Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Site best viewed on a computer screen - not optimized for cell phones
50 most recent articles updated on this Web-Site: BLOG (Web-Log) Page
Maybe radicalism is whatever it is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe radicalism can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances, and depending upon whatever "norm" it is deemed to be radicalizing from. But then, that would require knowing good from bad, right from wrong - where does that sort of "knowledge" come from? Can there even be such a thing as a universally applied human knowledge of right versus wrong?
The history of man's highest morality, or the world's best expressions of human knowledge of right and wrong, are solidly documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation, encompassing 73 books in all; 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Added to this Revelation is all the extra large T Tradition passed to us by the Lord Himself, and by the Lord through His Apostles, under the guidance of His "Counselor" in the Person of the Holy Ghost. This was promised in John 14:26: the Counselor, Who would bring back to the Church's memory all that the Lord had said to His Apostles. And, we know from John 21:25 that all that He had said to them had not been written, because "all the books in the world" could not contain it all.
The history of man, from the Garden to the Flood, and from the Flood until the Resurrection and Assumption, is largely a history of fallen man falling deeper into moral depravity. Within that larger history, the history of the Jews and the Christians reversed that trend, with fluctuations and failures, but with a relentless and spreading sense of goodness and decency and the good order that stems from social orders doing what seems naturally right, and avoiding that which seems naturally wrong.
This "Way" of ordering lives and social orders, what the world now recognizes as Western Civilization, has a double edged manifestation:
These two manifestations of right and wrong are strongly complimentary and reinforcing, working together to make Jews and Christians the most recognizably "good" peoples on earth, as compared to any and all others. Any time in history that they have fallen into unhealthful and depraved behaviors, it has always been accompanied by a falling away or turning away from faith in God and from proper alignment of our will with His will. Sometimes the hardest thing to say in prayer is "Thy will be done."
Throughout all of salvation history, every step of the way involved a radical change from the current norm. The original development of Western Civilization was itself pretty radical at the time. Right?
The history of nations, at least that of modern nations as we know them today, is relatively short. There was a long, drawn out struggle between settlers and nomads which was ultimately won by the settlers, resulting in the dominating existence of sovereign nations with fixed borders. (How's that for a one-sentence summarizing of the lion's share of world history?)
Right up until America, the history of nations involved various kinds of nations of men, in which "the law" existed and rested in one or a few men, who brought forth and enforced the national law on the people of the nation. When the one or a few men in whom "the law" resided moved on and were replaced by other rulers, "the law" changed, as the new rulers saw fit to change it. That was the way it was, whether the national organization involved hereditary monarchy, some other form of nobility, dictatorship or whatever; all nations were mere nations of men, with a ruler or a ruling class that made the law for everyone else.
That history of nations, with few short-lived exceptions, was a history of slavery, poverty, cruelty and want. It was a history of war for conquest, and a history of massive fielty, obedience and subservience of the many to the few. Even free men were slaves (as we Americans would view them today) to the ruler and the ruling class. The signing of the Magna Carta presented the first historical limited rights of common citizens that were grudgingly recognized by rulers. But the overall guiding principle remained - if you lived then, you lived in a nation of men, and you did what the ruler told you to do, or he would have your head removed.
America changed all that. America was the first nation of laws, and not merely of men. The law was fixed, written down, and held to be supreme, and no man was above the law. America was the first classless nation, with a prohibition of nobility and ruling class. Her very Founding Principles recognized and honored God as our Creator and as the Divine Author of the natural law written on the hearts of men. This American national foundation established the basic civil rights of the American citizenry of
Thus, it was the citizens of America who were sovereign, rather than any ruling class. America recognizes no classes. In order to maintain itself and not devolve into merely another nation of men, there are two never ending requirements of the American citizenry:
When the great American Revolution of the Founders was complete, the Framers went to work forming the first government to protect the foundational civil rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. They argued, wrote and ratified the Constitution, which was to be the supreme law of the land, to which all men were subject, and which would apply equally to all men. In it were set forth the rather extreme limitations on government, and established concrete rights of citizenry that could not be violated by any sitting government. Thus did they establish our national Constitutional Principles.
Thus, from that day forward, any American citizen could point to the Constitution, and say "that is the law, Mr. President (or Mr. Senator, or Mr. Congressman, or Mr. Justice) and you, individually or collectively, are not the law. You are subject to that law the same as me."
The birth of America was a pretty radical thing at the time. Right?
Opposition to belief itself was the first (or at least the most successful) radical attack on all that from the evil one. It made its greatest gains in the advancement of Illuminism during the so-called age of Enlightenment, that brought forth all the mental traps of Scientism. While the Catholic Church was wrestling with what it saw as the greater problem, the argument with Protestantism, some of the globally accepted insidious lies of scientism penetrated and conquered Catholic thought, and Protestant thought as well. And Jewish thought. Today there are multiple gigantic unproven "scientific theories" that are overwhelmingly held to be absolute fact, in America, in Rome, and all over the world. Predominantly seen as proven fact, these theories form the basis for further research, and with such a weak foundation, nearly all newer research is of questionable value to man, for it has a bad beginning point.
What is missed by most observers is that the overriding mission of Illuminism is to relegate the status of religion to mere superstition. It succeeds best in the accomplishment of this mission slowly, in little nibbles, so that its true radicalism is not recognized by the victims until it is too late.
I experienced the effects of this attack on our religion, up close and personal, in official Catholic teaching and ministry training in the Athenaeum Of Ohio's Lay Pastoral Ministry Program, in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio. Responding to a call to the Deaconate, I entered the program in 1999. The teaching material, including textbooks, and the teachers themselves, most of whom were either consecrated religious or ordained priests, were for the most part of highly questionable Catholicity. And that is putting it very, very mildly.
The overall LPMP program was described in this site in the Cafeteria Catholicism 101 page. Then, I described the general attitudes and overbearing softening of doctrine shown in the very first day "orientation" program and process, in the Athenaeum of Ohio LPMP page. I also described the worst of the classes herein, as the following links will show.
The Basic Doctrine course turned out to be, primarily, a promotion of a dissident agenda, presenting a "new" Church, for a "new" world. For the most part, it was a dumbed-down, simplified, broad-brush application of super-soft doctrine, taught at the level of a 6th or 7th grade retreat exercise.
The two courses Formation for Discipleship and Theological Reflections were nothing if they were not exercises in pure dissent from all Catholic teaching. This was a determined, vigorous promotion of women's ordination, acceptance of homosexuality, sexual "freedom" and other such nonsense mixed well with Marxist redistributionism under the guise of social justice. My guess is that when the professor wouldn't or couldn't go so far as to actually anoint herself High Priestess of the Church of Lesbos, teaching these so-called Catholic classes for the good Archbishop was the next best thing she could do.
The course on Christian Ethics, which you might assume would address Catholic moral theology, instead was a delving into a pseudo-Catholic morality softened by Freudianism-tinted Situational Ethics. On moral topic after moral topic, Catholic doctrine was set up against anti-Catholic doctrine or atheistic belief, followed by the instruction "you decide." "Situations" were introduced favoring such things as abortion, contraception, masturbation, fornication / cohabitation, remarriage, etc., etc., etc., and still being fully active, Eucharist-consuming Catholics. You decide.
The course on Catholic Christology was a real shocker. This "Catholic" course taught about a Christ who didn't know who he was, who didn't really know what his mission was until the end, and - get this - he may or may not have been raised from the dead, but, whether the Resurrection story is true or not, his life story taught us some very important lessons anyway. See?
This is how I was taught "Catholic" doctrine, theology and ministry by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
Many have defended all this teaching as merely "soft" or perhaps leaning more to the Patoral than the Doctrinal, and the always over-used "in the Spirit of Vatican II." For me, other descriptors come to mind, involving terms like Diabolical and Demonic.
The whole point is this: I am the radical here, in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. All of this evil crap is good Catholicism here, and I am the wild-eyed radical, who might roll a rhetorical live grenade out onto the conference table when all everybody else wants to do is just discuss how to rationalize artificial contraception, on an individual by individual, case by case basis, in order to become "good" cafeteria Catholics. To be more inclusive and less exclusive, less "Triumphalist" and more welcoming, to attract everyone into the Church.
Sin? What sin? We don't need to hear about no stinking sin!
Opposition to the ideology of America was the next strategic target of Satan and his increasing army of dupes. America had become a great magnet drawing men seeking liberty, irresistibly drawing in all of those who valued and yearned for freedom and a decent life, where they would be left alone by government. So the very idea and ideal that was at the foundation of America had to be destroyed. A good beginning point in the destruction of an obviously superior ideology is to attack the very notion of ideology itself, and to demonize ideology in the mind of man.
Today, almost everyone holds a negative view of the ideologue, and of ideology itself, regardless of the ideas and the ideals that form the ideology.
Did you ever wonder why?
The very notion of opposing an ideologue merely because he is an ideologue is just plain stupid. An ideology should stand or fall on its own merits and faults, not on the mere fact that it is an ideology. If you do not hold to any ideology, then, just what the hell are you? Do you just blow around with the political wind? Do you stand for nothing? Have you no principles at all?
My own rigid ideology, of which I am quite proud, is described at the top of the American Political Ideologies page, which I wrote before the 2012 election. Since then, my ideology has not changed, although America has changed, yet again, for the worse.
Once again, I am the radical here, if you listen to our disgusting News Media, our disgusting Democrat Party, our disgusting "Establishment" Republican Party, our thoroughly Marxist Academe, and perhaps even many among the Libertarians who are imbued with moral relativism. Rigid pro-American ideology is no longer the American norm. It is now radical.
Flat-out enemy ideologies to the American ideal are described at Marxist-Socialist-Communist-Anarchist and at Progressive-Liberal. Added to this list is the really strange Occupy Wall Street movement. Under Obamunism, they are currently winning the contest.
At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum - my side of the political street, if you will - stand the loosely organized supporters of the Constitution, the Tea Party, the aforementioned Libertarians, all of whom are in a love-hate relationship with our aforementioned disgusting Establishment Republican Party, which is supposed to be representing us, but is not, and never will.
Before going farther, for the uninitiated or those unfamiliar it might be worthwhile to examine the brief descriptions of American political bones of contention among the links below.
You can see how the anti-American Left views each of these issues in Table 1.
You can see how the pro-American Right views each of these issues in Table 2.
Yes, I meant to say anti-American, and I meant to say pro-American. Anything that opposes the Constitution opposes America, because, in simple terms, the Constitution "Constitutes" America. It makes America. Virtually everything the Democrat Party stands for opposes the Constitution in some way. Therefore, the Democrat Party is anti-American, pure and simple.
Make no mistake about it: Republican "Progressives" are just as anti-American as Democrat Progressives. Progressiveism is often called Marxism-Light, because Progressiveism and Communism have the same end goal. The only difference is that Progressiveism seeks to get there in a long, steady progression of steps, and Communism seeks to get there in one big violent revolution. Note well that Republican Newt Gingrich is a self-proclaimed Progressive, just like Democrat Madam Hillary. (I'll bet you thought he was a Conservative.)
So here we are. Bottom line, all these professional politicians seek to grow the government, to make the government the ultimate resolver of all problems, and ultimately to put government in control of every aspect of our lives. They won't say that, because they are professional politicians, and they know better.
Just like their professional propagandists. (I mean journalists.) The most recent shooting episode at the Navy Yards is a prime example; multiple publications and multiple broadcasts lied and said that the lunatic used an AR-15. He didn't. They just make it up as they go along. It helps the anti-American gun control agenda.
Just like the recent interviews with the new Pope; they report that he blessed homosexuality, when he didn't. Then they report, officially, all over the place, that he said the Catholic Church was obsessed with abortion and homosexuality - just an absolute flagrant lie. He never said any such thing. Again, they just make it up as they go along. It helps the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-basic morality agenda.
Absolutely unconstitutional Obamacare highlights the whole American political problem, in microcosm. You can look at this one law and see everything that is wrong with the current political system, and both Political Parties. We are told that it is "the law of the land" but what is left out of that statement is that it is an illegal law. It is a law that breaks preexisting law. It is, in and of itself, a violation of the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution, in multiple ways.
First of all, it is an extra - Constitutional law, because neither health care nor health insurance are listed among the limited and enumerated Constitutional powers of the federal government, in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If it aint' in there, Congress has no legitimate business even addressing it in law, the Presidency has no legitimate business addressing it in execution or in executive order, and the Supreme Court has no legitimate business adjudicating on anything to do with it.
Forget how it forces private citizens to buy a product against their will; forget how it was even illegally passed into law, violating even the self-made parliamentary rules of Congress; this is not even a federal issue.
Every Congressman who voted for it, every Senator who voted for it, the President who signed it, and every Supreme Court Justice who voted to sustain it, thereby violated the Constitution of the United States. In so doing, every one of them violated their own sworn oaths of office, in which they swore to uphold the Constitution.
That makes them liars. In my opinion, that makes every one of them impeachable. I said as much in the Impeach the Bastards! page. The whole damned law should be simply declared unconstitutional, nul and no law, by a President and/or a Congress with the balls to do it.
Provided the nation even survives Obamacare. I've said it before, on other issues, but It needs to be said again:
When this Fundamental Transformation is complete, what will America look like? We already know how the Democrat Party opposes Christianity, so what will take Christianity's place? The Democrats, and the Establishment Republicans, love, champion and sponsor abortion, sodomy, sexual licentiousness, etc., so, is that the way we are to go, or is Islam to take over here? One or the other. We know that if it wasn't for Democrat sponsorship, legalized abortion wouldn't even exist at the federal level. What we don't know, because of their basic dishonesty, is what they really want. It won't be Communist Utopia, because that's just impossible. It will be a dictatorship; but, what kind?
A fundamental transformation means a whole new set of rules. So the old one, based on the old American, Western-Culture Judeo-Christian Ethos is out. When that's gone, what will the new culture use to determine right from wrong?
Think about it.
How do we know, right now, that such things as murder, and stealing, and lying are "wrong"? Is there anything out there, anywhere at all, that tells us those things are wrong, and not right?
Where will we find our new "transformed" moral code? Maybe in Machiavelli's The Prince? Maybe in the Hegelian Dialectic? Maybe something in Marx's Communist Manifesto? Try Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. How about Jungianism, or Kinseyan Sexology? Maybe something in Darwinism, or in Huxley's biogenesis?
Come on, now; surely Judaism and Christianity are not the only ideologies that find such things as murder to be intrinsically wrong. If our Christianity and the Christian base for our culture goes away, does the natural and national prohibition of murder go away with it?
Think about what we had.
Think about what we've lost.
Think about where we are going.
Think about it.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Thu Sep 26 19:34:04 2013
From: Old Indian
Location: Fort Klamath
Two questions- Why do the Republicans seek defeat? Second, what do the letters OWM stand for as they appear after your name?
Date: Fri Sep 27 05:51:59 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Re your first question: There may be as many answers to that question as there are Republicans.
With the aid of American formal education at all levels, the mainstream media, and the distractions (obsessions?) of pop-culture, the Moron Vote is still, to this day, completely ignorant and oblivious to any looming threat to them, and they are lapping up the lies they are fed on a daily basis. Republicans see this, and it is both something to fear, and it is something for the pure opportunists among them to grab onto and ride.
The decisive factor in this whole political battle may hinge on whether the moron vote is growing or shrinking.
Re your second question: OWM stands for Ordinary Working Man.
Date: Sat Sep 28 06:11:40 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
(This is in partial response to an off-line three-way discussion yesterday, with participants who are hesitant to go on line with their arguments.)
My opinion is that John Boehner is cooperating with the Democrats. The ultimate Democrat plan is to negate the Constitution and become the law unto themselves. Boehner may or may not see that; I think he does. Some think he just wants to politically break the power of the Tea Party and change the Republican base to be some part of the already existing Democrat base.
The only result of delaying Obamacare for one year will be to delay the pain and suffering that goes along with Obamacare for one year, so that the moron vote will not wake up in time for the 2014 election.
One argument supporting Boehner is that delaying Obamacare for one year from now would mean that it goes into effect in October 2014, and the election is in November, so the moron vote would indeed get their rude awakening.
The counter-argument is that Obama can and will delay it another month, at least, just on his own, without consulting anyone. He has already done that sort of thing. He has, quite illegally, done multiple delays, multiple carve-outs and multiple crony-subsidies, all on his own. He has already shown how he has become a law unto himself.
Every illegal exception, every illegal carve-out and every illegal crony-subsidy gets him more and more committed "Santa-Clause" votes, from all of those crony-Capitalist companies, union members, government workers, etc., who want to keep the special "Santa Clause" treatment that he and he alone is giving them.
John Boehner is in cahoots with the enemy here.
Date: Mon Oct 20 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the