The Heresy of Race: Chesterton as prophet in showing the connection between Hitlerism, Prussian identity and the Jewish notion of racial superiorit

Note: I do not necessarily agree with everything said by the authors herein, but it is worth understanding without name calling

** I will first post a link to GK Chesterton’s article on how the Jewish understanding of racial superiority and how it influenced the prussian mind that would later have a role in Hitlerism(fyi, the Church does not support the idea of race, she recognizes ethnicities, but ones DNA is not regarded in Catholic tradition) . After which I will post a short excerpt from a website that goes more into depth on the essay. Finally, it is worth noting some parallels in the current build up of Russian identity as the Third Rome and so forth. So here we go

The Judaism of Hitler – GK Chesterton

SOURCE

Click here for article

“...Deliquescent religious syncretism always weakens the integrity of the cultural immune system and subverts a healthy resistance to intrusive and destructive ideologies and alien faiths. But, in addition to this kind of Dialectic of “Solve et Coagula” – i.e., a sort of Hegelian process of emergence and convergence, or amalgamation and “aggregation into larger political units” – Chesterton also saw another, narrower and more concentrated development: namely, a certain very incongruous combination of “heathenry and heresy;” a sort of Hegelian consolidation of “Old Testament Christianity” and a New Heathenism. It was the ideology of Prussianism: an eclectic amalgamation of Lutheranism and Neo-Paganism, which then developed into the Neo-Paganism and Hitlerian “Heresy of Race.” It appeared to him to be deeply rooted in Prussia, although Chesterton saw it coming from even deeper spiritual and historical sources, as we shall see...

Chesterton's deep discernments and warnings about the impending danger of a “narrow national and tribal fury” and the towering weakness of intellectual and spiritual Pride should help us understand, in order to resist, both aggressive American “Exceptionalism” today and its self-destructive arrogance, and Christian (as well as Judaic) Zionism's comparably insolent sense of “Chosenness” and “Morally Immune Exclusiveness.” Like Chesterton's own “vivid conviction” about neo-Pagan “Prussianism,” we see these later developments, too, as “a poison to the world.”...

One of Chesterton's specifically profound and farsighted essays, entitled “The Judaism of Hitler,” will, furthermore, help us see the deeper background of World War II; but it will also aid our understanding of the current wars we are in, and not only in the Middle-East. We may also thereby come to realize why there are now so many growing barriers, and even legal penalties, as well as various psycho-techniques of intimidation, set up against any candid scholarly inquiry into certain neglected or hidden truths of history, especially the history of World War II, but even of World War I. Chesterton himself saw that “the Armistice” after World War I was not truly a “Peace,” but rather, only “a Truce”: a mere temporary “stacking of arms,” full of bitterness, and with a latent explosiveness, indeed. Chesterton, reflecting upon the then-impending second War in Europe and the wider world, saw “Hitlerism” itself as a further manifestation of “Prussianism,” though with an admixture of some new “biological,” as well as “Asiatic” and often “Gnostic,” ideological variants. “Hitlerism's” own “racial arrogance” prompted the generous and humble Chesterton to make his own trenchant “analysis of the heresy of Race,” and to resist the permeating and resurgent spiritual disease of Pride.

In a certain sense, “Hitlerism” was for Chesterton a sort of “New Prussia,” with an added Asiatic spirit of the Huns, as well as the haughtiness of “the Nordic Man” and a new form of an old thing: “the heresy of Race.” Because of this combination of cruelty and cold Pride, Chesterton himself retained that “vivid conviction that Prussia was Prussianism and Prussianism a poison to the world”  – like their contemporary Asiatic analogue, Japanese militarism. But, he adds, with his unmistakable irony: “General Goering may be trusted to teach us better; till we learn at least thatnothing is so anarchical as discipline divorced from authority; that is from right.”[11] (The New American Empire, however, with its own blinding Pride, seems not yet to have learned this lesson: this truth about Power divorced from moral authority and its ill-fruits of anarchy.)

Because of its own pervasive Pride, Chesterton mightily opposed the martial ideology of “Prussianism” and the “Prussian militaristic government,” even from its inception; but he especially opposed its later public dominance over what he calls “the Old Germany,” which included “Austria,” as well. His reasons for his resistance are important, and timely:

As man may say, as a scientific fact, that there is in Northern China a well of petroleum, we said [before, during, and after World War I] that there is in Northern Europe a fountain of poison. It is a fact; it continues to flow. It is obviously nonsense to call it Germany. It is not really satisfactory even to call it Prussia. It is much more satisfactory simply to call it Pride. It is a thing of the spirit; it is not a nation; it is a heresy [a combination of “heathenism and Lutheranism”]. It is an idealoutside the European ideal; outside what most of us would call the normal human ideal. It is something alien to Europe, which Europe cannot digest and did not destroy.

Thus, as of the early 1930s, especially, says Chesterton: The result is that Prussia begins to reappear; which means that Militarism [as in Japan and in Kemal Ataturk's Turkey] begins to reappear. Prussia means Prussianism now exactly as it meant Prussianism then; it always did, it always does, and (short of a spiritual conversion) it always will. Prussia is a patch of eighteenth century heathenry and heresy [and of Old Testament Christianity], which never did believe, nor (to do it justice) generally pretend to believe, in any sort of international ideal or common code of Christendom [much less the Creed of Catholic Christendom]. From the first command of Hohenzollern to the last appeal of Hitler, it [“Prussianism”] is the most simple, one-sided, savage tribal patriotism .... The consequence is that Prussia is the one European State that [as of the mid-1930s] may at any moment wage [like America today] an aggressive war. We all said this steadily for five years [1909-1914] ...; and some of us have always refused to unsay it. But a good many [the New Pacifists] seem to have been ashamed for ten years [1919-1929] of having told the truth; and are still ashamed, even when [circa 1933-1935] the truth has once again come true.

The reality called Europe made sense to Chesterton only when “you see Europe as Christendom.” Therefore, this alien thing called “Prussianism” (as an ideology and spirit, and a stunting deformation) is something difficult for him to characterize with fair adequacy. He says:

It is difficult to find a fit word for it [this alien spirit] .... The nearest definition I know is this. The civilized man, like the religious man, is one who recognizes that something exists besides himself .... what medieval people called Christendom or the judgment of all Christian princes; what any Christian will call the conscience of man as a witness to the justice of God .... But in one way or other that is the test; that the man [or nation] does not think his dignity lowered by admitting a general law [like the Natural Moral Law or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon of the Mount]though it might go against him.

Further describing this truly alien and destructive spirit of “Prussianism,” Chesterton says:

There does really lie to the north-east between us [in Britain] and the Christian State of Poland and the almost Asiatic State of Muscovy, a real independent source or spring of the opposite spirit [to traditional Christian Europe]. It is not only something that praises itself; it is something that needs no praise except its own .... He [i.e., the Prussian] is simply proud of himself and his sort; and would be equally proud of wrecking [Catholic] Christendom or enslaving humanity. This is the problem of Prussia, which is not even the problem of Prussians, but only of Prussianism. It is certainly not the problem of limits they have accepted and the [Prussian] leadership they have obeyed. But the point is that something unbaptized and barbaric does remain among the [European] nations; as it would say unconquered; as we should say, unconverted; and, anyhow,entirely unrepentant.

We shall soon see that this “Prussianism,” in Chesterton's farsighted understanding, is at the roots of “Hitlerism” and its own “racial arrogance,” although “Hitlerism” ultimately drew upon an older source, as well. The idea of a “Chosen People” can very easily become pervaded with the spirit of Pride, which is, once again, not a spiritual strength, but, rather, a towering spiritual weakness.

In such “Prussianism,” as in the more intense “racial arrogance” of the later “Hitlerism,” Chesterton would always say: “There is that fountain of poisonous pride, there is that isolated idolatry of self.” Moreover, he would add:

And clear and honest thinking must not shrink from starting afresh with that first fact [i.e., that the 1918 Armistice was not a Peace], that there is in Christendom, unconverted and unconquered, a force that is not Christian. Surely it is not so very impossible to believe that it was this [“Prussianism”] that threatened the world with war in 1914; when it is obviously this [i.e., this “Prussianism” which is to be found in the new Hitlerism and in the very “Judaism of Hitler”] that threatens it with war now [in the mid-1930s]?

With characteristic magnanimity and humility, Chesterton says:

Let us forget for a day whatever we may think about the faults of others [like the Pride of “Prussianism”]; and pray that we may not again wreck the hope of the world by faults of our own. Let us pray that if the challenge [of a New War] does indeed come again, we may not meet it byrandom slander or roaring self-righteousness .... Let us pray to be delivered from the vices and vulgarities of our own [decadent and post-Christian] civilization; and all the more if we sincerely believe that it is still a civilization, and may need to be defended from something that is still a savagery.

Becoming more specific about the deeper and now more developed “Prussianist” threats in “Hitlerism,” a modest Chesterton winsomely adds:

If the ruin that fell on the House of Hohenzollern [in World War I] was, as I still believe, a doom earned and provoked by the dehumanized pride of Prussia, we [Christians and British] must not forget that the vast economic collapse [in 1929] that has affected the victors [in World War I] hasalmost as much of the quality of a great historical judgment; and the rebuke of fate to our own mercantile and mechanical [and now psycho-electronic] culture. In so far as modern men can face such facts frankly, they will be worthy to find peace or fitted to face war.

With this brief background-consideration of “Prussianism” and its own “poisonous fountain of Pride,” we may now examine the more censored and explosive topic of “Hitlerism” and its cognates and antecedents.

Chesterton forthrightly says: “Hitlerism is almost entirely of Jewish origin” With his drollery and charm, he notes at once that “This truth might not have the soothing effect which I desire;” and playfully adds that “This simple historical explanation, if it were written on a post-card or a telegraph-form, and addressed to Herr Hitler's private address, might or might not cause him to pause in his political career, and reconsider all human history in the light of the blazing illumination with which I have furnished him in these words”! These words, he then seriously contends, “are none the less strictly historical” and must now be more amply examined.

Admittedly, says Chesterton, the creative and imitative Germans

Produced a sort of Prussianism that was praised or blamed as militarism; but they borrowed the idea of militarism from the French .... The greatest of the Prussians [Frederick II, Frederick the Great of Prussia] did not even conceal his contempt for Prussia. He refused to talk anything but French, or to exchange ideas with anybody, except somebody of the type of Voltaire. Then came the liberal ideas of the French Revolution, and the whole movement of German Unity was originally a liberal movement on the lines of the French Revolution. Then came the more modern and much more mortally dangerous idea of Race, which the Germans borrowed from a Frenchman named Gobineau. And on top of that idea of Race, came the grand, imperial idea of a Chosen Race, or a sacred seed that is, as the Kaiser said, the salt of the earth; of a people that is God's favourite and guided by Him, in a sense which He does not guide other lesser peoples. And if anybody asks where anybody got THAT idea, there is only one possible or conceivable answer. He got it [the idea of a Chosen Race] from the Jews.

With a view to Nineteenth-Century and to Twentieth-Century Weimar Germany, Chesterton then says, with trenchancy and some softer irony, the following: It is perfectly true that the Jews have been very powerful in Germany .... But the Germans will find it very hard to cut up their culture on a principle of Anti-Semite amputation .... But again, it is but [i.e., only] just to Hitlerism to say that the Jews did infect Germany with a good many things less harmless than the lyrics of Heine or the melodies of Mendelssohn. It is true that many Jews toiled at that obscure conspiracy against Christendom; and sometimes it was marked not by obscurity but obscenity. It is true that they were financiers, or in other words usurers; it is true that they fattened on the worst forms of Capitalism; and it is inevitable that, on losing these advantages of Capitalism, they naturally took refuge in its other form, which is Communism. For both Capitalism and Communism rest on the same idea: a centralization of wealth which destroys private property. (Materialism is modern lingo for this)

Probing deeper into this mystical “idea of a Chosen Race,” our author concludes:

But among the thousand and one ways in which Semitism affected Germanism is in this mystical idea, which came through Protestantism [originally a kind of “Old Testament Christianity,” as often noted]. Here the Nordic Men, who are never thinkers, were entirely at the mercy of the Jews, who are always thinkers. When the Reformation had rent away the more Nordic sort of German from the old idea of human fellowship in a Faith [the Catholic Faith] open to all, they obviously needed some other idea that would at least look equally large and towering and transcendental. They began to get it through the passionate devotion of historical Protestants to the Old Testament.

That is to say:

By concentrating on the ancient story of the Covenant with Israel, and losing the counterweight of the ideal of the universal Church of Christendom, they [the Protestants, especially the “Prussianized” or “Hitlerized” Protestants] grew more and more into the mood of seeing their religion as a mystical religion of Race. And then, by the same modern processes, their education fell into the hands of the Jews.

By way of further explanation of this last sentence, Chesterton observes:

There are Jewish mystics and Jewish sceptics; but about this one matter of the strange sacredness of his own race, almost every Jewish sceptic is a Jewish mystic. When they insinuated their ideals into German culture, they doubtless very often acted, not only as sceptics, but as cynics. But, even if they were only pretending to be mystics, they could only pretend to understand one kind of mysticism. Thus, German mysticism became more and more like Jewish mysticism”

It is worth reading the article in full HERE


Finally, with all this insanity from the Russians wanting to be recognized as the “third Rome” (already heretical seeing as they think authority for the Church rests with the empire and not with Peter), we can see how the influence of super race theory noted in John 8:39 (where the Jews pounded their chests with pride saying they were of the seed of Abraham and therefore superior) just moves from central Europe to the ole’ sleeping bear. It’s not a secret who funded the Bolshevik revolution, and that the Russians now should fall into the same trap as the Germans, and yes we as the Exceptional Americans (as Beck put it we are exceptional because we believe Man can rule himself... does anyone else see any problems here with that idea?) Just keep a close eye on Russia and the US as both are likely to be pitted against each other to “see” who is more exceptional, or shall we say superior?

Since this is always a Hot button topic since the term "Jewish" is in use, it is worth again noting that what is being talked about here is an idea propagated originally by the Jewish people, but it does not come intrinsically from their being.  Most Jews do not think as such, but the idea is so far beyond them at this point that its origin is not relevant unless you are willing to tackle "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" E. Michael Jones has hit on along with many of the saints and Doctors of Holy Mother Church.  And, if your response is that this is anti-Semitic, take it some place else, you don't know my background and your definitions are vague and therefore useless.  The point is not to hate anyone, only to correct a false understanding with charity before others pay for bad ideas.

Pray for the Jews, and pray that the Puritan and Orthodox heresies will cease before more problems arise.

Oh and pray for Pope Francis and your Bishop, we all need many, many prayers!

Update: The young messiah and the case of nominalism

Brother Andre Marie of the St. Benedict center took on this issue as well in his radio show.
You can find it by clicking HERE
---------------------------------------------

So a new 'Jesus' movie came out during lent... no surprise
The movie contains grevious errors and even outright heresy... no surprise.

Catholics both lay and ordained are applauding the effort... exactly, no surprise.

You can even listen to the 3/11 show of Catholic Answers live in which Steven Grayanus reviews the movie and applauds it, all the while down playing the Christological error within as not important, because... well its complicated.

Dave Armstrong (whom I have had disagreements with in the past) has recently wrote about the nominalism and grevious problems within the movie:


"The Young Messiah is the latest “Bible movie” to appear. The problem is that it’s not (technically speaking) all that “biblical.” We know very little about Jesus’ childhood, and so the film draws from extrabiblical sources of mostly dubious historical value. For background’s sake, it’s drawn from Anne Rice‘s 2005 novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Rice has since left the Catholic Church and “organized religion” (I have written about the inadequacy of her reasoning in that respect). As soon as I saw the first TV ad for this movie my immediate reaction was to be suspicious of it. I highly suspected that it would portray the young Jesus in a way that was contrary to the Catholic faith, in terms of Jesus’ own self-consciousness and omniscience. I haven’t seen it, but this is indeed the case, according to several sources. One of my roles as a professional Catholic apologist is, of course, to be a sort of watchdog, and I write occasionally about religious films, from that standpoint — not from the purely artistic perspective (though I like art — especially music — as much as the next person).
Thus, following that distinction, I’m not asserting (I want to make it clear) that there is no good in it whatsoever or that it can’t possibly be a good movie qua movie, or move people, or even bring some into the faith or a deeper faith walk (God may use whatever and whomever He likes for that purpose); but it is so suspect that I would strongly recommend avoidance of it, lest someone receive wrong theology from it (more on that below).

I was happy to learn that the director consulted Christian theologians and didn’t include some aspects of Rice’s novel that were thought to be too controversial. Indeed, The Young Messiah has been glowingly reviewed by Cardinal Seán O’Malley, Archbishop Thomas Wenski, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. These distinguished men of the Church (I once met Abp. Chaput and am a great admirer of his) seem to see nothing wrong with the movie at all, which (with all due profound respect to the office of bishop, and with trembling) is disturbing to me and a curiosity. Steven D. Greydanus, “everyone’s” favorite Catholic movie critic, wrote an almost ecstatic review. He links to a second piece he wrote specifically about Jesus’ self-awareness. I must, again, respectfully disagree with his summary of the issue of Jesus’ human knowledge (Steven’s not a bishop, but I like his work a lot!). He stated that “when and how Jesus came to the conscious human knowledge of his identity that he did not have at conception is not a matter of clear scriptural teaching or defined Catholic dogma.” This is untrue. There are several aspects of development of the human knowledge of Jesus (an extraordinarily complicated aspect of Christology) that are legitimate and perfectly orthodox. But not knowing Who He was (or growing into that awareness) is not one of these. Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a solid source for the determination of what the Church teaches on a doctrinal and dogmatic level. It will soon be updated, by the way. My good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, is involved in that. Dr. Ott provides the following dogmatic statements (his bolding):

Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.) . . . Christ’s soul possessed it in this world . . . from the Conception. . . . (p. 162)

Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.) Cf. D2184 et seq. (p. 165)"

You can read the rest of it HERE

+jmj+

New Fr. Hardon videos: Equal devotion to the Bible and Eucharist, Martin Luther's accusations against Christ, Odor of Sanctity, and The Calvinism of John D. Rockefeller

It's been a while since I uploaded new Fr. Hardon videos on specific topics, so I give you some new ones:

Fr. John Hardon S.J. on whether equal devotion should be given to the Bible and the Eucharist




Fr. John Hardon S.J. on the evil accusations made by Luther about Jesus Christ



Fr. John Hardon S.J. on what is an Odor of Sanctity?




Fr. John Hardon S.J. on John Rockefeller and how Calvinism influenced his predestination ideas

Erin Burnett and the promotion of Confusion

A response to Erin Burnett

So I have heard from a friend that the media is out there saying stupid things, big surprise. Here is my line by line take on what was said: [My comments in [Red with brackets]

BURNETT: Our second story, OUTFRONT, breaking the rules. He's only a little more than 24 hours into his papacy, but already Pope Francis is splitting with tradition. [Shes already showing that she paid zero attention to Pope Benedict, her idea of splitting is a hermanutic of rupture, which all libs take in attempting to confuse people] This morning, he did something amazing. He turned away the official Vatican limo when it came to pick him up instead he got in an unmarked sedan to get to the basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary. [How is taking a limo a tradition?  Seems more like a security thing.  Now if Benedict had been carried on Sedia Gestatoria to every church he went to  them maybe you could draw a reference, but really this is creating a false impression of what is meant by tradition in the first]

That is a significant thing for a pope. Then he had his driver go back to the residence where he had been staying so he can pick up his own luggage and also pick up the tab. Even though it wasn't necessary, according to the Vatican, the newly elected pontiff wanted to set a good example of what priests and bishops should do. [Got it.  When you use something you must pay for it.  Please Erin when Mr. Obama goes on vacation or on another golf outing do us a favor and tell him to pay for it]



OUTFRONT tonight in Rome, our Vatican expert and contributor, Raymond Arroyo [EWTN: World Over Live host], and also the news director of Catholic Television Network. Now Raymond, take me through the rest of Pope Francis' first day. I know we were all learning so much about this man.

RAYMOND ARROYO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: We are, indeed. You know, I spoke to some security officials at the Vatican. They say he has been escaping us all day long. He does his own thing, Erin. I had a friend of mine who is monsignor. He walked into the house where all the cardinals were living and where the pope is now residing while they renovate the papal palace, and he came down the elevator himself. He walked out, no entourage, no secretaries. He greeted the man by name and embraced him.

They talked a little bit. He said it was very easy and so he's kind of setting his own path here. And as pope, he can do that. And let me tell you, in the days ahead, he's going to have to set his own path. It will take that to fix what ails the Vatican at this moment.

BURNETT: And we've heard a lot of amazing things about his generosity, how humble he is [Something about humitity is that most people think humility has to do with material possessions or letting people run over you, if so they need read the magnificat], you know, washing the feet of men who had AIDS. But he also faced some challenges as the leader of the Jesuits in Argentina.

Today we're learning about some serious questions about what he knew and what he did or didn't do when military junta in the 1970s murdered up to 30,000 people. People say he turned away from priests at that time. Is this going to be something that could become a bigger problem, Raymond?

ARROYO: Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio, he wanted to reform his order, the Jesuits. They were leaning toward liberation theology. He didn't like what was happening. He told some of the Jesuits, look, I separate your politics from your prayer.

Pray more, do less politics, they didn't like that. They fought back. Many of them started this canard, this story and floated it that he was involved in the kidnappings. And he was ostracized and sent to the north of Argentina. He was exiled.

It was only John Paul II that brought him back, named him an archbishop and later a cardinal. Here he is. It's interesting during the homily today, he pointed out in the scriptures there was a line about the stone that the builders rejected have become the corner stone.

That really could be the motto for this man's life. He is now the corner stone of this church. You can see it behind me and it is very interesting. He's been through the blades before, Erin.

And I don't think he's afraid of bringing reform to the fore and following through to the end even if it costs him personally. As you said, he's a simple man of faith. We'll see what happens.

BURNETT: All right, Raymond, thank you very much.

Well, as Raymond mentioned, Pope Francis is already making it clear that his tenure is going to be different from his predecessors. [Heremantic of Rupture is what she means] But will he budge on the sensitive issue of allowing women a bigger role in the church? [Why you no understand no ability to do so!]

David Mattingly talked to one woman who is risking everything to become a [faux] priest knowing that her Catholic Church will disown her when she is ordained [an ordination is not possible without a Bishop to boot, second simulating an ordination is not anything other than playing dress up, mocking Holy Mother Church]. David is OUTFRONT on the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His first step into public view was greeted by cheers from the faithful. But at that moment, Pope Francis also moved one step closer to a confrontation with this woman. [Cause she’s the center of the world]

(on camera): Did this calling come from God? [Lets see the subjectivism to come]

CHRISTINE HAIDER, STUDENT, PACIFIC COLLEGE OF RELIGION: I believe that it did, yes. [and who is discerning this again, the church or her?  After all Christ says you did not choose me I chose you.  He also says to his Apostoles the bishops of his day, he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me.]

MATTINGLY: How did God speak to you? Do you remember? 

HAIDER: I think it was peacefulness and it's not an urgency. [maybe you misunderstood that she should be a nun?  What makes her think Priest?] It's just a peaceful knowing this is what I'm supposed to do. [Relativism on display]

MATTINGLY (voice-over): Christine Haider is part of a small, but rebellious movement [I seem to remember another rebeliious being] risking ex-communication. [Reminder they see this as a political thing, they don’t understand that excommication is meant to lead the soul back because they are doing something wrong in regards to church teaching] She is out to break Roman Catholic Church tradition by becoming an ordained priest. [Again cant be ordained, all they can do is simulate the action, and that in itself is a mortal sin]

(on camera): The church would not see you as a Catholic priest. [wouldn’t it be priestess?  ;-P  ]

HAIDER: I don't believe that clerics are qualified to make that decision on their own. I believe that that is God's decision. [I would like to see her keys, her commission to feed the flock and tend it, and so forth before she makes the comment]

MATTINGLY (voice-over): The Roman Catholic Women Priest Organization says there are nearly 100 women around the world shunned [oh dear] by the hierarchy because they have become priests [but they haven’t] through ceremonies not sanctioned by the Vatican.

The emergence of Pope Francis does signal and era of change in the Catholic Church [Hermanutic of Rupture], the first pope from the Jesuit order [Validity not questioned], the first modern day pope not from Europe [should tell you immediately that its not a rupture]. But he is also known as a conservative voice, embracing the church's traditional values. [Boo, Booer! :-P  ]

(on camera): Is this a moment of encouragement for you?

HAIDER: Yes, I feel it's too soon to say. I do definitely agree that there are a lot of firsts in this appointment and I think that that means that it might be a good time for more firsts. [Misunderstanding that something being a first in ethnic or order terms means the dogma door is open]


MATTINGLY (voice-over): Christine Haider is expecting a lot from the new pope. Not just a woman, she is also married. For now, she is studying for the priesthood but at a Protestant seminary. [thanks for getting their hopes up protestants] She is a few years away from becoming ordained [again faulty idea]. Scholars [why would you ask a scholar, why not a priest in good standing or a Bishop] say such fundamental change seems unlikely when three out of four women priests are in the United States [Not only is it unlikely, but impossible, are these scholars at the protestant college?].

REVEREND TOM RAUSCH, PROFESSOR OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY [Oh hears the supposed response, lets go to the liberal Jesuit university]: I don't think the ordination of women is on the top of the list of the priorities [Father why would you even say its on a list?] that the cardinals are facing right now at the Vatican. It's a very important issue in the United States, but Catholics in the United States constitute 6 percent of global Catholicism. [Got that 6% not even 99% dictate to the church what Christs teaching is]

MATTINGLY (on camera): The church for its part has been very clear on where it stands on this issue. [Rome has spoken, the case is closed, now get down to living the faith]  As recently as 2010, the Vatican declared that women becoming priests is a grave crime against church law. [This sounds conflated for a reason.  Got it its against church law, the law made by man, not God that’s why its ok to go against] Defiance like this doesn't come without a price. [Im thinking of what the price should be….if only ;-P  ]

(voice-over): Ex-communication means Haider would not be allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church, [not just the blessed sacrament, but any sacraments] denied the ritual [person] central to the Christian faith.

HAIDER: And being denied communion at a Catholic Church would break my heart. [Im sure it would that’s why you continue in your error, Right?]

MATTINGLY: But it's a risk she is willing to take [to place yourself outside the church is to condemn yourself to hell, she must misunderstand this…wait she probably went to “Catholic” school her whole life, so scratch that], a broken heart for the chance of breaking through. [to the pits of eternal perdition] David Mattingly, CNN, Berkeley, California.

+JMJ+