With the recent events of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s report about homosexual abuse in the Church, many Catholic journalists of good will have been aggressively pursuing members of the clergy who are trying to protect the deeds of the majority sodomite perpetrators. Catholic journalist George Neumayr has been one of these, and he has been viciously pursuing Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, D.C., as he knew about the homosexual abuse yet allowed it to happen and then cover for it.
Recently, Cardinal Wuerl made a visit to Little Flower Parish which is one of the major churches for the D.C. area. One individual aggressively campaigned for local Catholics to come to the Church and protest with him against Wuerl’s presence. What follows below is his account of the events, with emphasis added at certain points:
Yesterday I suggested that concerned Catholics gather outside Little Flower Church this evening to pray a Rosary and to let the cardinal know that we won’t let this matter of him harboring a criminal be forgotten. I realize it was short notice, but unfortunately I was the only one there – well, not entirely.
I arrived at the Massachusetts Avenue entrance about 4:30, hoping to greet the cardinal with my bullhorn. At the top of the driveway I saw a Montgomery County police cruiser. This officer was looking into each and every car that pulled in. One might have thought they were pulling into a military base containing secret weapons, the way that the cars were being scrutinized.
I too watched the cars for Cardinal Wuerl; later I found out that he had already scurried in. I was praying the Rosary when a woman walked down from the parish grounds to chat with me. Apparently she is a registered parishioner and tried to stop inside the Church to visit the Blessed Sacrament. She was told she couldn’t do so, as there was a “private function” occurring. I don’t recall whether or not she was aware of Wuerl’s presence. Regardless, does Canon Law permit the barring of Catholics from praying in their own Church?
As we were talking, several men came over to us. They had heard that George Neumayr was there and were trying to locate them. They mentioned that they saw police at every entrance to the parish grounds. They and the lady went off to find Neumayr.
At about 5:15 I headed to my car and drove to the other entrances. Both were towards the back, away from Mass Ave. I took pictures. Here’s one to the west of the church, Yes, you are looking at three county cruisers.
The bottom picture is the last entrance to the east of the church, at Kirkwood and Jordan. Two cruisers block that entrance.
So there you have it – six cruisers in total! I didn’t know that Montgomery County was so crime-free that they could spare six or more officers to basically sit in the parking lot of Little Flower and twiddle their thumbs. I certainly hope no real crimes (you know, things like rape and murder and theft, etc) happened with these cops just sitting there.
Of what was the chancery and/or parish afraid? Were they afraid that Neumayr or I or someone else might have dared to (gasp!) ask the cardinal a question? Neumayr asked one of them who called them there. The officer said their lieutenant ordered them there. That makes sense; those officers really had no say; they were dispatched to Little Flower so off they went. The question is, who requested their presence, and why? We Montgomery County citizens have a right to know for that was paid by our tax dollars.
So what happened inside that meeting? Were the priests allowed to voice their concerns? Or did they have the pope’s sanctimonious demands for “silence” (see here and here) cast into their teeth? (source)
The incident here illustrates a social and cultural problem larger than the Church, but certainly also one that affects her at least in the USA.
A careful observer of American culture will note that Americans tend to fluxuate between extremes. While extremes are found in every culture that manifest in diverse ways, there is no real sense of “balance” in American culture, at least in modern times. This is not to say that there is not such a concept as “right” and “wrong”, or “yes” and “no”, but that it tends to postulate absolute answers for non-absolute questions, resulting in the making relative that which is absolute and absolute that which is relative.
The circus show that is American politics is an example of this problem. For many, the “Democrat” or “Republican” party label is the difference between good and evil. However, those same adherents will agree to positions based not on morality, but on party support. This is not to describe mere political bickering, but major moral issues with life-or-death consequences, such as abortion or homosexuality. While the Democrats openly embrace pro-death policies, the Republicans do the same, but wish to impart the impression that they are not acting in the same way. Both adhere to a philosophy of power, where truth is determined by the one who keeps the persons in charge of the system at the time in their said positions, and so the only changes that are made are those which benefit them in the moment, even if they are harmful long-term to the society.
One of the most common ways this imbalance shows itself among the people is through selective outrage. For example, right now there is a “controversy” with the Nike company because they just endorsed Colin Kaepernick, a has-been football player who “took a knee” during the national anthem to support the group “Black Lives Matter”. People are so angry they are burning Nike branded clothing and equipment:
In the time-honored tradition of consumers expressing their rage at companies lining up with perceived liberal policies, people took to Twitter on Monday to light their own property on fire.
This time, it was Nike gear.
The offense? Partnering with Colin Kaepernick as the face of their “Just Do It” campaign.
This guy lit a porch fire with his Nike shirts and plans to spend money on Tuesday to get new sneakers.
Sean chose to light up his shoes (and his lawn?) while pondering what he’d look like in Adidas.
The sound man for country act Big and Rich avoided the flames, but decided to cut the logo off his socks, presumably still planning to wear them. John Rich, of said country act, had his own fit of rage over the Kaepernick deal.
This guy put in the most impressive effort, cueing up a Star-Spangled soundtrack while showing off his luxury of being able to light up five perfectly good pairs of shoes. His only downfall was forgetting to direct his cameraman to maintain a horizontal shot
Phil seems to be poking fun at the folks lighting leather fires. At least we hope that’s the case.
Nick just wishes he had some Nikes of his own to burn.
Brenda showed off her Chuck Taylor love in response to conservative pundit Candace Owens endorsing Adidas. Unfortunately for Brenda, nobody told her that Nike owns Converse.
Meanwhile, loyal Nike fans called for an end to the madness, offering to take unwanted shoes off the hands of the angry.
Of course, people choosing to destroy their property could instead donate their unwanted gear to causes in need. But that would defeat their purpose of, umm. Well, they really just seem determined to burn their stuff.
The backlash is not unexpected. Nike took a huge risk aligning itself with perhaps the most divisive of pop culture flash points in the bizarre world that we occupy in 2018.
The order of off-limits topics of conversation in dive bars now reads religion, politics and Colin Kaepernick.
Nike presumably chose this path because it decided it wanted to be on the right side of history. Because being on the right side of history is good business.
Muhammad Ali was reviled by many in his time for political stances that included boycotting the Vietnam War. He died an American hero. (source)
Meanwhile, President Trump just threatened President Asad of Syria for attacking ISIS terrorists who caused the reign of terror that fell over Syria for the last five years that horrified the world. There has been almost complete silence, with the occasional chants for war reverborating on the same “conservative” media outlets.
When Americans become angry, they become angry to the extreme and then proceed to destroy everything they believe is connected with the reason they became angry in order to “make right” what happened, and many times they do not care who they harm because they believe their excessive use of force is their justification for moral righteousness. However, it takes concentrated effort to anger them to such a point, because otherwise they will not even passively respond, but simply lumber through current events, even those which are very serious, in complete willful ignorance and apathy. Reason has little effect on them because it is used to support why one holds a position after one assumes it instead of being a means through which to judge a position before accepting it, making it the slave of the philosophy.
This kind of social schizophrenia had tendencies since the earliest days of the USA, but has been deliberately encouraged for at least the last 100 years through modern marketing and Bernaysian propaganda. This is why, to foreign eyes, America and Americans seem “crazy”, because the levels of social instability and the ability to switch from one excessive approach to the other with little transition between them and the selective use of reason to justify either position after it has been accepted but seldom in consideration before accepting said view looks like a form of bipolar disorder or other illnesses. This reaction is not limited to any organization, group, or social issue, but permeates all parts of life.
George Carlin famously discussed the dumbing down of the average American in one of his final comedy sketches. While Carlin’s criticism is crude, he illustrates a point that has been described in greater detail by Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt, who has written at length about the American education system and its engineered decline. As she wrote in her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America, the education system has been transformed from being one that was relatively successfully into:
…one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes. This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters.
The successful implementation of this new philosophy of education will spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity. The government will plan your life for you, and unless you comply with government restrictions and regulations your ability to pursue a career of your own choice will be severely limited.
What is so mind boggling is that all of this is being financed by the American people themselves through their own taxes. In other words, the American people are underwriting the destruction of their own freedom and way of life by lavishly financing through federal grants the very social scientists who are undermining our national sovereignty and preparing our children to become the dumbed-down vassals of the new world order. It reminds one of how the Nazis charged their victims train fare to their own doom.
One of the interesting insights revealed by these documents is how the social engineers use a deliberately created education “crisis” to move their agenda forward by offering radical reforms that are sold to the public as fixing the crisis—which they never do. The new reforms simply set the stage for the next crisis, which provides the pretext for the next move forward.
This is the dialectical process at work, a process our behavioral engineers have learned to use very effectively. Its success depends on the ability of the “change agents” to continually deceive the public which tends to believe anything the experts tell them. (source)
The “dialectical process” she refers to is the Hegelian dialectic, which was developed in Germany as a way to change the social preferences of a people, and has been used successfully in the USA to pressure the public to accept many evil ideas, and what America has become is a nation of people who “react” when they are told to and otherwise are “turned off” from the rest of what is happening around them.
This control does not just involve reacting when one it “told” what to do or what not to do. It also includes how one acts or refuses to react.
Take for example this protest. With all of the outrage from Catholics, which is universal, and even non-Catholics, why is it that people will complain about the Church, stop going to Church, and make a lot of noise, but when it comes to actually protesting Wuerl, nobody goes?
It is because they were not told to do so.
Likewise, why is it that the police simply followed orders to protect Cardinal Wuerl, knowing full well that at least ONE of those in the six cars had to have been aware of his pedophile activities?
It is because they were told to do so.
There is a concept known as “learned helplessness”, where people actually seek to make themselves helpless for a variety of reasons. This comes especially in the form of some kinds of welfare, where people essentially handicap themselves so that they can receive benefits from another. However, it is not limited to welfare, and in the American case the learned helplessness manifests as learned outrage or learned reaction.
One may complain about something, but one will not necessarily do anything about it unless one is told to because that makes it “appropriate,” while those even who would stand up but have not done so without “approval” makes it “illegitimate”. If one challenges these individuals, the response is not one of right or wrong, but the Nuremberg defense, that “we are just following orders.”
That is why we are a nation of slaves today, for through the educational and cultural system, the people do not think about what is being told, but think what is told and react to what is told. This has nothing to do with the Church, but is a cultural reaction to events at large which was just demonstrated in this situation with the Church.
But as it does concern the Church, it is also a reason why Pope Francis has insisted on “silence,” because knowing the American temperament, American outrage is but a passing reaction, and it is likely he is hoping that the anger will go away if one does not talk about the scandal.
As such, it is all the more reason to make sure this issue does not disappear, because it needs to be dealt with for the sake of justice.