What People Are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Br. Roriz, Catholic Rock & Newman
Correcting Boys with Feminine Traits
While reading the TIA article "Correcting Boys with Feminine Traits," I immediately thought of the book Percy Wynn, written by Fr. Francis Finn, SJ, in 1891.
The theme of the book is that a rather effeminate boy becomes a manly boy through the efforts of the faculty and his fellow students at the Jesuit boarding school in St. Mary's, Kansas. In years past, the Church used to be aware of the problem presented by your article and took steps to correct it.
Sincerely,
P.B.
______________________
Catholic Rock
I just discussed your wonderful website and your CDs. I am enjoying the CDs so! I am planning to buy some more this week. I’m learning so much and really inspired. All I can say is wow!, and bravo!
I have been reading the articles on rock music – truly fascinating and disturbing, since I am a Baby Boomer who listened to all of that stuff until my conversion in my 50s. I have a question for you, and if you had a chance to respond, I would be very grateful.
What do you think about Christian rock/pop? I am a convert from Protestantism and I used to listen to Christian rock all the time. But now that I’m a Catholic, I love listening to sacred music, and wonder whether it is advisable to listen to Christian rock. I have read on your website the horrible things that have happened at Youth Day. I imagine that there are similar stories at Protestant pop/rock events.
I really would value your opinion about this. If there is an article on Christian rock/pop on your website, perhaps you or your staff could forward to me. If not, maybe an article could be written about Christian rock/pop for TIA.
I’m eager to know your opinion on this, and thank you in advance for your time.
God bless,
S.T.
______________________
Dr. Horvat responds:
Dear S.T.,
Thank you for your amiable words on my CDs and on TIA articles. They are encouraging.
As you have read in the series on rock ‘n roll, rock music has a bad origin, a bad history and a bad end, since it leads to a total loss of control of oneself, an immersion into the world of drugs, free-love and revolt against everything that is ordered. Because of these bad characteristics it ultimately leads to Satanism.
To maintain the same characteristics and try to “baptized” rock as Catholic does not change the essence of the problem. It continues to be a completely revolutionary rhythm leading youth to the same errors, even when one replaces the name of Satan with the name of a Saint.
It repeats the errors of the WYDs, which tried to “bless” the bad behavior of Woodstock. The result is that Catholics become promoters of the Revolution.
I believe that the bottom line for this "replacement" for hard rock is a strong human respect of Catholics. Instead of trying to be accepted by the world, we should reject it completely and construct our own civilization based on the purest and most efficient principles of the Catholic doctrine.
In short, my answer is, therefore, no to Catholic rock, no to WYDs.
Cordially,
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
______________________
Book on Newman
I am an Anglo-Catholic convert to the Catholic faith; and I’ve just recently read Margaret Galitzin’s piece (The Liberal Cardinal Newman Americans Don’t Know) with very great interest.
I’ve been reading Newman for a long time; and as a former classics student (with an emphasis on Aristotle) I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with him. On the one hand there is his bewitching writing – which rather carries you along; and, on the other hand, one cannot help but notice, among many other things, manifold violations of first principles strewn throughout his texts. I used to think it must be a deficiency of mine because how could such a learned person as Herr Newman make such simple errors?
Anyway, I’d like to look into this more; and so my question: has anyone written a book-length treatment of Newman’s epistemology? Especially from an aristotelian-thomist perspective?
May God bless you, always.
D.E.
______________________
TIA responds:
Greetings D.E.,
We read with sympathy your criticism of Newman as disrespectful of the first transcendental principles.
Perhaps you would profit from reading Orestes Brownson's piece Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine..
We would also suggest you read the series of documents we posted on Newman on our Progressivist Documents of the Week page.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
______________________
Global Warming Is a Myth
I believe you would like to read the article below. It corroborates the thesis you defend.
G.M.
James Delingpole
6 Jun 2017 - “Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.
In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huckster politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artifact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.
Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today [graphics follow]
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”
Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.
Complete article here
Posted June 13, 2017
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |
My heartfelt thanks to you for publishing the marvelous, detailed, precise and crystal clear refutation of the Lepanto Institute’s “defense” of the Divine Mercy apparitions and devotion [Br. Theodore Roriz, O.C., Refutes
Michael Hichborn on Divine Mercy].
I should add that I am quite surprised and disappointed that the Lepanto Institute would publish such sophisms, since their work in exposing the funding of anti-Catholic organizations by the USCCB is well-known.
I suppose the unmasking of their “refutation” of Msgr. Perez must classify them as belonging to the “Novus Ordo conservative” school of pseudo-thought.
Moreover, having now made my way halfway through Vol. III of Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani, I must say that Br. Roriz’' article fully lives up to the highest scholarship standards I have come to expect from TIA.
May Our Lord and Lady bless you richly,
J.I.