This is site deals with the many things of God and His Church. That is - The Roman Catholic Church. And that is said without apology.
One doesn't wish to be harsh. But as the great Saints, one must be unequivocally clear in defense of the Faith, and in rejection of that which opposes charity and the Faith. The religious liberal is the enemy of God and His Church. He also confesses his or her creed without apology, and with no quarter given. His hypocrisy leads him to confess indifference and indifferentism rather than dogma as dogma was always understood. And he is dogmatic on that point. The conservative is to them - fascist, counter-revolutionary, the racist and primitive, or whatever else they consider even so unreasonable as to be beyond the basic guarantees afforded human beings. Such is a comforting dehumanization from those who might themselves be one step away from the barbarism of 'new age' racialism and 'genetics policies', and who themselves might even be fairly termed primitives, for holding such hateful and liberal opinions of others simply because of disagreement, whether either be rural or urbanite.
Not so for Catholics. Christendom, by contrast, historically spoke for emancipation and the rights of man in a genuine sense, based on the dignity of man even for his fallen state. None were excluded or in some way specially treated because of race. And infidels were fought as a last resort and by way of defense. Christendom was liberating. It was a true freedom based on Catholic orthodoxy, even while the secular exercised an independent power (save for the specific case of the papal states).
So brought to the present day, the central complaint is with the new Pope Benedict XVI, as it had been with his predecessor. He appears to carry on the method and schemes of the late Pope, and without so much as skipping a beat. Would a real Pope do this? His heresies were more clearly stated in his various writings over the years. He was under suspicion of heresy in the late 1960s, before the Holy Office was changed with the rest of the institutional, Visible Church. He might even have called himself J-P III. Nothing has changed, in other words.
When this site was begun in 2004, my criticism was pointed when it came to JP2. He was seen as weak, vacillating, and generally a poor servant of God and His Church. He had sent a slew of mixed messages such that people are unsure to what extent his was merely a pro forma signature for the work of others, or even a carefully crafted scheme to merely mollify the 'religious Catholics' who had complained during his reign. The pederasty scandal, while not unknown in other denominations or secular institutions, nevertheless remains a foul symptom of the 'reform' embodied by the same JP II. He, like Paul VI before him, offered the UN as more than merely a political instrument, but moral arbiter, substituting what it is he was supposed to do in behalf of The Church. Would a real Pope do such a thing? And the ecumenism at the heart of 'reform' is seen as a dangerous sham, an unholy substitute for evangelism rather than an aid; as the J-Pauline 'new order' rite is an unholy substitute for The Holy Mass, the new forms of the Sacraments the same for the real Catholic Sacraments, and so on. Would a Pope do this?
For God founded The Roman Catholic Church - outside of which there is no salvation; outside of which church none can be saved. So have Popes and councils stated. And it can't be otherwise, or it would vitiate the very founding of a church by God, Himself. Many other sects were around in Our Lord's day. But these were not the means to Heaven, only His Church, and His New Covenant. Such necessarily implies a confession, a true confession, at the very minimum, of the principal Creeds of The Roman Catholic Church (The Apostolic, the Nicean, the Athanasian, and the Creed of Trent or Tridentine Creed). And such would be the 'bias' present here on this web site. Catholic orthodoxy. This is a Roman Catholic site, promoting only that which is promoted by The Church against the 'new church' of recent decades. It's the Catholicism of the Saints and fathers, of holy Popes and councils, of the Apostles, of the God-Man, Our Lord, Jesus Christ. What comes from the Vatican and the official channels, the chanceries and official publications, is something very different, today. And that must be confessed by all who are Catholic. (My opinion is simply that they have veered so far into heterodoxy that the burden of proof is not on those who say these last few Popes have been frauds, but on those who wish to insist that they've been Catholic!)
So orthodoxy, as well, is what precisely offends the liberal, who could never confess any of it, in any honest way as great Catholics of the past understood things. Again, the recent Popes have not openly confessed that - outside The Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. They have suggested, even stated, the opposite. Such is heresy. Ecumenism, and the indifference they have preached in its service, has been their downfall and that of what had been the institutions of the Church Visible and Church Militant. No more. And take note against one foolish objection that no Roman Catholic ever implied in the past that there were other Catholic Churches. The phrase Roman Catholic Church, to any Catholic, describes exclusively the one, true Church, no matter where in the world one finds themselves. However, as found even in the essays and notes, in the Rheims, the phrase Catholic Christian is not unknown. Yet even in that there is no confusion, for the authors consistently and pointedly would call all other 'Christians' - heretics - and encourage them instead to the one, true Faith, with the Roman papacy as the temporal head.
To make a very general point, then, other sites, and generally the press, academia, governments, assorted corporations and institutions, people in whatever situation, sometimes seem to prefer not to deal honestly with their opinions, who they are, and what they believe. That may suit a nation's interest, at times, or that of the king or cabal, whether ruling over a nation or a corporation; whatever small clique. Perhaps, for purely therapeutic purposes, it even suits individuals, at times. But it's not the best course for the exchange of ideas. Locking out the press and refusing to publish the minutes of the 2004 Bilderberg conference, for example, only lends credence to those suspicious of those involved, for example (everyone from Henry Kissinger to Ralph Reed), when it might be just the 'harmless get-together' that they would like to portray. So this site, rather, will be upfront, open, and such intentional secrecy and deception won't happen here. No tricks. No double-talk. You'll have the honest report and honest opinion. It may at times be honestly wrong. But it will be honest. Looking in the mirror can be painful for all of us. But it is often sufficiently difficult to be truthful, as it is, without introducing the very intention to deceive.
People don't listen. And we are all weak, and sinners. And we pray to God not to lead us into temptation, but rather away from it. And some are weaker in some ways, than others, and more dangerous for it. They misrepresent their opponents to the point of nonsense, revealing a mental illness even a compromised mental health 'profession' could not ignore. And so on. So there is no 'marketplace of ideas', for these, for the tyrants, but only their 'enlightened' decrees, and obedience enforced by the sword, or a gatekeeper or 'moderator's whim, at the least. These are the sort on the liberal side at mid-day demonstrations. One rarely sees these, otherwise, in daily life, unless one regularly comes in contact with that sub-culture.
Conversely, I would prefer a 'marketplace of ideas', within some limit, so that various sides with cogent arguments, rather than simply screams or insane giddiness, might attempt to persuade. It's an ideal. If a sufficient number of people share that vision, then even in this barbarous 'modern' society, it can be accomplished. I just don't know where this is actually done on the web. But historically, people of different political and religious opinions have learned to talk with each other, and live together, particularly if not much is made of the differences. When these are emphasized and exaggerated, the 'marketplace' is more and more abandoned.
And so in light of that, not everything found by external link, on this site, necessarily 'conforms' to orthodoxy, but might even serve to challenge it; your host would suggest, unsuccessfully. That's for the reader to decide. Such an approach is frought with danger, of course, in those suggestible, unstable, emotionally ill at ease with themselves, who might be swayed by bombast and mockery, and the misrepresentations and half-truths that seem barely sufficient to justify their own ill-conceived plans and beliefs. Foolish people and foolish minds are the most dangerous, as just noted. And so are we all, in some way or another, again as noted. And so I do, in other words, completely understand The Church's historical reliance upon lists of banned books. By itself, that is not necessarily a bad thing. If even the mere mention of a heresy appeals to sin in waiting, or encourages even vice and habit in many, then doing what is possible to avoid even the mention to such sensitive intellects and souls can be only to their spiritual advantage. Of course, then the proper course suggests a sort of mystery sect, or secrecy in general, which would be and has been the accusation of such minds; but where such are no secret, and provision is only made for those who misunderstand were it delivered to them, or withheld. Here, then, I'm afraid, we deliver. And woe to the ignorant, the proud and the bold.
This site is, in some ways, a companion to another site -
scenic-route.com - one obviously older, but which is used for graphics and photo presentations, and importantly tutorials and notes on the sort of technologies used in the creation of both sites. That site was originally a development, years ago, on the graphics side of your host's original Catholic site on Geocities,
www.geocities.com/ymjcath, created when Geocities was a place to be and the world wide web was quite new. The content, here, will generally remain in the area of religion, and sometimes unavoidably law, politics, philosophy, science, and the general run of topics.
As for browser and site use, javascript is used to provide functionality, but shouldn't be entirely missed if javascript is turned off or if your browser is not recognized. Save for one or two errors, most of these pages degrade fairly well even to the old Netscape 3, the standard of its day (many years ago). But use of javascript is very much recommended. The site will be much more useful.
The site was initially tested with Internet Explorer 6, from Microsoft, and then with Firefox 1.5, and later 2.0. There is also some Opera 8 and 9 compatibility. But all of the javascript functionality is available in IE 6, almost as much in FF, not as much in Opera. In addition, if you have a legacy Netscape 7 or 8, the latter allows for an IE 'rendering', and also Firefox. But it might be best to simply use IE or Firefox, instead. And similarly, FF encourages the use of 'extensions'. And one that is available will
render FF pages as if you were using IE (I haven't used this myself).