Die Deutschen haben ca. 1,4 Geburten/Frau. Eine Gesellschaft braucht ca. 2,1/Frau, um bloß zu überleben. Die These hat nichts mit Moral zu tun, sondern mit Mathematik und Demographie. Laut dem Spiegel gab es 15,2 Millionen Deutschen, 18 und jünger, im Jahre 2000. 2011 gab es 13 Millionen. Extrapolieren!!!! Die deutsche Gesellschaft ist daran, in der absehbaren Zukunft auszusterben, falls sich dieser demographische Trend fortsetzt. Ich lasse alle moralischnen Werte beiseite und behaupte, daß das deutsche Volk, evolutonsmäßig nicht "fit" ist, um zu überleben. Trost: Die Deutschen sind nicht allein, sondern nur ein Teilnehmer an derselben "Sex Party" aller europäischen Nationen.

Lesevorschlag: David P. Goldman, How Civilizations Die. (Why Islam Too). (Mein Gedächtnis kann bezüglich des Titels einbißchen vag sein.) Goldman ist ein Moderner Orthodoxer Jude, der mit Stolz darauf hinweist, daß solche Juden eine Geburtsrate ca. 3.3 Kinder/Frau haben, innerhalb Israel und sonstwo. Nach dem Krieg hatten die Deutschen unter dem Motto von "Kirche, Küche und Kinder" eine ähnliche Geburtsrate.

By chance I read this entry before the one above. I can only share in the sorrow of the person who posted the video and corresponding comments. In my comment below I noted the ambiguous use of "baptism" by Pope Francis and I see that the poster has well discussed the point. In the light of the critical thoughts expressed I find my comments to be a bit redundant, except for the sociological contextualization. The more friendly the Pope becomes with "low Church" denominations, the more will Pope + Friends will develop their own theoretical vocabulary (using conceptually fuzzed-up "shared" terms) leading to their own dogmatics. Is it possible for Gloria.tv to propagate this disturbing video in particularly German, not to speak of other languages. It reveals the inner belief of the Pope so strikingly!

Magister is explaining the "Miracle of Unity", a posting directly below and already made sometime back--one that I commented then. I will repeat little and try a primitive sociological analysis. Not mine, rather that of Peter Berger, a protestant who has tried to understand the sources of secularization (and marvelous sociologist -- still activity at The American Interest in internet). Berger notes: In the everyday interaction of prelates, priests and pastors of various Christian denominations there evolves a common interest is doing good, helping the poor, social justice, etc. that induces a sense of "unity" in actual pastoral or Christian practice where most "true/false" truths (dogmas) are irrelevant. A common view of things evolves. On the other hand, the lay participants are Catholic or, say, Baptist becasue of truth commitments. A conflictual "diversity" arises between lay believers and their dogmatic "unity" and the "unity" of pastoral cooperation where dogma can only get in the way. That is the current situation reflected in Gloria.tv

I will go a step further and assert that the cooperating "bosses" of the various denominations begin to share a common vocabulary, terms which have no fully compatible meaning in a dogmatic sense, but whose verbal appearance is the same. Take "baptism". Pope Francis speaks of shared a "common baptism". The Pope has many times expressed his discomfort with sharp and neat definitions. He must be so thinking here or I must conclude that is is dogmatically uniformed or not intellectually honest. The term "baptism" is used by Catholics and Baptists in the US. Baptism for Catholicism in the sacramental entrance into the sacramental life of the Church. Hence, the necessity of infant baptism. Baptists reject sacramentalism. Baptism is according a symbolic act of adults (or sufficiently aged children) who pronounce their acceptance of Christ as the Savior externally by being baptized. Baptism becomes effectively a public assertion of faith. < Water is poured over the body> is common to Catholics and Baptists. The conceptual meaning of such an act is different to the point of dogmatic incompatiblity. Pope Francis, who has stated that those who stress diversity over unity are doing the devils work, uses the "common baptism" polysemically or ambigurouosly (and that is not intellectually clean) or he is ignorant of Catholic theology, not to mention the theology of "low Church" denominations such as Pentecostals and Baptists).

In the light of what I have written above, it is no mystery why so many lay Catholics, personally and in blogs, are upset. Traditional Catholics are interested in truth which underlies liturgical and pastoral activity. Pope Francis seems to stress pastoral activity + vagues and ambiguous, though emotionally loaded, vocabulary (and, alas, demeans those who follow the truth that necessitates diverity). It appears that the Pope is more amically at home with Pentecostal type Protestants than with traditional Catholics. Eventually, I predict, Pope Francis & Co + Protestant friends will produce their own shared dogmas and traditionalists will become heretics.

Obama hat es klar gemacht, daß er 4 bis 5 Millon illegale Ausländer (meistens Latinos aus Mexiko) nicht deportieren werde (und es gibt mindestens 11 Million "Aliens" in Amerika), obgleich das Gesetz es verlangt. Obama wird die nicht Deportierten mit effektiv "Green Cards" ausstatten, Recht auf sozial Hilfe (und die gestresste Staaten und Städte werden eine Menge Geld dafür aufbringen müssen) erteilen und ein "pathway" zu Einbürgerung ermöglcihen. Verfassungsmässig besitzt er nicht die Macht. Es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß ein Großteil der Amerikaner heftig protestieren. Wenn so und wenn gewaltig, wäre nicht die militärisiete Polizei angebracht, oder das Militär (obgleich ich Zweifel hege, das das Militär mitmachen würde) auch dabei. Hoffenlicht sind meine Vermutungen übertrieben! Es scheint mir, daß Deutschland (wahrscheinlich ganz Europa) und Amerika eine Art Machtergreifen erleben könnten.

Was will Obama? Er will die demographische Struktur Amerikas ändern, damit die "Democratic Party" immer nationale Wahlen gewinnen will. Er glaubt, daß die Latinos, die schon Amerikaner sind, wieder aktiv für ihn and deine Parteil werden wird.

"Wow!", dachte dieser Amerikaner. Es scheint, daß der heranschleichende Totalitarismus endlichmal die Deutschen erreicht hat. Ihr seid doch nur Anfänger. Unser Nobel-Preis (für, o ja, Frieden) tragende Caudillo hat schon alles fürs Wohl von uns Bürgern arrangiert, sollten wir einen nationalen "Notfall" haben. S. im Internet nach für: MMnews:"USA: Millionen Särge, und Millarden Gewehrkuglen". "FEMA" ist das Bundesamt für Notfälle". Dann (und es kostet Computer-Arbeit) sollte man den gesetztlichen Plan für "nationale Notfälle", bzw. "Marshal-Law", den Obama ausgedacht hat, aufsuchen. Jawohl, er kann beliebige Amerikaner aufschnappen und in FEMA-(Konzentrations-)Lager zwingen -- mit militärischen Steitkräften. Er hat auch das Recht, Amerikaner (gefährliche Sorten nach seinem Ermessen) töten zu lassen -- schon nur im Ausland in die Tat umgesetzt. Es gibt Plätze für ca. 17,000,000 Mitbürger in den FEMA-Lagern. Dazu die Tatsache, daß die Bundesregierung Militärausrüstung an lokale Polizei geschenkt hat. Verschiedene Bundesämter, z. B., Finanz-Amt, haben eigene Swat Teams. Es gibt mehr ... . Die Aussicht einer Art Machtergreifung amerikanischer Art baut sich auf. Ihr Deutschen seid nur Anfänger. Dennoch vergesse ich nicht den Spruch über "deutsche Gründlchkeit". Good luck!

Why must Gloria.tv continually push politically anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda. The Israelis have great support among American Christians ( who are against Obama) and are not interested is eliminating Christianity from the mideast. Obama is clearly anti-Israel, Israel has accepted over 300,000 Christian refugees. Israel has had military conflict with IS on the Golan Heights, but is trying to keep out of the conflict--and for good reason. Israeli military attacks upon IS would solidify Arab support of IS or make Arab resistance difficult because of association with Israel.

The matter of Obama is more difficult. I do not think that Obama is for mass murder of enslavement. That is calmuny. He has had a policy re Iran before becoming president and re Muslim Brotherhood types around 2010 that holds that non-violent Islamistic groups, not the old dictatorships, are the way for a "peaceful" Middle East, both he and H. Clinton take advice from MB people. I have discussed with people like the now deceased American-Israeli expert on the mideast, Barry Rubin, and all have problems assessing just what is behind Obama's seeming caring for Islam. That he is in favor, is clear. Obama, independent of Islam, does not want to use the American military (he was conned into destroying Gadaffi), is in the process of seriously weakening this military, and that stems from his ideology. Indeed, only becaise of the second beheanding >> uproar in American populace >> "Do something", has Obama undertaken military action against ISiS in such a weal way that his own military is being handcuffed (and they know it and dislike it). Understanding Obama is of necessity. Instead of paying attention to uninformed "experts" manifesting anti-A,meric-ism (as if the term "America" had were a single collective being/ens), one should find out Obama's leftist ideology and its relation to evolving American culture. In this context consult Barry Rubin, Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (2014). There is a terrible dialectic going on in American, indeed, a cultural war.

I see an eternal split in and outside the Church, one long existing before the Church came to be. And what is this factor? The PANsexualism (= any form of sex is acceptable) of Antiquity, particularly in its more decadent moments. The Church has sought to remove priests and nuns from this inner tension through celibacy. More than one time in Church history sexualism has entered the Church destructively (Borgia popes come to mind). This time around pansexualism has been more coy and more effective. The serious consideration of communion for remarried, discussion of positve aspects of premarital sex or even cohabation outside of marriage, the pushing of not tolerance, but acceptance of the positive features of homosexuality plus the scandals of massive homosexual abuse among clergy all the way to the Vatican --all this bespeaks the rise of pansexuality. The goddess Venus is beckoning. For me the homosexual marriage discussions are but the wedge being used to open the full can of pan-sex-uality. Correlativve to opening to modern sexuality will be and is the correlative need to alter Church teachings (or ignore them via "gradualism") that ustifies no longer really condemned behavior >> an new theology arises. Pansexuality is but one important product of (post)modernism.

I should like to thank @rhemes for his commet and precision re the intent of Verrechio, namely: "Is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?". My previous comment seeks to go beyond this question, while affirming it as very important. Reading Pius XI's Encyclical and just comparing it with the transcript of Pope Francis' communication to the Ark Community, I conclude that prima facie the words of Pope Francis have abrogated the rationally presented teachings of Pius XI on the nature of the "unity" of the Church. Pius XI placed emphasis upon truth as a prerequite for unity and Pope Francis place full emphasis upon unity, down plays differences (of truths) and asserts that anyone placing "focus on our differences" is "sinning against Christ". That is a radical (to the roots of faith) statement. I am forced to conclude that Gloria.tv, you yourself, myself and all who concern themselves with the "differences" qua their truth content are sinners. "The desire for unity", Pp Francis' own words, is the essential value that triumphs over the truths of the faith (called slyly "differences") and turns all who do not "desire unity", rather focus upon the truths that differentiate, into sinners, yes, into SINNERS!!!!!!!!!! And what is the facit here? Francis I has de facto contradicted the teachings of Pius XI and designated him to be effectively a sinner because of his focus on the differences of truth. That is heady stuff!!! (Space here does not allow me to touch upon the reason for the Pope's reasoning as it is refleted in the video of "Archbishop" Palermo -- who falsely undersands Luther's faith.)

Now a further question (and one that my obligation to truth demands):
If Pope Y contradicts Pope X on a significant teaching of faith (e.g., the nature of the unity of the Church), what should one think about the age-old claims of the Church regarding the Magisterium? It would seem that contradictions in understanding the faith are now part of the the teaching assignments of the Magisterium. The acceptance of mutually exclusive teaching could be conceived as a factual refuation of the "traditional" concept of the Magisterium or, simply put, Cathoicism blows itself up. In this context ideas such as material and/or formal heresy pop up in order to save the infallible nature of the Magisterium. Perhaps Catholics could borrow a notion from Islam, i.e., "abbrogation". If two parts of the Koran contradict eachother, the later teaching "abrogates" the early teaching. How is that for a way out?

Final note: In his comments the Pope, directing himself to the Ark Community, speaks of "our shared baptism" and treats such a "shared" fact as sufficent for, I guess, "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", viz., communion between Christians of any type. Pope Francis inadvertently evinces the faulty nature of his thinking. For "traditional" Catholicism baptism is the manner whereby the baptized enters into the sacramental reality of the Church as the Body of Christ. Catholics baptize infants (who cannot chose one way or another) into the real sacramental nature of Christ's Body. Protestant Baptists, on the other hand, reject the sacramental nature of unity of the Church. Instead, a sufficiently adult person consciously choses to accept Christ as his savior and then consciously allows him/herself to be baptized as a symbolic manifestation of said acceptance. For this reason, Baptists (who respect the truth of their faith) rightly reject Catholic baptism as a falsification of Christ's intentions. So, I have just focused up the differences of faith regarding baptism. In the end, since reason unto truth has been papallly sidelined, Pope Francis states nothing more than verbalisms, verbalisms and verbalisms -- And I have just sinned against Christ, in Francians terms, because I have just pointed out a difference. I do not take such condemnations by the current Pope in a friendly manner. The man has condemned me to hell as a sinner because I do not agree with his verbalisms and wish to focus upon differences, all in the name of TRUTH!

With regret and sorrow I am, paradoxically, grateful for this contribution; it exudes the love of truth (judgments that correspond to the way things really are), though it leaves me wanting to go one step further and discuss the fine discussions of Karl Popper about being able to set criteria to test the refutation of a claimed truth. More on this below.

I am no real fan of theology (except natural/philosphical theology, e.g., God's infinity, being, existence, etc.); theologians of revelation are continually pullying each others beards (= metaphor for disagreeing >> at times concerning mutally exclusive "truths" re revelation). The material presented by Verrecchio shows us theologians, representatives of revealed theologies that assert mutually exclusive and, hence, differing "truths" (e.g., the real presence in the Host or, even, the nature of sacraments, assuming sacraments are accepted), who have ceased to pull each other's beards of difference (re TRUTH) and concluded that the mere possession of beards means UNITY, so long as the common verbal unity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and, perhaps, also "Jesus" coats the wagging tongues of the differently bearded theologians. The message is clear: UNITY (with minimal conceptual agreement) IS the categorical imperative of the Spirit (of modern times), relative to which differences (of TRUTHS) pale into insignificance; an imperative which inexorably constitutes the categorical MISSION of the "Church" (ambiguously? meaning Catholic and non-Catholic institutions). If my interpretation is correct, then the "Catholic" Pope Francis & Co are construcing a brand NEW lex credendi which with logical necessity demands reflection in the Novus Ordo of the current lex orandi, a lex notably contra the form and intent of traditional Latin Mass and the concept of TRUTH generating it.

The current Pope is straining my obligation to TRUTH (which as St. Anselm claims: Veritas est Deus). This obligation demands that I judge things to be as they are, not as I want them to be, even if my "wanting" is motivated by a desire for UNITY, one that excludes significant truths from the differences between theologians, within and without the Catholic Church. Such unity is a unity of emotions of "feel good", of "do-goodies", love and mercy (without truth), help the poor, unload on capitalism, etc. etc. I then read the Mortalium animos and find Pope against Pope. What???? What should I conclude?

Let me go back to Popper. Popper argues that a truth-claim that allows for no possiblity of refutation is phoney, is a pseudo-truth-claim. Now Popper was interested in science. His idea, however, is applicable elsewhere. The Catholic Church has claimed that the Magisterium cannot formally contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. Am I correct here? If Verrecchio is correct with his presentation and I with my interpretation, then my problemaitc differs from Verrecchio'a. Verrecchio asks about respect for the truths asserted by a previous Pope. Good question! But, if Pope X contradicts Pope Y concerning the nature of the unity (in truth) of Christ's Church, then it would appear that we have a case where the Catholic cliam to non-conradiction has been refuted. Verrecchio's way out has been explicitly to designate Pope Francis as a material heretic. Only a formally proposed contradiction could refute the Magisterium claim. My questions for Verrecchio or any reader is: Is Verrecchio's distinction betweem formal and matrial heresy sustainable? Can Pope Francis go endlessly around materially contradicting previous papal formal teachings without ever entering the realm of formality? If the answer is "no", then a situation evincing Popper's criterion of refutation has perhaps come about.

I have no answer as of yet! But, even if Pp Francis persists in Verrecchio's terms to be repetitiously heretical in materiality (i.e., never crosses the line of formality) the distinction will eventually make no significant distinction. The Pope's repeated falsities and repeated false behavioral patterns based on such falsities will at best obfuscate the real everlasting TRUTH(s) previously of the Magisterium. Formal contradiction will refute unchanging TRUTH(s) as seen from the point of view of a centuries-long Catholicism. This Pope is a scandal in many way, particularly for those who lovingly and imperatively seek THE truth(s).

If one wants to diet, it costs effort, maybe even a sort of suffering. If a dog is to be trained for this or that, then a, say, painful electro-shock well applied and, boom, the subject has learned new behavior. Good old fashion Paplov here.

I suggest that institutionally "suffering" is being imposed, intentionally or not, upon those wanting to live as "orthodox" Catholics, live out their Faith in a corresponding liturgical form. What is going on? The Church is being restructured by using a new lex orandi >> lex credendi as reflective of the change. Let us ask ourselves, just what liturgical form is the "orthodox" Catholic seeking with his Latin Mass?

The answer: A form that reflects the HOLY (read sometime R. Otto's classic The Holy), that longs for deep, profound ETERNITY and the bridge between imminence and transcendence (Christ's salvational acts and a liturgical form reflecting them). The Vetus Ordo is not only way to express such longing, just check out Russian Orthodox liturgy and its The Liturgy of St. John Chrisostom -- and that does not change!). BUT, if the Big Bosses of the Catholic Church conceive the telos of their mission to save the world more than than the soul or, better, to make the saving of the world the way of saving the soul, than the Prelates (upto and including the Pope) need liturgically an expressive form, a New Liturgical form, one incarnating the "spirit" of Vat II. Such a "humanized" form must seek a lex orandi proper to focusing the worshiping mind upon virtues of the world, e.g., welcoming, forgiving offenses, helping the poor (probably culturally not understanding of elevated liturgy), "mercy" unto gradualism, positive features of sinful acts, and above all "Feeling Good" (mistakingly called "love"), etc.

If this is true, then the Pope & Co will have a difficult time accepting and affirming the Old Order because it and its liturgical form are too transcendent, resulting in an oppositional clash with the "spirit" of Vat II as it seeks to realize itself in ever nook and cranny of the Church. An exception here and there for the "older" and "old-time" believers, but only on occasion. A well organized liturgical lifestyle, such as the Franciscan Friars, is an outright threat to the universal realization of the NEW! Destroy as an act of "new" love. What does this have to do with the traditional Catholic's "suffering"?

Bring on Paplov, i.e., "suffering" will lead the sufferer to surrender completely to the New (cf. Stockholm Syndrome) OR to being condemned to experience his/her attempts to be Catholic as sort of a "purgatory on earth" >> "suffering" becomes the fundamental tone Church life. A prediction: As a reaction to never-ever ending "suffering" the traditional Catholic might well withdraw from the tortuous situation and form small groups of co-believers (as Pope Benedict talked about). Conclusion: the "suffering" of traditional Catholics is, intentionally or not, a papal & Co Pavlovian way of re-training the "old dogs" of the Church. I predict, based purely upon speculative extrapolation upon signs of unorthodox deviance on the part of many prrelates and lay, that one day the liturgically "suffering" Catholics infused with Orthodoxy will find that not only is the new lex orandi fully UNacceptable, but that the NEW lex credendi has become UNorthodox >>> schism. This just speculation, not necessity.

I could make fun of this, make a joke out of it. Alas, it is joke, one on me and my need for transcendnce, the Holy, the Eternal, the Godly. Outside after Mass, fine. For the limits of my psychology (a type already insulted by the current Pope), this type of "liturgy" is blasphemy! Attendance for me would be a sin! I cannot imagine Jesus imitating the priest and making a fool of himself. At least Modanna could sing.

I am confused. At first I thought that Gloria.tv was presenting a hero (sounds like than in the text), but then his positions seem to be, well, "heretical". This seems to be Dr Bobus' interpretation below. Gloria.tv does take him for "heretical"?

If so, both Gloria.tv and Dr Bobus are not in accord with the Spirit of Francis, not to mention Kasper, Marx, Wuerl, etc. Should not orthodox Catholics "welcome" Fr. F into their midst and celebrate the "positive" features of heresy, e.g., courage to uphold the truth (as one sees it) and, then categorize Fr. F as a "gradual" heretic (leaving out which direction the graduality is moving)??? In the light of Pp Francis & Co's "Spirit" should not the Church withdraw any threatened excommunication? If the re-married or homosexual marriages (sic) are to be upgraded, why not heresy? If the "yes" or "no" aspect of sin is bothersome, as some bishops say, why not extend flexibility to heresy? Now, if Fr. F were saying the Mass in Latin, the flames of hell would be too cold.

K. Marx is sly, change the subject a bit and the subject bothering Catholics is passed over. Certainly there are problems with polygammay, etc. in Africa. But they are not "decadent" problems, but ones of a long standing history in Africa. Aftrican Bishops are seeking to overcome that which is already present. Europe had as culturally a series of sexual values, from which Europeans, including Catholics, are falling away. That is "decadence", viz., the corruption of what is already present. So, the African and European problematicS are different. The complaint to be made is that the Western attempt to accommodate such "decadence" becomes a hindrance for African prelates who whish to change what has long been and still is. The Europeans and the Africans may have similar problems, only the cure is going in different directions. K. Marx is indeed sly.

Gloria.tv asks about pedophillia and, alas, I think there are indications that pedophilia is being revalued under the "human rights" of children, rights not to be interfered with by paraents, and pushed by the UN. But that is certainly another subject.

There is an old saying that one can catch more flies with honey than with a fly-swater. Just how? Well, if the honey is smeared on paper and the flies land on it, expecting a feast, they cannot free themselves from the "honey-ed smeared" paper of death. A fly-swater can, with luck, take out one fly at a time, whereas honey just collects them with sweet death. The article by Mr. Allen is so sweet in tone that it lacks precision (see the next entry below on "precision" re "The Church's Essential Mission ...") and inhibits critical discussion as being critical is not "honey".

--Before I fly away from Allen's honey-coated presentation, I must note that First Things is not a conservative Catholic outlet, not even Catholic. One of its founders was the Modern Orthodox Jew, David Goldman (who, by the way, holds Pp Benedict for one of the world's leading thinkers and doubts that Pp Francis is really more interested in saving the world, than saving souls) with the purpose of stimulating discussions, not to abstractly philosophical, about the religious "first things" pertaining toreligion. It seeks in its pages more commonality than division, though in one meeting of Protestants hope was expressrf for the protestantization of Catholicism.--

At this point I will free one or two of my fly-legs from the rhetorical honey. Let me take two "perhaps (= honey word) points", i.e., 1. finding postive aspects in homosexual and other non-marital relationships, e.g., I presume homosexual marriage and 2. "making peace" with homosexuality by finding positive aspects to welcome and praise, viz., marriages. How to make a comment? In logic there is the saying: He who says A, must say B, to which I add C, D, .... G, H, ... etc. Let A be the most abstract, viz., principled formulation and G and H be more concrete situations. I claim that who says something "positive" about G or H (which were previously evaluated as "negative"), will alter A so as to have logical consitency for the positive evvaluation of H. Let me give an example of a possible H, i.e., good features of a police officer.

A police officer, say charged with protecting a detested person, is faced with a hostile crowed wanting to do harm to said person. Some of the crowd even possess guns. The police officier is given a choice of surrendering the unpopular person (which means harm, even lethal harm, to said person) or fighting the crowd, even though failure and death of the police person are the possible outcome. The officer fights bravely, even using his gun lethally against the crowd. In the end, well some of the crowed are killed and the unpopular person is saved. Are there NOT an abundant positive features to praise and to celebrate? Certainly thetr are, formally speaking. Now, we learn materially that the officer is a Gestapo policeman in charge of protecting a Nazi mass murderer from an infurtiated crowed of just freed inmates of Auschwitz who have revolted and are seeking justice. Should the Church, of any moral person, praise and celebrate the positive features of a murderous Gestapo officer protecting a murderous Nazi being attacked by formerlly tortured inmates? In other words, should as moralist make peace with Nazi practices because the practitioners evince all so many positive features living out their lifestyle? Maybe the Pope that condemned Nazism in the 1930s should have been silent and, instead have "welcomed" the Gestapo to the Vatican and "celebrated"in a homily the positive features of a mass-murding LIFESTYE?

I have already taken up much too much space. I must let the reader draw further conclusions. But I remind readers of my bitter-coated words 1. that we Americans have "mass murdered" since 1973 more unborn humans in the US than the total number of people who died in WW 2. We have replaced the Nazi murderer of post-partem humans with the subvented abortion-murderers of ante-partem humans. Peace be with you! = poisonious words, yet many Catholic prelates (including the Pope) play down opposition to abortion. 2. If homosexual marriage is allowed than legal marriage will be defined as: Two persons in a sexual union, leaving children as a secondary accident to the essence of marriage. Two consequences. 1. This definition will effect Catholic believers to view marriage per se as so defined. 2. Homosexual marriage is structurally without even the possiblity of children (unless unnaturally generated) >> marriage is per se a relationship without children >>> contraceptions per se is needed or acceptable for merital relationships >>> therefore premarital cohabitation is acceptible (many positive features) >>> marriage is a "joke". >> Last word, the kindly, humous Kasper (and I note that Göring was the "friendly" face of Nazism) will have exercise his humor, i.e., turning Catholic morality into a JOKE.

Der Kurienkardnal hat recht, ohne weiteres. Kultureller Marxismus, Feminismus, Postmodernismus, Modernismus auch sind genau die Ideologien, die die moderne (d.h., westliche) Welt definieren. ABER, so habe ich gehört, aber der Papst & Co wollen nicht nur das offene Fenster zur modernen Welt weiter öffnen, sondern weit in diese moderne Welt hinaus- und hineinspringen und sie in die "deep structure" des Lebens der Kirche hineinziehen, damit die Kirche modernisch relevant für die moderne Welt wird. Hinter der Plauderei über die Kommunion an Widerverheitatete und das schäumende Umarmen des angeblich hohen Wertes der eheähnlich ausgelebten Homosexualität versteckt sich viel mehr als eine bloße Regel, die formell bestimmt, wer die Kommunion bekommen darf. Wie der Papst unklar pappelt, eine "Revolution" stehe uns bevor, eine Revoluton der Liebe > Doktrin. Anscheinend besteht die "Revolution" aus einer "Liebe", die für die moderne Welt eine Sprache sprechen will, die sie verstehen, bzw., mitfühlen kann. (Heutzutage hat Fausts "Gefühl ist alles" wieder an Wichtigkeit gewonnen.) Liebe, Glaube, und Libido sind verwante Wörte, und darin sehe ich versuchsweise das "Verdeckte", wovon der Kardinal Sarah volens-nolens spricht. Sexualität, nein, Pansexualismus ist vielleicht der Hauptfaktor der modernen Welt, die nun durch das vom Vat. II eröffnete Fenster zur Moderne in das kirchliche "Fühlen" hineinströmt. Wir sollten die Sprache dieser Welt sprechen, wenn die Welt die Kirche überhaupt zu verstehen sei. Nun ist Libido eine umfassende und umgestaltende Macht in der (Post)Moderne, die die Kirche einst der Liebe und dem Glauben untergeordnet hat (und nie vollständig und nur durch Kampf) und die nun, so behaupte ich, Glaube und Liebe mit einem neuen, doch gleichzeitig altheidnischen Pansexualismus aus- und aufüllen sollte. Ein Neuheidentum wird wörtlich christianiziert, jedoch das Christentum wird inhaltlich heidnisch umgestüpelt. So was muß wortwörtlich "versteckt" werden. Das Upgrading der Homosexualität ist nur der Keil der Verstektheit. Pansexualität ist das Wesen.

Laut Wittgenstein ist Philosphieren (Denken) eigentlich eine Art Wortspielerei. Andere Regeln, anders Denken. Gut, ich will mitspielen. Kdl. Kasper vertritt, nolens/volens, doch ein Naturrecht, nur daß die Natur metaphysisch einen Okkasionalismus voraussetzt. S. "Gender-Mainstreaming", wobei die psychologische Identität einer Person absolut strukturell nichts mit ihrer biophysichen Identität zu tun hat. Man ist, was man für den Tag wählt, bzw., WILL. Das, was die Mannigfaltigkeit zusammenfügt, um ein menschliches Handeln-Universum entsehen zu lassen, ist das Wollen (nicht die Vernunft). Was ist DAS Prinzip des Wollens? "Das ist mir recht" = "Ich stimme zu" findet man im Brochhaus. Wonach sucht das Wollen? Lust!!! Oder auf englisch: "It feels good". Oder, "vitalistisch", d.h., etwas ist mir recht, wenn es mein "feeling good" steigert. Da haben wir es: Das Gute ist einfach das, was mir (bzw., meinem Wollen, meiner Lebenslust) recht ist. Gerechtigkeit wird verwirklicht, wenn mein "feeling good" sein Recht bekommt. Innerhalb einer okkassionalistischen Natur ist die Steigeruing meines "feeling good" das Maß aller menschlichen Dinge, bzw., Moralität.

Ich kann Herrn Oldendorf nicht ganz zustimmen, daß Kasper das Obligatorische (sprich, Moral) in der Natur abstreitet. Im Gegenteil! Kasper ersetzt objektive Regeln in der Natur durch eine Natur, die vitalistisch ist, und Vitalität ist der Inhalt von allem Wollen als das, was dem menschlichen Miteinanderhandeln okkassionalistisch Einheit erteilt. Hier tritt Sexualität verheerend in das Spiel ein.

"Liebe" ist das Maß des Handelns. Was heißt hier Liebe? Nur eine Andeutung. Liebe, Libido und Glauben sind verwandte Wörter. Ich schlage vor -- und nichts mehr -- daß alle drei Abarten von "l--b" hinter der neuen Sexualmoral steht als ihre "deep structure", die Kasper & Co (ich vermute auch den jetzigen Papst) und andere angeblich vertreten. J'accuse Kdl Kasper & Co, daß sie den Weg zurück zu dem Sexualismus oder der Pansexualität des heidnischen Altertums eingeschlagen haben.

Das Spielen hat mich erleichtet. "I feel good now."