The churches, and the Catholic Church in particular (which is by far the largest), had the ability to put an end to the lockdown madness and the COVID-terror campaign, had they wished to do so.

One of the prerequisites of the COVID scam and subsequent tyrannical policies was the projection of a consistent and unvarying narrative by all media and government outlets. Not a single major newspaper or television news channel gave a platform to the numerous scientists (some of them Nobel Prize winners) who did not hold by the fear narrative. When these professors and doctors therefore resorted to Youtube and Facebook, they were deplatformed there also. Their message did get out in trickles, on alt-media websites and alternative video channels such as BitChute, but only a small proportion of the population were aware of this. The vast majority, trusting the “mainstream” authorities, bought into the fear narrative – at least at the start.

There was always, however, one platform that big media and big tech could not control, and certainly would not have controlled in the past: the pulpit. The churches, therefore, and the Catholic Church in particular (which is by far the largest), had the ability to put an end to the lockdown madness and the COVID-terror campaign, had they wished to do so. All that was necessary was a directive from Rome instructing bishops to keep their churches open and to counter the fear-mongering disseminated day and night by the mass media. This was not done, of course. Instead, the opposite course of action was followed: The churches, and the Catholic Church in particular, led the way in ending masses/services and locking up.

Why were churchmen, including Pope Francis and most of the hierarchy, so eager to declare the mass and the sacraments “non-essential” activities and to implement an entirely unheard-of and unprecedented closing of churches and places of worship?

This they did, in most cases, even before governments asked them to do so; and, in this sense, even undermined the attempts of politicians – who understood the economic and social devastation that the lockdowns would bring – to resist media pressure to lock down. Why were churchmen, including Pope Francis and most of the hierarchy, so eager to declare the mass and the sacraments “non-essential” activities and to implement an entirely unheard-of and unprecedented closing of churches and places of worship?

There are two possible answers to this question, neither of which cast Francis and his bishops in a favorable light, to put it mildly: either (a) They believed the media propaganda that a killer virus on a scale equal to the Bubonic Plague was abroad and that the only way to stop this plague was to imprison billions of people in their homes, or (b) They knew the media was talking nonsense but didn't want to be portrayed as callous and uncaring by that same media. Or, others were being bribed by government to lock their churches.

If the reason for locked churches was (b), as I'm sure it was in many places, then that means the said bishops were cowards who were more concerned with their public image and with being liked and spoken well of by people than with the truth and with protecting their flocks. Such bishops do not deserve to be in the job and do not even deserve to be called Christians.

How did we reach the stage where priests and bishops cowered like frightened puppies before a common flu, where their predecessors ministered fearlessly among the lepers, the cripples, and the victims of typhoid, cholera, smallpox, and Bubonic Plague?

If the reason was (a), as it probably was in the great majority of cases, then it speaks of an even deeper malaise; a sickness right at the heart of the Novus Ordo Church. For here we have prelates who lend their ears to the noise of “the world” and its fads and whims. Indeed, these are churchmen whose real faith is in “the science” and all that it demanded: Lockdows; masks; experimental and proveably useless injections. These are the men who read every week from the lectern such words as “Fear not him who can kill the body” and “He who would save his life will lose it.” These are the men who claim to follow the Man who accepted a horrific death to fulfil the will of the Father; the Man who told His followers to “fear not, for I am with you”; who went to the lepers, the possessed and the contaminated of all kinds. They read these things from the Gospels day in and day out, throughout the year; yet they fail to connect any of it with themselves. Their message, on the contrary, is to “stay safe,” the message that the voice of the world has put into their tongues.

How did we get to this point? How did we reach the stage where priests and bishops cowered like frightened puppies before a common flu, where their predecessors ministered fearlessly among the lepers, the cripples, and the victims of typhoid, cholera, smallpox, and Bubonic Plague? How could the Church, the Catholic Church, breed such moral and spiritual pygmies? How could it produce a generation of prelates who have quite happily thrown the sheep to the wolves?

In order to answer that question, we need to go back several generations.

For the modernists, then and now, building a better or even a perfect society in this world, rather than preparing souls for eternity, was the primary function and role of the Church.

Throughout the 20th century an increasingly “liberal” or “modernist” undercurrent gained ground within Catholic seminaries and theological colleges. This element had indeed been present as far back as the early and middle 19th century, causing such mischief at that time that in 1864 Pope Pius IX felt compelled to issue his famous “Syllabus of Errors,” which identified and condemned some of the more toxic outgrowths of the modernist mentality. Prominent among these was the idea that “progress” in terms of human development was something at the core of Christianity. For the modernists, then and now, building a better or even a perfect society in this world, rather than preparing souls for eternity, was the primary function and role of the Church. The modernist movement was greatly curtailed by the prompt action of Pius IX and even moreso by the endeavours of the great Pius X; and yet, it was never completely eliminated. The modernists went underground, so to speak, but they did not disappear. They continued their work, placing more and more of their kind in positions of authority throughout the Church, in what we might describe as a Catholic version of Marxist theorist Gramsci's concept of a “march through the institutions.” It was only perhaps a matter of time until they would be in the driving seat.

That time came in 1958, with the election of John XXIII. Now, for the first time, the modernists had someone sympathetic to their cause in the papal chair. In order to push through his vision of a church more in keeping with the modern world, a church that was “updated” (aggiornamento), in 1961 John XXIII launched the Second Vatican Council, an event which was to change the Catholic Church out of all recognition. To say that the “winds of change” swept through Rome is a gross understatment. A veritable hurricane blasted through the Church of Rome, and the Reformers (for that is the only appropriate appellation) applied the wrecking ball to virtually every area of Catholic tradition and culture. No Puritan or Calvinist went to work with greater enthusiasm.

Whereas previously she had insisted that the State give ear to the voice of Christ, and insisted that the laws of the land be based on the teachings of Christ, who was in fact a King, now the Church agreed on a “separation of Church and State,” in the sense that she would no longer seek to influence or guide politicians in the framing of civil law.

The ancient Latin, or Tridentine Mass was abolished and replaced by Masses in the vernacular – some of them mind-numbing in their banality. Guitars, tambourines, and even sets of drums, appeared on altars. Nor were the church buildings spared. The old altars, facing east (some of them beautifically constructed of marble and teak), were torn out and replaced by what can only be described as tables, many of them resembling nothing other than gigantic bars of soap. Beautiful old churches were torn down and replaced by what have been described  as ecclesiastical wigmams: Circular, or semi-circular barns, decorated with modernist art and devoid of any real beauty. Church teaching and theology was not spared. Ancient disciplines, involving fasting and prayer, as well as reception of the Sacraments, were thrown out. And the abandonment of discipline was accompanied by the complete watering-down of the faith. Sermons or “homilies” adopted the language of pop psychology. All that was needed for salvation was to “love yourself.” In keeping with this, “guilt” was the new sin to be avoided. Talk of Hell, or even Puragtory, was abandoned and quietly forgotten.

The dropping of disciplines, which the clergy encouraged from the pulpit, was now practiced also in the seminaries. Life there became one long party, with drinking binges and even sexual liaisons openly indulged in. And lacking the spiritual strength that prayer and fasting affords, the clergy who emerged from the seminaries in the late 1960s were worldly men concerned with worldly things. As such, they were ripe for redirection. To quote (or maybe paraphrase) Mark Twain: “It's better to change the world than change yourself, and a damn sight easier.” Priests and prelates now adopted wholesale the socialist world-view, which is predicated on cheap moral capital. One can feel good about onself if one continually bleats about “social justice,” while at the same time making no demands on the virtue signaler other than continuing to say the right things.

Alliances were formed with Marxist groups, some of whom had committed terrible atrocities. That was primarily in Latin America and to some degree Africa. In Europe and North America, the Vatican 2 Church became something like a liberal socialist group.

There was yet another area of major change. Whereas previously she had insisted that the State give ear to the voice of Christ, and insisted that the laws of the land be based on the teachings of Christ, who was in fact a King, now the Church agreed on a “separation of Church and State,” in the sense that she would no longer seek to influence or guide politicians in the framing of civil law. Strangely, however, this new rule applied only to issues of sexual morality; in regard to issues of “social justice” (generally socialist-type concerns), the Church now became very vocal. In Latin America, for example, this took the form of a “decision for the poor,” and priests, as well as bishops, became involved in agitation for better working conditions for the poor; better housing, better medical care, etc. This was perhaps all well and good. The Church had always shown concern for the destitute and the poor; yet a new element had entered. Now the clergy agitated not only for the poor, but against the rich. Some priests went so far as to call for armed resistance, and a few even took up arms themselves. Alliances were formed with Marxist groups, some of whom had committed terrible atrocities.

That was primarily in Latin America and to some degree Africa. In Europe and North America, the Vatican 2 Church became something like a liberal socialist group. “Injustice” in various parts of the world was condemned from the pulpit. As regards “spirituality,” the pastors of the new Church increasingly sounded like chat show hosts, disseminating feel-good ideas in their “homilies.” As mentioned above, congregations were told to “love yourelves,” and warned that the worst sin they could commit was “guilt.”

The point is, the new modernist Church was not into the business of saving souls; it was in the business of therapy; of making one feel good about oneself.

This type of garbage, incredible as it might seem, is still offered to congregations (now much diminished in size) throughout Europe and North America. The point is, the new modernist Church was not into the business of saving souls; it was in the business of therapy; of making one feel good about oneself. Having no real interest in, or even understanding the concept of, spiritual health and spiritual progress, the only thing the modernists priests could offer their diminished congregations was temporal health and temporal progress. Hence when media and governments issued a call for populations to “stay safe” and eschew all contact with other human beings, priests and bishops were only too happy to comply and to echo the call. It was, after all, the only thing they understood. That they never looked beyond the propaganda (as many skeptical laypeople did) and saw the devastation, economic and social, that such policies would produce, is entirely in keeping with their mentality. Any media talking point, no matter how absurd, is believed by the Novus Ordo clergy. Why wouldn't it be? They come from the same mental and spiritual place as the media talking-heads they trust. They are men completely devoid of a supernatural outlook, and who do not even understand what such an outlook is.

And now, as we enter what is surely the darkest time of an increasingly dark age, when governments in Europe and America are preparing to fund the mutilation and sterilization of children; when those same children are exposed to hard-core pornography in the classroom; when fewer and fewer children are born in wedlock and are therefore vulnerable to abuse throughout their lives; when the slaughter of unborn children (product of rampant promiscuity) increases year by year; when the madness caused by all of this, and broken marriages and homes, leads more and more young people to suicide, the priests have nothing to say! And their silence is nothing other than complicity.

________

Emmet Sweeney is the author of several works looking at problems in the history of the ancient Near East.

Latest from RTV — BIDEN, BARRON and BERGOGLIO: Rockin’ the Post-Catholic World