Scots DO Want Brexit. Stop Lying!

Comment: 

Click here to read a news report dated 13 May, 2019, which includes a video clip of a Scotsman, member of a BBC TV audience, pointing out that the one million plus Scots who voted to leave the EU are being “airbrushed” out of the debate.  He notes that more Scots voted to leave the  EU than voted for the SNP in the last General Election.  In fact, half of the Scottish population didn’t vote at all, so the 62% figure bandied about represents only that proportion of half of the population who bothered to vote.  Yet, we hear the mantra “Scotland voted to remain” trotted out week after week in the Westminster Parliament by SNP MPs, and “Scotland won’t be dragged out of the EU against our will” – “dragged” a clever vocable, repeated over and over again, to give the impression of oppression. 

This is dishonest in the extreme.  Still, how many Catholics think nothing of voting for dishonest politicians, since, they would argue, “everybody lies”…  Or, at the very least, “all politicians lie”.

Is that true?  DOES “everybody lie” … DO  all politicians lie?  And, if so, what can be done about it?   Do priests need to preach more about the basics among the Ten Commandments, to drive home the gravity of lying?  And surely – even if you are a Scot who voted to remain in the EU –  surely you disapprove of the way, for three years now, the “remain” politicians in Scotland have perpetuated the falsehood that “Scotland voted to remain” … or maybe not – share your thoughts!  

Steve Bannon on Pope Francis, Trump, Theresa May & Brexit… Super-Duper! 

Comment: 

The above video interview lasts around 30 minutes – a bit longer than we usually like to publish, but you won’t want to miss a single word. Take a minute to watch the start – you’ll be hooked as the propaganda pins fall one by one…  

Your thoughts will be welcome on any of the topics covered in this excellent interview.  Raymond Arroyo, as noted in the comments underneath the video on YouTube, is one of the few interviewers who allows his guest to speak, uninterrupted.  The so-called professionals on the main TV news channels could learn from him…  And what about Steve Bannon – is he hitting nails on heads, or what?     The mainstream media here in the UK doesn’t have a good word to say about him.  One wonders why… 😀

Parliament Vs God – Is It Surprising That It Now “Trashes” The People?

Parliament Versus The People – Journalist, Melanie Phillips writes

So here’s how things stand. Leaving the EU with no deal is now the only way in which parliament can implement the Brexit referendum result, a decision handed by parliament to the people of Britain to make.


All signs point to MPs voting today against leaving with no deal. They will be voting against the act of parliament they themselves passed, under which the UK leaves the EU on March 29 regardless of whether or not withdrawal terms have been agreed.

They will thus be voting to trash the decision of the people that they themselves invited the people to make. For every alternative to leaving with no deal – a delay to the date of departure, Norway-plus, some alternative form of customs union, a second referendum, Mrs May’s deal itself that was voted down last night – is a version of remaining under EU control.

If MPs vote against leaving with no deal, they will be voting to stick their fingers in the voters’ eyes. They will be unequivocally throwing down the gauntlet: parliament versus the people.

Why therefore should any British citizen vote for any of them ever again? Democracy is a bargain between rulers and the ruled. If MPs vote against no-deal tonight, they will be tearing up that bargain. Why should any British citizen continue to have any faith in any of these MPs from whichever political party? Why should any British citizen continue to have any faith in the democratic process at all?

Mrs May said one true thing in parliament yesterday. If MPs do not implement Brexit, their constituents will not blame Brussels. They will instead blame them.

If MPs vote against leaving with no deal, they won’t just be voting to blow up Brexit. They’ll be voting to blow up their own political parties and faith in British democracy itself.    Source – Parliament Versus The People

Comment: 

For years now, politicians across the UK Parliament have legislated to permit various immoral acts, including abortion and same-sex “marriage”, with transgender “rights” recognised as far back as Gender Recognition Act of 2004, to allow people to apply to change their legal gender. The movement to legalise the “right to die with dignity” is growing. Conversely, the right to freedom of speech is being severely curtailed in an all-out effort to squash “dissent”;  anyone seeking to challenge any of these “rights”, certainly in public,  is likely to end up in prison. 

So, having rejected the “rights” of God – and thus, our obligation to obey His Moral Law, it’s hardly surprising that the UK Parliament is now turning against it’s own people.

Readers have been contacting me this past couple of days to say that they now firmly believe that the UK Parliament has stitched up the Brexit process to ensure that we do not, in fact, leave the Godless  EU.   Tonight’s vote to take “no deal” off the table is – in their collective view – the final proof of that determination to keep us as part of the planned United States of Europe.  I tend to think they’re right.  What about you?  

And as I’m about to press the “publish” button, this from Westminster Fly, one of our English bloggers: I’m just begging the Immaculate Heart of Mary to overcome the machinations of evil or misguided men and get us out of the EU completely and without delay. I think that only She can help us now.”   

There’s really nothing to add to that, except … Amen!

The Christian Response to Brexit… And why Catholics should support Brexit…


To reflect on why Catholics should support Brexit, click here

Comment: 

Share your thoughts on the video commentary and tell us if you agree with the rationale in the Regina article about why Catholics should support Brexit. If so, which argument did you find most convincing?

    

Europe: will Brexit kick-start the Christian restoration – or is it too late?

 From the website of the Lepanto Foundation – dated 7 December, 2018

The roots of the crisis in the European Union (1991 – 2011)

The economic, social and political crisis which the EU is undergoing is there for all to see. In a few days it will be the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht treaty, signed on 11 December 1991, which brought the European Union into being. Professor Roberto de Mattei, who was then president of the Lepanto Cultural Centre and who is now president of the Lepanto Foundation, was one of the first in Europe to express his criticisms of the Maastricht Treaty in a letter sent to all MEPs in Strasbourg on 11 May 1992, the day before the speech given by Queen Elizabeth II to the European Parliament. His analysis, which preceded by nearly 10 years the entry into force of the euro, invites us to reflect on our future.

Prof. Roberto de Mattei’s letter to the Members of the European Parliament.

Rome – May 11th, 1992

Dear Sir /Madam,

On behalf of the Lepanto Cultural Centre, of which I am President, I take the liberty of submitting for your attention certain reflections (1) on the Maastricht Treaty, stipulated by the Heads of State and Government of the Twelve on the 11th of December 1991, to launch the new international organization called “European Union”.

This Treaty, formally signed on the 7th of February 1992 and due to be endorsed by the respective national Parliaments by the 31st of December 1992, is arousing increasing doubts and perplexities in many quarters: will it really unite and strengthen Europe, or will it plunge her into chaos? This letter aims to stimulate discussion on this capital point.

A nihilist dream of the destruction of Europe

The year 1992 marks the 500th anniversary of the Discovery and civilization of America by Europeans, yet European and Christian Civilization is on trial.

Europe is being accused of having imposed its civilised patterns on the world, instead of “opening itself to the Other”, “to what Europe is not, never was and will never be” (2); it should therefore deny itself to recover the “otherness” it rejected, viz. barbarians, Indians, Muslims, all bearers of a “cultural message” which we must now adopt. Europe should therefore renounce its “secular ambition of historical centralization whose symbol is Columbus” (3) in order to “de-civilize” itself and sink into tribalism.

According to the historical vision by these “theoreticians of chaos”, Europe should be founded on the “loss of foundations” (4) and “not identify with itself” (5). This is nihilism.

No historical and cultural identities would deserve to survive because in the world nothing is stable and permanent and everything is devoid of order and significance: this Nothingness is the only reality which is to assert itself in history and society: “We must acknowledge the historically positive role of Nothing / … / We should base our European citizenship on Nothing” (6).

The real nature of the Maastricht Treaty

These nihilist theses on Europe, set out in journals, books, symposia, amplified by the mass-media and abundantly echoed by politicians, are neither to be ignored nor forgotten when debating such an ambitious political accord as the Maastricht Treaty.

It is not a matter of being generally for or against Europe, but of addressing the real background issue: What kind of Europe are we aspiring to? What kind of Europe is envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty? Political and diplomatic agreements do not simply boil down to technical formulas, but reflect political patterns, visions of the world and ideal aspirations. Which ones in this particular case?  Click here to read the rest of Professor Roberto de Mattei’s prophetic letter – it is lengthy, and thoroughly documented, and very well worth reading in its entirety. 

Comment: 

One highly significant section in the Professor’s letter relates to the rise of Islam in Europe:  “In terms of the Treaty, European political parties will “express the political will of Union nationals” (Title II, art. 138A). A “European Muslim Party”, owing to its deep-rooted presence in all territories of the Union, its power of political and religious cohesion, its financial resources and its international connections, might become the leading party in the European Parliament. This would imply Muslim political domination in Europe, peacefully won, or rather, peacefully handed over by Europeans themselves.” 

Professor de Mattei goes on to point out the possibility of this same dominance in the member states.  Logically, then, we must ask, might Brexit actually contribute to the restoration of Christianity – Christian belief and culture – both here in the UK and on the continent of Europe?  If you have any practical ideas on how this might be effected, share them with us. Or maybe you think the restoration of Christianity in Europe is a pipe dream?

Brexit Battle, Deal/No Deal, EU Army… Does It Matter To Catholics?

As the week ahead looks set to be exciting, politically, to put it mildly, the selection of opinions in the video clip below provide food for thought…

 Comment: 

As the Brexit Battle heats up, and the UK is becoming more divided by the nano-second, we learn that the long-standing desire of the EU to build its own army is now being pushed by the French President – click here to read more.   So, perhaps it’s time to reassess our thinking on the whole European project and the question of the moral, Catholic attitude to Brexit. 

Is there a “Catholic” attitude to Brexit, or is it acceptable for a Catholic to be a “remainer” or a “brexiteer” as individuals choose?  And what about those Catholic politicians who are being less than loyal to their leader. Are they right to be calling for a vote of confidence in Theresa May’s leadership, or should they humbly submit to her authority, in the Gospel spirit of  “Give unto Caesar”…  

Tell us what you think of the agreement/deal currently causing so much controversy – assuming you’ve read and understood all 585 pages that is… 😀

Pope Changes Teaching On Death Penalty – Exceeds Papal Authority…

From Rorate Caeli… 

What was black is now white: Pope “changes Catechism” to declare death penalty “inadmissible in all cases”.

The Church was wrong in a major issue literally of life and death.

Is the Pope a kind of “Prophet”, as the “First President” of the Mormons, receiving new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times?

That is what seems to come from the “alteration” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992 promoted by the current Pope and published today:

The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in an audience granted on May 11, 2018, to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordering its translation in the various languages and inserted in all editions of the mentioned Catechism:

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

_______________________

[1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

The anachronistic boldness in this decision is astounding: what is merely a modern view of a secularized Europe becomes a completely new teaching, without even the consideration that the current situation of the world will remain the same for all time — as if the secular European present of stable peace would remain forever the same, as if what was common in the past and since the dawn of time would never be possible anymore. The boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented “teaching” of the Church.

If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself in Scripture — when, confronted by Pilate who affirmed his right to inflict capital punishment, told him, “You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above”, affirming that it is a power granted to the State in its authority, even if, as all governmental powers, it can be exercised illegitimately and unjustly — can be changed, then anything can be changed. A “development” of doctrine may bring about anything: from the end of the “intrinsic disordered” nature of homosexuality to the priestly ordination of women, from the possibility of contraception in “some” cases to the acceptance of the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a possible interpretation of what the Church has always believed — and so on.

The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views. [Ed: emphasis added]

We are reaping the rewards of an unchecked hyper-clericalism: the same hyper-clericalism that allowed for abuses of people like Theodore McCarrick to go ignored and unpunished and now allows for the recklessness of the alteration of established doctrine received from Christ and the Apostles.  Ends.

Update: If it were possible to have an even more ridiculous excuse for this change, it comes from the “Letter to Bishops” by Cardinal Ladaria, the CDF prefect:

10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.

That is absolutely ridiculous, and a shameful and pathetic excuse: the Catechism is not a lobbying tool to modify laws: it is supposed to be a collection of the everlasting teachings of the Church.  Source – Rorate Caeli

Comment: 

What should happen now?  Is there anything that the rest of the upper hierarchy can do?  What about Catholics in the USA and other countries where the death penalty is permitted – are they now duty bound to work for its elimination?  Do they commit a sin if they refuse to do so and, instead, adhere to the traditional belief that the State is permitted to use the death penalty in certain cases? If it’s a sin, at what level? Venial? Mortal? What then?  And what about other teachings in the Catechism? Do we watch, even more closely, for this Pope’s personal opinion on this or that issue, in order to prepare ourselves for the next new teaching?