Confused Ideas of a “Christian” Minister -- From the Heart of Jesus to Homo Adoption

(Vienna) On the question of what Agriculture Minister Andrae Rupprechter means by a "Catholic marriage”  the  current Austrian Federal Minister replied first since December 2013: "My wife and I are ecclesiastically married, have two children - that's all. This does not mean that I have an old-fashioned family understanding. Unfortunately ... the child care system is backward here in comparison to Belgium - even in Vienna. The offering needs to be massively expanded. In my view,  the family the most important political task. "Child care out of the family, is what   the Christian Democrat  calls for  and plays it on the keyboard of the left.

Headlines on Oath  to the Heart of Jesus

Neo-Minister Rupprechter had arranged for the inauguration of the Austrian Federal Government for headlines because he took the vow   not only before God, but also mentioned the Sacred Heart of Jesus mentioned ( "So help me God, and before the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ" - Oath of Office of Agriculture Minister Rupprechter ). In his native Tyrol the Sacred Heart devotion has a long tradition and is directly related to the resistance against  Josephinism and the anti-Napeoleonischen wars of liberation.

However, the reference to the Heart of Jesus seems to have been something of a flash in the pan for the Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Minister. In an interview with the left-liberal daily Der Standard he expanded on the question whether Andreas Hofer was a role model for him:

"My role model in Tyrolean history is more of Michael Gaismair, who wrote as secretary of the Bishop of Brixen 500 years before, the first draft of the Tyrolean State Constitution. But I like the stoutness of  Andreas Hofer I suppose, of course."

Confusing World of Ideas Between Trotskyism Green Homo-Agenda and Christian Social Teaching

A statement that is in direct contradiction to his Sacred Heart devotion. Gaismaier, social revolutionary in the time of the Peasants' War, has since the 60s been a favorite of the neo-Marxist left, and was previously with the National Socialists.  Both employed him in conscious opposition against the Catholic Andreas Hofer. Rupprechter continues to rely  on the Christian social teaching. Again, the ideas of the Minister seem pretty confused. Because at the same time he speaks, he called for the adoption rights of children for homosexuals. He refers to the new Family Minister Sophie Karmazin and her statement: "Where children feel comfortable, is family. I think there are good examples that children can feel comfortable in gay partnerships. I represent  a much more liberal view than one would assume from   deep-rooted Tyrolean Catholics. "

Neo-relativist Rupprechter: In an “Open World View" There are no Contradictions

The ideological confusion of the Minister is even suspect to the Standard: "Why then do you always refer to yourself  again and again as conservative?" Rupprechter in the posture of a neo-relativists is of the belief that belief is daily and situational juggling : "I do not see any great contrast. Conservative means to maintain traditional values ​​- and that can also be done in an open world view ".

However, the Minister is optimistic that the ideological arbitrariness would prevail in his party soon: "The realignment of the party is in full swing - and I will bring an open approach."

Both Rupprechter and Karmazin belong to the Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP). The Austrian People's Party went to the elections of the previous year in September again forming a grand coalition with the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ), which has existed since 2007, and previously reigned from 1987 to 2000 in Austria.

Former Trotskyite - "I Have Learned a Lot of Political  Appreciation"

Perhaps this explains Rupp Rechters attitude with the aftermath of his anarchist past during his student days. At the time the  ÖVP ministers campaigned in the ranks of the Trotskyists. "Just as Jacques Chirac and President José Manuel Barroso also," he added half apologetically, half  proudly. "They were short phases, from which I have learned a lot of  political understanding.  It has  socialized me in that I was as a Green for the first hours of the occupation of Hamburg wetlands there -  which was less of a motivation than the outrage at  the government  driving over civil rights."

Of the Trotskyists in the Green movement to the Christian Democrats. Today Rupprechter would probably have a career in the Greens. Which he had at that time but  did not stay connected because the Greens referred to the EU at the time as “Moloch" and "have denigrated and fought against Austria's accession." That has now changed, yes.

"Problems" with Field Marshal Radetzky and Chancellor Dollfuss

That  surely  fits into the picture that Rupprechter also has "problems" with Austrian Field Marshal Josef Wenzel Graf Radetzky, world famous for the Radetzky March by Johann Strauss (father). The Minister of Tyrol  had the same kinds of problems, in spite of being “imprinted”  by the Christian social teaching, with the corporate Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss (1932-1934), who was shot in an attempted coup by the Nazis. These “aversions" round off the confusing picture of the new politically correct Austrian Minister of Agriculture.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Picture: Wikicommons (photomontage)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

Link to Katholisches…

AMGD

CCHD Provides an Opportunity for Liberal Socialists to Undercut and Distract during the Healthcare Debate

Words on the relative success or failure of CCHD will be interesting to read, possibly on Monday, but is seems safe to say that given the pre-emptive attempt to head off the criticism and disatisfaction they knew was brewing as a result of their tacit approval for the various anti-Catholic organizations they've been supporting with the Catholic Church's popular clout, for years.

We've known about this for years and years, and we're surprised that an issue is being made about it now, but we're not surprised that some Bishops are denying the fact they knew about it at all, or just as bad, that we should believe them that something effective will be done in the future.

Court Jester is looking for news on Dicoese that don't collect here...

More on Bishop Roger's equivocations here...


Raymond Arroy's credibillity has even been called into question by Bishop Morin. He's a bit like one of those villains in a melodrama, and it's as if this is the first time in throughout the years that we've known about this. In previous years not more than a few occasional boos emanated from various places against these villains. People almost seemed to take it for granted that Bishops didn't take their religion seriously. Why should they, no one else does. Just a few crazy "Lefebvrists" and " Catholics United for the Faith" type people.

Perhaps there is truth to the suspicion that the politicos are taking shots at the USCCB for their support of the Stupak Amendment. If that's the case, the Bishops have only themselves to blame for being as cynical as the Democrats who must surely be engineering this campaign against them, or perhaps, finally, Catholics are truly coming to their senses and might at any moment show up outside episcopal bungalos with pitchforks and burning torches.

Bishop Morin's equivocations about the CCHD are starting to sound Pathological

Bishop Morin's denials of episcopal malfeasance are beginning to look very dodgy. What could be more encouraging to potential donors than the fact that CCHD draws its inspiration from the most anti-Catholic Robert Kennedy and offers an award named after a Cardinal who had masonic pallbearers and had the Windy City Gay Men's Chorus sing at his funeral.

Even if we didn't take into account his false and desperate claims about CCHD before the second collection this Sunday at Mass, we'd still be forced to look at how certain "Catholic" hospitals, Universities and Religious orders promote or dispense abortion and birth control.


Bishop Roger Morin of Biloxi, Mississippi, the chairman of the US bishops’ Subcommittee on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), has denounced recent criticism of the controversial anti-poverty effort as “outrageous” in a November 17 report at the US bishops’ meeting in Baltimore. At the same time, he lent credence to some of the criticism by reporting that CCHD has rescinded three grants in the past year because the organizations receiving the grants acted “in conflict with Catholic teaching.”

Link to ... Catholic Culture.

Archbishop Nienstedt dismisses USCCB Sex-Abuse Study

Archbishop Nienstedt says that he wouldn't put too much credence in the (Soviet?) USCCB 2 Million Dollar Sex-Abuse Study, but one has to wonder about David Clohessy of SNAP who is suggesting that the problem isn't seated in the problem with homosexuals in the first place. Everyone has an agenda, and sometimes it's only as long as the nose.

We were treated to a weird statement, however, from +Sean of Boston who said something about teasing the study. How about admitting that you got rooked and think about getting rid of the people who authorized people essentially hostile to the Church to make the study in the first place? Isn't this a bit like sending seminarians to hostile, atheistic psychologists to weigh the worthiness of their vocations? Why, oh why, won't the Bishops trust the counsels of Tradition in these matters. They worked for the Dominicans of old.

Link to related article...

"Who is a Neo-Conservative" an Interview with Michael Novak

Insidecatholic

Prominent writer, thinker, and Crisis Magazine co-founder Michael Novak sat down with Italian scholar Alia K. Nardini to discuss neoconservatism, Catholicism, and the future of the West.


♦ ♦ ♦



Alia K. Nardini: Professor Novak, generally people in Italy and the rest of Europe want to know how much American neoconservatives share with the Republican Party. However, I find that the most interesting question really concerns the relationship between neoconservatives and the Democratic Party, especially in terms of conceptual differences that developed during the 1960s and 1970s. What is your view on this?

Michael Novak: In the first generation, virtually all neo-conservatives -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Richard John Neuhaus, George Weigel, and Paul Johnson in England -- were not only Democrats; we were on the left wing of the Democratic Party. We were Kennedy Democrats. But from about 1972, the Democratic Party, drawing the wrong lessons from the war in Vietnam, chose as its campaign slogan, "Come home, America!" and began retreating from the world and its international burdens. Then, after 1973, the Democratic Party increasingly became the party of abortion. It is still the party of abortion. From our point of view, we did not leave the Democratic Party, the party left us.

AKN: Is it true that the American public did not vote in favor of abortion, but that the Supreme Court, in effect, decreed it?

MN: Actually, prior to 1973, any time abortion had been put to a vote in the United States, it was overwhelmingly defeated. The American people prefer pro-life [legislation] by a good majority. But the Supreme Court stepped in, and in 1973 made a ruling that permitted abortion for almost any reason (in practice) and during all nine months of pregnancy. This was an illegitimate exercise of judicial power. It is not the business of the Court to make legislation. Legislation should be made only with the consent of the governed, through the Congress. The American people have never consented to this ruling, [which] has caused turmoil in our politics and culture for 34 years now, as nothing else has. Together with other factors, it brought a long series of defeats to the Democratic Party.

AKN: What other major issues made you move away from what was becoming the official position of the Democratic Party in the 1970s?

MN: Economics. Many of us once thought that socialism was basically a good idea, but socialists had not found a practical way to implement it successfully. Then we actually started to examine the many different national experiments in socialism -- almost 70. None of them worked. So socialism cannot be a good idea. Now, if you are on the Left and you cease being a socialist, what are you? If you do not take the state as the main engine of progress, where do you turn?

In these circumstances, and independently, several writers started re-examining the American founding. Irving Kristol in particular wrote a beautiful book about that, and discovered a new way of thinking about the future.

Like socialists, neoconservatives try to imagine, and to work toward, a better future. Unlike socialists, neoconservatives saw in a dynamic free economy a better way of breaking the chains of poverty than socialism ever discovered.


Again, at the time of the American founding, the term "republican" was much preferred to "democratic." The latter meant rule by the majority, but that has often proven dangerous and tyrannical. A "republic" places checks and balances on the majority through representative government and stresses the rule of law and the protection of the rights of the free.

Then there was this second discovery: not just that the American founding held a superior economic idea (which is why socialism never took root in the United States), but also that the American people, when given a free choice, would usually come down on the conservative side of most issues. Polls reveal that even in Europe the vast majority of people believe in capital punishment. It is the political class -- the elites -- that does not. The Left thinks it speaks for the people, but rarely does so.

Link to article...

The Scottish Bishops' New Website and Frankfurt School

Thanks to our confreres in Scotland at Catholic Truth, he invites comments on the new site of the Scotish Catholic Bishop's Conference. It's not very Catholic looking, the packaging is more redolent of car sales than of something distinctly Catholic. The content matches the packaging, unfortunately. Would that at least the content was Catholic.

In a related sense we bring you Eleison Comments, Bishop Williamson's blog which goes into the subject of the Frankfuhrt School which migrated to the United States and enjoyed a tremendous amount of sway and influence over Catholic education, eventually spilling over into things Catholic as well. We believe it's especially noticeable in the Scotish Conference's website.

By Bishop Richard Williamson


Valuable lessons for all friends or lovers of "Western civilisation" are to be culled from an analysis of the USA's leftwards lurch in the 1960's by a Californian Professor of Psychology, accessible at their website. Professor Kevin MacDonald is there reviewing the critique of mass culture in a book on "The Frankfurt School in Exile".

The Frankfurt School needs to be much better known. It was a small but highly influential group of non-Christian intellectuals who, when Hitler came to power, fled from Germany to the USA, where in conjunction with a like-minded group of New York Trotskyists they continued to exert an influence out of all proportion to their numbers. Feeling a profound alienation from the "traditional Anglo-American culture", says MacDonald, they made war on it by promoting the individual against the family, multi-culture against White leadership, and modernism against tradition in all domains, especially the arts. "Theodor Adorno's desire for a socialist revolution led him to favour Modernist music that left the listener feeling unsatisfied and dislocated - music that consciously avoided harmony and predictability". The Frankfurt School wanted "the end of the order that bore the sonata".

The Frankfurt School scorned the American people's lack of desire for Revolution, and they blamed it on the people's "passivity, escapism and conformism", says the Professor, and on "late capitalist" control of the mass culture by, for instance, conservative organisations imposing moral standards on Hollywood. Yet when in the 1960's they themselves gained control of the media, universities and politics, they exploited to the full the mass culture and Hollywood and the people's on-going sleep-like condition to swing them to the left. The Professor laments the resulting vicious attack upon "White interests", "White identity" and the "traditional people and culture of the West".

The Professor is right on several counts. For instance, the war is not mainly between capitalism and communism, as the leftists originally thought, and as many Americans still think. Material comfort has lulled the American people to sleep, after the 1960's as before them. Also, on or off the leash, Hollywood and culture play a huge part in moulding minds and masses (which is why "Eleison Comments" often treat of cultural topics). Also, there does exist a small group, conscious and resolute, of highly influential enemies of "traditional Western culture".

However, to defend "White interests" the Professor needs to go well beyond White interests as such. The real problem is religious. Why did White Europeans ever have so much to give ? Because for centuries and centuries they co-operated with God's grace to profit best by the Catholic Faith. Why does this small group of leftists so hate "Western culture" ? Because it is the lingering remains of that Faith. And why did the small group become so powerful from the 1960's onwards ? Because at Vatican II the same "Whites" were mainly responsible for the Catholic officials' betrayal of the Faith which took place at that Council. Today's triumph of the leftists is no more nor less than a just punishment from God.

Professor, you are not asleep. Now pick up a Rosary !

Kyrie eleison.

London, England