocast as time and energy permit me. I will poke around Galaxy Forum as well, when and if visitors happen upon it and offer a word or two. And, of course, I shall make myself available via COMMS, for anyone who would like to reach out with a question or concern.

To those who have faithfully read my articles, watched my videos and listened to my podcasts, I am truly thankful for your support. It let me know that what I was doing was at least being appreciated by some, if only a few in the entire world.

Since the visible Church went into eclipse 710,283 days ago when our Holy Father Pope Pius XII passed into eternity, the light of truth and the faith has been all but extinguished. Remember you are all the light that is left in the world now. So let your light shine on those around you, in your home where you keep Catholicism and our holy religion and faith, at work or on the internet. Draw from whatever good you find here, and pass it on, by sharing links of your favorite content.

I hope that the work I have done on this website will help people see the light and return to God.

CE Signing Off

Recognize and Resist Theology 101

As I have shown through a silly little production of mine below, the Recognize and Resist position is inherently non-Catholic. Check it out if you like dogmatically dead-serious coupled with cheekily humorous.

The Recognize and Resist theology is simple: if you don’t like what the current pope is saying, resist him. If you do like what he is saying, then give him your lay-approbation. The position is so very strikingly not Catholic, that I could probably end my days in writing on nothing else, making videos and talking into a microphone about nothing else but how absurd Recognize and Resist is.

Oftentimes I find myself producing content on CatholicEclipsed which focuses too much on Sedevacantists, in part because it is so reasonable to be a Sedevacantist, and the arguments against it are oftentimes difficult to understand–but even more difficult to refute, which is why they haven’t been at the time of this writing.

But I perhaps act imprudently, for there is a great number of very good people, very good would-be Catholics, who are taken in by the traditionalist Recognize and Resist position. The reasons for which have little to do with theology, but a lot to do with religious aesthetics, social value, networking, art and culture, and the veneer of everything Catholic. People are lulled into a doctrinal stupor and spiritual slumber by all those glittery vestments and gilded vessels, sacred polyphony, and beautified everything, that the thought just doesn’t occur that they are praying in communion with a heretic, which makes them heretics, or else complicit in the sin of communicatio in sacris.

I know, because I was one such Recognize and Resister. I attended a church in St. Louis which was venerable and gorgeous and magnificent. I listened to Michael Matt’s “Remnant Underground,” back when he actual believed that he was in the catacombs–remember the skulls and torches? I have been there and done that, which is why I speak with some authority on the position. I held the Recognize and Resist position for about a year or so, but then I started to learn what the Church actually teaches about the Roman Pontiff, and then and there I realized that I was resisting Catholicism.

The Copernican Revolution in the Church

The Recognize and Resist position is a trap which at once makes an individual either a heretic or a schismatic, but in either case not a Catholic. The R&R position says that we must recognize the man claiming to be pope to be pope, because the Church hasn’t deposed him–which itself is a heresy called conciliarism, but that we must also resist him when he teaches error. Now, the curious thing about R&R is that it is the exact reversal of the truth.

The papacy is the beginning point, the principle or rule of faith, whereas Recognize and Resist makes one’s own understanding and conscience the rule of faith. This is nothing else than the Copernican Revolution in the Catholic Church. Whereas in times past (say, prior to 1958 with the death of Pius XII), it was understood that the Ecclesia Docens was the active principle in the transmission of the faith. After the takeover of the Church’s hierarchy, however, that all changed. The laity took on a new role because the hierarchy, for all intents and purposes, was not Catholic anymore.

This change should have signaled to the players involved that the Church was in eclipse, and it did to a certain degree. A general falling away occurred during this “springtime” of the Church post-Second Vatican Council, a mass immigration away from the Church and into the world. The only problem was that those who thought they stayed within the Church were actually staying within the false church of Satan and the Antichrist.

Naturally, the people who did remain in what they believed to be the Church, had to come up with solutions to the inherent contradictions they were facing. Enter stage left the Traditionalists. These characters, from the pseudo-Catholic Archbishop Lefebvre to the pseudo-catholic lay-theologian Michael Davies, to the latter generation of Michael Matt and Co., each sought to redefine and rethink the papacy, not from a doctrinal perspective, necessarily, but from their actions and insinuations which would eventually undermine the very meaning of the papacy.

The end result of this gradual process was that the Catholic conscience was no longer formed by the Church but was formed by the individual in the pew. He had it within himself to determine what was and was not Catholic, because the ones who were supposed to do that for him, no longer existed. That is the plain fact and brief history of the Recognize and Resist phenomenon. The Catholic Church was unknown and unknowable, just as the phenomenal world of Kant. Man, like the sun, revolved around the earth or the Church. Now, the earth revolved around the sun. The Church revolved and was defined by the layman in the pew with the high school diploma or journalism degree.

The Rule of Faith as the Antithesis of the Copernican Revolution

To get back to sanity, to the ways of the world and how things actually work, we must first recognize that the man claiming to be pope is not. To fail in this first step will lead to the invariable loss of faith, because recognizing a man who is not the pope, who is not Catholic, but who must be our rule of faith, destroys the very principle or rule of our faith, and so our faith as well:

“If faith is necessary for all men at all times and in all places, and if a true saving faith demands a clear knowledge of what we have to believe, it is clear that an infallible teaching Church is an absolute necessity. Such a Church alone can speak to men of all classes and at all times; it alone can, by reason of its perpetuity and ageless character, meet every new difficulty by a declaration of the sound form of doctrine which is to be held. If the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is distorted, none but the Church can say ‘This is its true meaning, and not that; I know that it is as I say because the Spirit which assists me is One with the Spirit which rested on Him and on them’; the Church alone can say, ‘Christ truly rose from the tomb, and I know it, because I was there, and saw the stone rolled back’. The Church alone can tell us how we are to interpret the words ‘This is My Body’, for she alone can say, ‘He Who spoke those words speaks through me, He promised to be with me all days, He pledged Himself to safeguard me from error at all times,'” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Rule of Faith”).

The Recognize and Resist position rejects the whole idea of the Church as a Rule of Faith, insofar as it rejects the notion of a proximate rule of faith, which is absolutely necessary as well:

“The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed “proximate but inanimate rules of faith”. Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living,” (Ibid).

Recognize and Resist adherents do not call themselves R&R but Traditionalists. They give their position away immediately, for as the the above teaches us, tradition is a silent or inanimate rule of faith and cannot be in itself the means by which our faith is formed. For that, we must rely on a living voice, a preaching and teaching voice. The traditionalists simply do not have this. What they have are teachers, yes, but such who claim that their spiritual superiors are at once heretics and yet hold offices in the Church–like Lefebvre, who denounced time and again the hierarchy of the Novus Ordo and yet recognized them as his superiors.

Does Home Alone Fall into the Same Fallacy as R&R?

Since, then, the faith requires a proximate and animate rule of faith by which it is to be regulated, how exactly does the Home Alone position not succumb to the same error as traditionalists in denying this absolute necessity? That is a very good question and counter-argument to the Home Alone position. The answer lies, however, in a distinction that I would like to borrow from our good friends, the adherents of the Cassiciacum thesis, or the Material-Formal Thesis–which I refute here.

The proximate and animate rule of faith is indeed necessary, but the question is in what sense is it necessary. The answer is that it is necessary according to the formal principle, that is, to the Magisterial Teaching Church, the hierarchy as such. In order for the hierarchy to be what it actually is, it must have a proximate and living rule of faith. The Teaching Church becomes for the Learning Church the efficient cause of the faith in the laity and this happens through the formal cause of the hierarchy, and principally through the Roman Pontiff:

“The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church, as is clear from the passages already quoted from the New Testament and the Fathers. But the teaching Church may be regarded either as the whole body of the episcopate, whether scattered throughout the world or collected in an ecumenical council, or it may be synonymous with the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ. Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20); but only one of the bishops, viz., the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of St. Peter; he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith,” (Ibid).

The hierarchy is formed by the Roman Pontiff, which also forms the faith of the laity as a rule of faith. Now the Home Alone position, like the Recognize and Resist position, does not believe that the hierarchy as such is a proximate and living rule of faith. The difference is, the R&R believe that Tradition is the means by which the faith of the individual is formed, whereas the Home Alone advocate must abandoned this idea altogether, because Tradition, being inanimate, cannot form the faith of the individual, because it is silent. Ultimately, for the R&R, it is not Tradition which is the rule of faith, but the individual’s own conscience, intellectual processing, and preference.

If Home Alone is to escape from this Copernican Revolution in the Church, whereby the rule of faith becomes something within the individual, instead of from the Church Herself, there must be an acknowledgment of the Home Alone position’s limitation. That limitation is that there is no longer a formal and efficient cause of the rule of faith left in the world. But hope is not lost, for there remains a material cause. Let me explain.

The material cause of a thing is that from which it comes to be what it is. The tired analogy of a potter’s clay is ready at hand, but let’s give a more applicable example. The Church is a Body, which exists as an amalgamation of believers in Christ, partaking of the same sacraments, and governed by their lawful pastors under one head the Roman Pontiff. As has been said, the Teaching Church is the formal cause of the rule of faith by which the faith of the laity is formed. Now the rule of faith, and the faith as such, is a discipline of belief and action, to which obedience is owed so as to be effective. Just so, is there the same relationship in a vessel, which analogy I bring out fully here.

The idea there was that the crew represent the laity. They are willing to serve, but they themselves are not commissioned officers (the hierarchy). They cannot issue orders or assign duties to carry out the mission of the vessel. Likewise, neither can the laity today. The commands of the officers are the formal and efficient causes of the crew’s obedience and discipline. But, insofar as the crew have shown up and are willing to subject themselves to an actually commissioned officer, it can be said that they have the material cause of obedience and discipline but not the formal or efficient. As a point in fact, the willing seaman also has the final cause within him which moves him to be on deck to await orders, whenever that may happen.

Conversely, the Recognize and Resist crowd have neither the formal and efficient causes of discipline and obedience (which is the rule of faith), nor do they have the material cause of obedience, because, as their name suggests, they disobey or resist the man they claim to be their captain. Were they on a real wartime vessel–which is what the Ark of the Church is–they would be given 33 lashings, and jettisoned overboard for the mutineers they are.

All that Home Alone Catholics–the only remaining real Catholics–must do is be willing to submit to the hierarchy when once it shows itself, or is reconstituted by a Divine act of God. Our standing orders are to be found in approved catechisms of our region, which we have no doubts as to their authenticity. We may not have officers to direct our actions or to explain our situation and guide us on the mission, but we have general directives by which we may know, in a general way, what we are to believe and do to arrive at a safe harbor.

Readers Caught in a Net of Ignorance

It is estimated that at least 100,000 dolphins and whales are tragically caught in fishing nets in a given year. I would estimate that BetrayedCatholics receives at least 100,000 views every year, which means that there are 100,000 chances of being trapped in a net of ignorance. The inhumanity is unreal.

In her BetrayedCatholics article, “Traditionalists were incapable of receiving valid consecration,” Teresa Benns has again demonstrated to the world that she simply does not comprehend the difference between sacramental and jurisdictional power of the holy orders. Benns says:

“Pope Pius XII did not nullify anyone’s Orders, as Traditionalists sneeringly allege against those questioning the validity of their pseudo-clergy: he withdrew the power of those attempting to confer them without the papal mandate during an interregnum, so that whatever they did had no effect. And this is assuming they ever validly received any Orders in the first place which only a true pope could determine! The ACT of episcopal consecration (or ordination) is not nullified — the ones attempting to convey Orders and those attempting to receive them are declared incapable of ACTING and receiving. This is a very important distinction. You can scarcely nullify something that could never take place to begin with,” (Original emphasis).

BetrayedCatholics, Not Pius XII

Let us first get one thing straight, Pope Pius XII is dead, so not only did he not nullify any sacraments (which is a thing impossible), neither did Pius XII declare anyone incapable of acting and receiving orders. That was and is Teresa Benns, who has been saying the same thing–against fraternal correction–for over a decade if not longer.

If anything, it is the law of Pius XII which limits the powers of individuals in the Church from acting or receiving, not the man himself. THIS is a very important distinction, because it really makes plain and obvious that the only person adjudicating anything here is Teresa Benns, who has gotten it into her head that she is some kind of canon lawyer. It is a really sad thing.

Now, let us return to the quote above. Benns claims that Pius XII (but in reality his law) withdrew the power of those attempting to confer holy orders, but that this is not a nullification of the orders as such. She says, “The act of episcopal consecration (or ordination) is not nullified…” I may forgive the readers of BetrayedCatholics for being confused on this whole affair of whether the Sedevacantist holy orders are valid or not, when they have to wade through such doctrinally-devoid drivel in order to make heads or tails of the question. If, according to Benns, Pius XII withdrew the power to confer holy orders, then he nullified the holy orders the conferrer had. What power was being withdrawn but for the power of the conferrer!?

The so-called important distinction that Benns is trying to make is a complete figment of her imagination, and not a product of any activity of ratiocination, or, what is more likely, the distinction Benns is trying to make is a product of her will instead of her intellect. She wants the Sedevacantist clergy to be invalid. She needs the Sedevacantist clergy to be invalid. Why? Because if they are not, she will have been wrong for over a decade. That’s why. It really is a sad thing.

So, what does the Church teach concerning the conferring of holy orders by heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicated? As usual, let us turn to the Angelic Doctor, who is not animated by any personal interest in being right, but, guided by truth and charity, and is a true master and teacher of Catholic doctrine. The Theologian teaches in the article, “Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?” that, yes, even those outside the Church can confer the sacraments:

“Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Just as Baptism remains in them,” i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, “so do their orders remain intact.” Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.

“I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament [like Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics]. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.”

“Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly.

“But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice,” (Summa Theologica, III.82.7).

The distinction between sacramental power conferred in holy orders and jurisdictional power received in holy orders but through the Church, has been hashed out here before. The teaching of the Church on this matter is so well established and so beyond dispute, that to doubt it seems at the very least to smack of heresy. I am not inclined to believe Teresa Benns is a formal heretic, but I do believe she is so woefully inept at making proper distinctions, that those who feel the need to read her, should be made aware of how really unreliable she is.

And that is why I speak out against Benns. It is not because she is a bad woman. On the contrary, she is very nice, and a good Catholic. But she is not a good teacher, because she does not know what she does not know, and that really is a really sad thing.

The Ignorance of Teresa Benns

It is taken as almost de fide among Home Alone Catholics that Teresa Benns knows what she is talking about. This is such a dangerous thing, because it sets up the cult with the cult leader. Now, as one friend of mind has told me, it is common that people flock to leaders, because it is a matter of human nature. And I agree with him. No man is an island, and we all, even the most individual and independent among us require authorities and teachers and leaders. And I am not convinced that these can be sought for in the past. Rather, I think it is human nature to reach out to the living for a living voice to be guided by.

Since the take over of the hierarchy and authoritative offices in the Church by infidels, we Catholics must find substitutes of the Teaching Church which will do at least the job of instructing the ignorant. But the ignorant cannot instruct the ignorant. I have tried, as well as others, to instruct Teresa Benns’s ignorance, but her sense of self-importance is so inflated, that nothing gets through to her. The ignorance of Teresa Benns is not in her intellect. She is very smart, and probably borderline genius in memory capacity. She recalls very well, and is very keen intellectually, especially if one considers that she is well past her prime.

But there are two powers of the soul, the intellect and the will, which move and are moved. The intellect can move the will, but the will can also move the intellect, and indeed blind it by desiring that which it should not. I believe this is what is happening with Benns in this whole business about validity of holy orders. She desires that which she should not, and so her intellect is blinded by her desire.

If we are ever going to see an end to the outright error and possible heresy of BetrayedCatholics on the score of holy orders being invalidly conferred, Teresa Benns must first right her inordinate desire. She must put truth and authentic Catholic doctrine ahead of her own pet ideas she so desperately desires to be true. Until that happens, I am afraid she will forever be a blot on the Home Alone Catholic community, that is, until such a time that she is no longer looked upon as a leader of Home Alone Catholics. Then she may quietly recite her silly little arguments in the corner of the web where they are safely ignored and not heard.

Answering an Obvious Objection

“You’re just bad-mouthing Benns because YOU want to be that leader of Home Alone Catholics!” I can hear BetrayedCatholics loyalists shouting at their computer monitors. How to answer such an objection? Well, first, I would answer the objection by saying it is utterly true. That’s right. I do want to be a leader of the Home Alone Catholics because I believe I can offer instruction for the ignorant in lieu of the Catholic hierarchy. Of course, I only claim the ability and aptitude to be a kind of catechist, and make no pretension to anything more.

But the objection is incorrect if it means that that was my motive for correcting Benns. I desire to be helpful to my fellow Home Alone Catholics quite independent of Benns, and, as you may recall, at one time I was contented and happy to serve right next to her. We collaborated on a number of things together, and we were happy of the mutual support. But all that changed when she could not be instructed in her ignorance, and built a wall between us.

For those who will allow themselves to be helped along and guided by straightforward instruction on the Catholic Faith, and encouragement on the road to Heaven, I am here. For those who would rather give their attention and follow the ramblings of one Teresa Benns, on account of some affinity to her, then I leave you alone. I have noticed a considerable drop-off in comments and interaction and traffic since I parted ways with BetrayedCatholics. This was to be expected, but that doesn’t make it right.

For those who love the truth in its entirety, for those who love the faith undimmed by the spot of pride, for those who yearn for fellowship, if only online, CatholicEclipsed is here. I have hopefully proven myself to be a trusted guide and friend you can learn from and talk with, and even fraternally correct when proven wrong, unlike Benns, who is not trustworthy as a guide, blacklists her friends, and couldn’t be corrected to free all the dolphins in the sea from tuna nets.

Star Wars Andor, a new television series, just released episode 4, which, I must say, I found to be incredibly boring. I even warned my children about how boring it would be, and advised that if they watch it, then should have some Legos handy to offset their boredom.

But this got me thinking; why should a show like Star Wars be so boring? It was not intuitive, until I starting to work out the cause. What follows is my attempt to do that, though in a circuitous way, hinting at things rather than demonstrating them.

Propaganda as a Weapon

When I was a student of military journalism at the Defense Information School, I learned that the agenda and image of the branch of service for which I served was of paramount importance. The truth was not. The ethics of military journalism are far different from the ethics of civil journalism, and well, they should be. It was our job to inform the world of catastrophic causalities or deployment operations, the divulgement of which at the wrong time and with too much truth could jeopardize the mission.

My mission as a Navy journalist was simply to be a propagandist and report the favorable image of the Navy, to promote morale, and release only as much information as the public needed to know, or the crew for that matter. When doing journalism, the agenda, the mission, was first, never truth.

You see, propaganda is a weapon, and as a military journalist, I know first-hand how strategic it can be. There is such a thing as “display of dominance of power,” which is why you oftentimes hear of a bunch of Navy ships in the Pacific somewhere doing seemingly nothing more than launching aircraft and turning in circles at high speed. To the enemy of America, the Navy is asserting its maritime dominance, but my point is that our enemy wouldn’t even know about such dominance were it not for yourself truly and shipmates like myself photographing and writing stories about how awesome the Navy is.

You are probably wondering what any of this has to do with Star Wars Andor, the new American television series streaming on Disney+. Well, after watching the first few episodes, and the most recent fourth episode in particular, I am convinced that the writers of the show are military propagandists and not cinematic artists.

Andor as Political, Commercial, and Religious Propaganda

The virtue of art, as opposed to military journalism, which is propaganda, is beauty and truth. Insofar as art represents life and does so beautifully (an essential), it is art. If art only aims at truth, it is little more than journalism. If it only aims at beauty, or that which pleases when seen (Thomistic definition), it may be art, but it is very superficial and low art.

Propaganda, on the other hand, neither aims to be truthful or beautiful, but merely to persuade. What is propaganda? The definition in the Encyclopedia Britannica, as found on the Wikipedia page, is as follows:

“Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.”

Andor is heavy on the aim to persuade people to a particular agenda, which is that corporations are evil and political power is corrupt, or corrupts. I am not going to bother you with mentioning names in the show, in part because I can never remember myself what the characters are called, which is perhaps a consequence of my bad memory or my lack of interest in the characters–which is itself a consequence of the show being propaganda and not art.

False Dichotomy

I wanted to talk briefly about Andor as propaganda in order to get us thinking about why it is propaganda and not art, something that seemingly almost everything made today is after. Episode 4 of the show slowly develops a plot of characters after either domination or revolution. There is no third way, that of all seeking the common good of each and all, which is Christian solidarity.

Andor presents a world that is super-charged with either one of two characters, that of the rebel or that of the overlord. Either you are revolting against an order of domination or else you are suppressing an antagonist to that dominating order. This is a false dichotomy, and so a falsity of reality. The world is not separated by those who dominate and those who are dominated. Well, perhaps it is now, but my point is that it need not always be because it wasn’t in the past. A typical counter-example could be Saint King Louis IX, who helped to rebuild France, which was (fittingly) being plummeted into darkness by the rebellious noble class.

The false dichotomy dynamic is mostly seen in the relationship between the Empire and the little brigand band of rebels who, in this episode anyway, have adopted the identity of a people very much fashioned after the Scotts of the Highlands–who, interestingly enough, opposed Catholic conversion on the whole, preferring Calvinism.

So, you have these oppressed people the leader of which is painfully Irish in appearance, who are ready to execute an insurrection against the Empire stationed there. The show harps on the idyllic lands visually, and harps (pun intended, we are Irish for the moment!) on the sob story of how the indigenous tribes or clans were moved on by the Empire to make way for an outpost and staging area for the Empire. And we are made to feel that this is bad somehow, but if pressed to articulate in theoretical language why, I am sure no one could possibly say.

The show attempts to persuade the viewer of the opinion that the Empire is bad for being orderly and structured and the band of rebels is good for, well, rebelling against that order. Now, one knows why exactly it is bad to be big and strong and ordered, and no one really knows why it is good to be a part of the rebellion.

The costuming also charmingly underscores this mindless mind-shaping show. The Empire characters are always seen, and the Military Corporation, too, as neatly groomed, with ironed uniforms, and professional comportment, what in the Navy we would have called “squared away,” which was always complimentary.

Now, compare that to what the Rebels look like, in particular the main character, Andor, and you see what I mean. They are never really groomed, their clothes look like something out of a hipster catalogue or else something a bum would wear, and they slouch or lack good posture. They are lazy and lack discipline, unless we are talking about what seems to be a boss character of the Rebels. Then you have a character who shifts from a traveling salesman-like character to a flamboyant art dealer in the twinkling of an eye.

What the show cares little if anything about is developing interesting characters and moving the plot along. What the show does very well is develop this narrative that order, power, discipline are vices, and decentralization, weakness, and loafing are virtues. It is clear that the show is aiming neither at truth nor beauty but something else, an undercurrent and agenda which is, in the finally analysis a detriment to the American mind and culture.

Hence, propaganda as a weapon. Andor is a piece of propaganda which was made presumably to undermine civilization as such. Too far? Consider that before the issue was between the Republic and the Monarchy. The socialists have all but killed or hollowed out monarchy today, and so what is left is democratic republicanism, which the show Star Wars champions. The Empire is always evil, the Republic is always good. But the problem remains to change an Empire into a Republic.

Lest the reader think these are just imaginary musing on a television show with no practical application, I will remind him or her that our last sitting president who was attempting to make America great again was defrauded his re-election, and when the rebels came, they were not party to the republican president but to the democratic overthrow of that president through a farce of an election in which there was more fraud than could be adequately documented or presented. Anyone who doubts that needs to consult the history books.

The same rebels of Andor, and consequently, the same group of people the show is targeting to influence, were the ones with the fire bombs in the streets igniting cars when Donald Trump was elected president the first time, and who crowded the streets and did violence against Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.

The hero of Andor is quite literally the enemy of America. Andor was uprooted from his homeland, in which he had to fight the Empire and Corporations at a young age. This is the same type and character in the narrative currently influencing contemporary American culture, the African American, and South and Central American, or the non-White American, really.

(I should probably have mentioned that the uniforms of the Empire in this show are interestingly white, except for the individual Empire dissenter helping the pretender Irish Highlanders who have a shocking resemblance to the irredentism of the IRA, who is not white. He is black, and his uniform is black, too.)

Anyway, the show depicts the hero Andor as a rebel fighter really for his people. He is the rebel without a cause, even though the show talks a lot about “the cause.” We are not really sure what that is, if it isn’t to displace all order in the galaxy with a bunch of loafers in sheepskin and blasters, which seems to be the same agenda of the hidden Globalist Elite pulling the strings on these rebels in the American streets.

Wrap-up

I write this post in anticipation of Columbus Day, which is October 10. I plan to do a Chromocast for it, which should be very interesting. Let me just conclude by saying that we need to be on our guard against propagandist media. The forces of darkness have been trying to upset the order in the galaxy for a while now, and have been very successful in doing so, because God wills it. Make no mistake, Satan is at the back of all this, and the Antichrist in the Vatican (in other words, Francis) is doing his part in it all.

The move is to make Western civilization feel remorse for its past, just as the Second Vatican Council wanted to make the Catholic Church feel remorse for its past. This is because Western civilization is the Catholic Church. We see, then, that ultimately the political and commercial propaganda of Andor is at its roots religious propaganda.

Just as the superstitious pagans of England worshiped at Stonehenge, which was itself an astrological and religious site, so the show Andor has their raid and insurrection happening at the precise time of an astronomically significant event–which (we hope) the writers will get to in episode 5–at an astrological and religious site. The people from all over the land will be there to witness the phenomenon, and will do so as they gather at some kind of monolithic structure reminiscent of Stonehenge. Coincidence, or propaganda. You decide.

Shameless Advertising

If you enjoy reading the CE Log, perhaps you could tell a friend about it. Perhaps, if you really enjoy reading it, you could subscribe to it below. All you need do is enter your email and, BAM! you have the newest content wired directly to your inbox. Just think about it.