Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution & Other Frustrations with God

I've been reading Ernle Bradford's The Sword and the Scimitar: The Saga of the Crusades. I'm likely to finish it tonight. (I found a $10 hard cover in good condition online). 

Assuming Bradford's account is mostly true, at least as true as a 20th-century historian can relate events in the 11th – 15th centuries, what a mess the Crusades turned into, out of a noble intent of multiple Latin kings, popes, and other cultural leaders to defend Christians being slaughtered by Mohammedans in the Holy Land. The original intent of the Crusades (of which there were more than 7 if you counted all the infighting) was holy and just, I believe ... but not so holy and just for the many Latin (Western) leaders, knights, and Mohammedans (Eastern) whose lust for power and greed for land and riches got caught up in medieval horror. 

Why does God allow such stuff ... even the  20th-century Holocaust? It is easy to understand how very smart people turn against God because of history. Where is God? Why does he hide himself ... as the Psalmists often complain? 

The answer I've often heard is that if God corrected everything, he would punish us greatly, too. Well, why do Christian pundits and preachers claim God has to be so binary in his reactions when history reveals that He's not? Historically, God has demonstrated grace and mercy as well as judgment. But He's not consistent in the minds that he has given us. At times, God seems hands-off with small and large sins (venial vs. mortal), and other times he's there to correct seemingly immediately, viciously, and decisively, turning people back to Himself. 

I'm 79 as I write this,  perhaps morally conscious for 75 of those years—3/4 of a century. And as much as I've read the Bible and studied Christian theology as a holiness-Evangelical-Protestant, and since 1999 as a Catholic, I can't figure God out. And I can't figure out why "intelligent" Christians are so often incapable of critical thinking. And I'm even more confused by the online social media warriors who can sound very smart in one sentence and like total idiots in the next. I've sworn off social media and writing comments several times, and deleted the Instagram app on my iPhone perhaps five times over the last few years...again just last night. The dopamine kick I get from watching great musical artists and political pundits articulate what I consider historic truths... distracts my mind from my work, and causes me to trust in temporal things, not in God. I signed off last night to "Will-of-2-wheels" (whomever in hell that is, and hell is close to this person's abode), who claimed that Christians believe in fairy tales, but then gets very upset with Christians for believing in something that he claims is not true. If it's not true, why does he get so upset? I have little patience for "rational atheists," oxymorons if there ever were.

There are people like our new Michigan senator, the Muslim who claims he's a Sharia follower, but is prepared to pledge allegiance to the U.S. Constitution; the contradiction is not lost on many of us, as I detail below with the help of the left-leaning Google A.I.  This is the man (I won't use his name; he keeps changing it with a smirk) who argued during his campaign that in terms of civil law there was no difference between (Catholic) Canon Law (as if Protestant Christians had such a thing) and Sharia Law (again, see below). He's either a total idiot, or he's lying...which is what Sharia tells them to do, lie — the end always justifies the means with Mohammedans.  (And God smiles, sits back as if watching a horror movie for enjoyment ... last night Pam ran out of the room during the climactic scene of the 1973 Occult-Catholic Noir film "The Pyx." I didn't blame her, except that she sat through 98% of it only to miss the crux of the plot at the end, which I thought was theologically true, but I digress. Yes, the movie has a true moral premise if you can stomach the non-linear editing and storytelling that is super confusing. But see, God allows this stuff, e.g., in real life, Black Masses, and bad movies.

And in all of this, I question: what am I supposed to do? The not-so-easy answer is to ignore it all, or push it aside and be faithful to Christ (whatever that means in a practical sense... there are few questions in a moral sense) and go back to work—in my case, finish chapter 4 of my next novel. But writing novels, even ones with strong Christian themes, as I hope my writing contains, doesn't influence culture, as far as I can tell. 

Again, I digress.

Here's the AI bit on Sharia vs. the U.S. Constitution. My next question is: when do the "authorities" (cowards that they are) bring up charges of treason, not just against Obama and his ilk, but against these Mohammedans who have been elected to office?

---- Google AI answer to: "What conflicts exist between Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution?"----

Critics and legal analysts argue that Sharia law (often referred to in this context as Islamic legal and political doctrine) conflicts with the U.S. Constitution in several key areas: [1, 2]

The Establishment Clause (1st Amendment): Sharia merges religious authority with state governance, whereas the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or enforcing religious law as civil or criminal code.[1, 2, 3]
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI): The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No foreign, international, or religious legal system can legally override, replace, or supersede American constitutional or statutory law. [1, 2]
Equal Protection and Civil Rights (14th Amendment): Traditional interpretations of Sharia can establish different legal standards or social status based on gender and religion (such as rules regarding inheritance, testimony weight, or divorce), which conflict with the U.S. constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. [1, 2]
Due Process and Criminal Punishment (5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments): Certain penal interpretations under Sharia include corporal or capital punishments (such as stoning or amputations) and processes that may lack standard American judicial due process, impartial juries, or protections against cruel and unusual punishment.[1]
Freedom of Conscience and Religion (1st Amendment): Traditional Sharia doctrines regarding apostasy (leaving Islam) or blasphemy penalize or restrict a person's right to change, question, or abandon their religion, which directly contradicts the American protection of individual freedom of conscience. [1, 2]

Legal Status in the U.S.

In practice, Sharia has no independent statutory authority or formal status within the U.S. legal system. American Muslims largely practice Sharia as a set of personal, moral, and religious guidelines (such as prayer, charity, and dietary habits). While individuals can use voluntary private arbitration or mediation (such as for family or business disputes), any agreement must strictly comply with state and federal constitutional laws to be enforceable in U.S. courts, as outlined in overviews from The Conversation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Christ the King of souls and countries?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

On this Christ the King Sunday, October 25, 2026, I asked Google AI this question and received the following enlightening reply.

Did the SSPX founder, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, disagree with the Vatican's post-Vatican II stance asking governments NOT to legally sanction Catholicism as the state religion, and not to designate Jesus Christ as the legal king of their country, which would have been symbolic and not literal?

------

Yes, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, vehemently disagreed with the Vatican’s stance. In fact, the shift away from the political and legal Social Kingship of Christ toward a modern doctrine of secular religious freedom was one of the central catalysts for the SSPX's theological break with Rome. [1, 2, 3]

During and after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), Lefebvre positioned himself as the leading voice of traditionalist resistance, focusing his opposition on two main points: [1, 2]

1. The Rejection of Dignitatis Humanae

Lefebvre flatly refused to sign the council's 1965 declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. [1]

• The Vatican's View: The state should protect religious freedom as a civic right, meaning secular governments should not enforce Catholicism by law.
• Lefebvre's Disagreement: He argued this was a "false religious freedom" that gave error equal rights to the truth. He maintained that Catholic states have a theological duty to recognize Catholicism in their laws and suppress public heresy to save souls. [1]

2. Defending the "Social Kingship of Christ"

Lefebvre argued that the Vatican was effectively "uncrowning" Jesus by advising Catholic countries to secularize their constitutions. [1, 2]

• He frequently pointed out that Pope Paul VI explicitly asked Catholic nations—such as Colombia and Spain—to change their laws and remove articles defining themselves as officially Catholic states. [1]
• To Lefebvre, this was a betrayal of centuries of papal teaching (such as Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura and Pope Pius XI's Quas Primas), which mandated that Christ must reign not just over individual hearts, but over civil laws, governments, and state institutions. [1]

Lefebvre famously summarized his battle against the Vatican as a defense of the rights of "Christ the King" against what he viewed as the modern world's secular humanism infecting the hierarchy. This fundamental disagreement over the authority of Christ over civil states remains a primary theological barrier preventing the SSPX from fully reconciling with Rome. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Lagging Mass Attendance Solved - Archdiocese of Detroit Can Take a Lesson from St. Louis

In the Archdiocese of Detroit, restructuring is underway due to lagging Mass attendance. I've written about this before and suggested the solution is not combining parishes and continuing the modernization and secular accommodation, but a return to the mystery of the faith, which in one way is the Traditional (Tridentine) Latin Mass. 

Below is an article copied verbatim from Daily Mail that proves my point ... where attendance has tripled.

 -------------------

The ornate Catholic church was on the brink of closing... until a priest came up with an extraordinary old-fashioned idea that made attendance boom

By NATASHA ANDERSON, US SENIOR NEWS REPORTER 

PUBLISHED: 13:28 EDT, 6 July 2026 | UPDATED: 13:48 EDT, 6 July 2026

An ornate Catholic church was on the brink of closure but now sees hundreds of faithful flock to its pews for Mass each week thanks to a priest's extraordinary idea.

St Francis de Sales Oratory was founded in 1867 by a group of German immigrants who settled in St Louis.

The gorgeous cathedral became a landmark in the midwestern city and for decades served parishioners of more than a dozen nationalities.

But as families started moving out to the suburbs, the church, dubbed the Cathedral of South St Louis, saw a massive drop in parishioners, the church website states.

St Francis de Sales was closed by the Archdiocese of St Louis in June 2005, and the church was forced to merge with another local parish.

St Francis de Sales Oratory in St Louis, Missouri is one of roughly 450 Catholic churches in the US that celebrates the traditional Latin Mass

A typical Sunday will see more than 700 people fill the pews of the cathedral to partake in a nearly two-hour long service where almost no English is spoken.

 The choir leads Gregorian chants, the priest faces the altar as he performs the liturgy and communion is distributed at a rail

The priest delivers the homily, or sermon, in English, but the rest of the Mass resembles a traditional ancient service.

The congregation typically sits in silence and female parishioners often wear veils as a symbol of reverence. St Francis does not have air conditioning and gets stuffy in summer - but even that does not deter worshippers, who cool themselves down with fans instead.

Membership at the church has tripled in the last six years, with the majority of parishioners being young families and Gen Z adults. 

Parishioners interviewed by the newspaper said that worshipping in Latin has helped them become more connected to their faith. 

'When everything was in English, I never had to think twice about what was going on,' 23-year-old parishioner Natalie Spain told the Post-Dispatch. 

She claims the 'mystery' of Latin service forced her to be more reverent.

'A lot of us are hungry for something that feels older and more solid,' echoed Philomena Wallace, 26. 'You have a way of worship that extends past the language. The meanings are not changing.'

Membership at the 159-year-old church has tripled in the last six years, with the majority of parishioners being young families and Gen Z adults

St Francis de Sales was scheduled to be torn down and sold in 2005, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke saved the cathedral by erecting it as an Oratory where Mass is strictly administered in Latin

St Francis de Sales, however, also appeals to Gen X, with one 49-year-old parishioner saying the service was like nothing he'd ever experienced before.

He and his wife, who first visited the church 14 years ago while on vacation from Florida, said it is the best place for 'spiritual nourishment.'

The couple ultimately bought a house in nearby St Francois County and relocated to Missouri with their three young sons.

Rising membership at St Francis de Sales mirrors a global trend in which Catholicism is seeing a resurgence amongst Gen Z.

Older adults make up the majority of Mass-goers, but data collected by the Barna Group last year found that Gen Z frequent services more regularly. 

Harvard University’s Cooperative Election Study also showed that the number of Gen Z Americans who identify as Catholic increased from 15 percent in 2022 to 21 percent the following year.

Several Catholic churches have gone viral on social media after receiving praise from so-called Catholic influencers.

St Joseph's Church in Manhattan's Greenwich Village neighborhood was even dubbed one of NYC's Hottest New Clubs after it emerged that queues of more than 100 people wait outside the parish ahead of Sunday service.

The Dogma of Extreme - SSPX vs Leo XIV's Vatican

15,000 people gathered in Écône, Switzerland, for the SSPX Ordination
of four new bishops. The size of the crowd is evidence.

In her "Forward Boldly" podcast, Christine Niles recently proclaimed that the SSPX's claim that the Novus Ordo (NO) Mass is "evil" was "extreme," and therefore, because it was "extreme," SSPX was wrong. Christine went on to explain SSPX's rationale for their "evil" claim. The claim centered on sins of omission, not commission. SSPX does not like the NO Mass because of what it leaves out of the TLM (Tridentine Mass). I agree with SSPX on this. But I had not thought of the sin of ignoring what was previously considered sacred and necessary as evil. SSPX points to a slippery slope. What do we eliminate next?  For hundreds of years, and I believe numerous popes, have proclaimed the TLM as sacred and necessary. Now Francis and Leo think it's wrong and should not be celebrated. To me that is extreme. 

I came into the church from Protestant Evangelicalism in 1998. One reason was that I could understand the NO, which was celebrated in my English vernacular. But since then, in my Catholic apologetic work and research, I have come to believe that the NO is a rebellion against the reverence of the traditional TLM, and that, by eliminating prayers and acts of reverence and by modern accommodation, it has become sacramentally vulgar...and therefore I have no problem with the SSPX's claim that it is evil. 

The NO is priest-centered, not God-centered; it does not respect the Eucharist liturgically (in 100 ways), and by the use of extraordinary ministers, and promoting communion in the hand. The NO is "versus populum" (facing the people) with the priest turning his back to God. This is the explicit expression of the logical fallacy "ad populum" (making accommodation to the people and the masses). Although I’m told "ad orientem" (the priest and people face God)  is not strictly forbidden in the NO, our “wonderful” new “Francis” bishop here in Detroit (Wiesenberger) has forbidden it. Some bishops are refusing to let us kneel to receive the body of our Lord. THESE are the EXTREMES. Christine Niles gets it wrong.

The claim of extremes should be directed to the NO and Francis and Leo’s objection to the TLM. But there are more extremes in the NO.

The use of the vernacular is not conducive to worship of God Almighty, when we have a liturgical language (Latin) that is not used anywhere in the secular world. The virtue of Latin is that,  unlike vernacular languages, Latin does not change. It's a "dead" language. Vernacular languages contribute to misunderstandings through linguistic and logical fallacies and thus are crucibles for heresies. I've said for years that Protestantism is the consequence of equivocations (misuse of the vernacular).

Compared to chant, the use of popular music is like fingernails on a chalkboard. 

I'll say nothing about how people dress and act in the NO vs the TLM. (Well, I guess I did say something.) Yes, the NO could be more reverent, but the tone of Vatican II (V2) and how it has been implemented in the NO promote shorts and flip-flops, indifference to the Eucharist and all things formerly held sacred. 

Vatican II, from which the NO evolved, is pastoral, not dogmatic or doctrinal.  No new doctrines were defined, nor was a heresy condemned. And yet, Francis and Leo and many bishops act as if V2 is dogmatic, and therefore treat the NO as dogma. But NOTHING out of V2 is dogmatic, so why are we pretending the secular, modernist NO is dogmatic? 

(see https://www.youtube.com/c/MassoftheAges)

I am disturbed by pundits incorrectly calling everything a pope does as "indefectible," which means the pope is unfailing, faultless, and incapable of defect or decay. Traditionis Custodes is not an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement. It was Francis's opinion, no doubt driven by wrongheaded (evil?) influences in the Vatican or his own ignorance of the TLM since he wasn't ordained until after V2 and may have never celebrated or even sat through a TLM. 

Consider this. Historically, Popes have issued documents (papal bulls) whereby slavery was authorized as acceptable. [c.f. Nicholas V's Dum Diversas (1452), Nicholas V's Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Alexander VI's Inter Caetera (1492).] Stop with the indefectibility heresy. Popes are sinners like the rest of us.  Stop conflating "indefectibility" with infallibility, wherein what has been rare (infallibility) becomes ubiquitous (indefectibility). Yes, you will try to parse the words. But it’s not convincing. Shall we start to enumerate past popes' foibles and sins to make the point? (c.f. the children of Alexander VI, Paul III, and Julius II)  Traditionis Custodes will soon be recanted as wrong.

Finally, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, who has been charged with writing much for Francis (and Leo?), is a disgrace, starting with his authorship as a priest of "Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing." Fernandez's writing of Laudato si is unreadable by anyone with a science background. I’ve tried three times, and my degree in physics makes the document a textbook example of cringe. Fernandez also authored Fiducia Supplicans, which has popularly been interpreted as approval of blessing homosexual unions, though Francis has backtracked that interpretation...and yet Fr. James Martin has done it with immunity. 

So, the Vatican is not always a credible source of what is right and wrong. As expected of any human institution, the Vatican, at times (and currently, I claim), bastardizes Jesus' prophecy that the Church would get everything right. I suppose the prophecy that the Church would fall in the last days is coming true. 

Critical thinking (comparing and contrasting) with history and truth sustained through the centuries is necessary. Do it. Use it. 

New Trailer for New Edition of Wizard Clip Haunting Trilogy

 Info at: https://wizardclip.stanwilliams.com

One Non-Intellectual but Pious Experience with SSPX

As I reflect on the current controversy in the Catholic Church regarding the Latin Mass and SSPX, I recall that the church building in Rocky River, OH, which was my grandfather's church (Rev. Jeremiah Williams, a Free Methodist pastor and circuit riding preacher on horseback) was most recently a SSPX chapel. 

This lady is not an intellectual, but she has a pious, fresh, and knowledgeable perspective.

 

Spiritual Alternatives to the Archdiocese of Detroit 2026-2027 Restructuring

Pam and I attend two different parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit, depending on our schedule and her voluntary parish responsibilities at both. In recent weeks, we've been inundated with requests to attend parish "Listening Sessions," ostensibly to have the curia listen to our concerns about how the AOD plans to restructure due to (1) shifting populations, (2) declining Mass attendance, and (3) the shortage of priests.

There are 209 parishes in the AOD, divided into 15 planning areas. The various proposed plans, 3 for each area, suggest eliminating certain weekend masses at under-populated parishes (who decides what is under-populated?) and require members to travel as far as 40 minutes from their local parish to another where the sacraments are offered. One plan for our area is shown in the image above, and our two parishes in Novi, MI (St. James and Holy Family), which are only a few miles apart, are both vibrant and unlikely to have their Masses eliminated during the restructuring.

The AOD's description of the problem displayed on their webpage (see image below) is described this way:

Over recent decades, we’ve seen significant shifts: fewer Catholics attending Mass, declining participation in the sacraments, and an ever-shrinking number of priests due to aging and retirement. Once serving 1.5 million Catholics, we now minister to approximately 900,000 — with fewer than half attending Mass regularly. At the same time, we’ve struggled to maintain buildings, structures and ministries designed for a much larger Church, and that’s left us stretched thin — making it harder to fully serve where people need us most.

While I understand the administrative issues surrounding finances and building upkeep, the shortage of priests and fewer people taking the sacraments, these problems will not be solved by demographic and geographic adjustments. The problems are spiritual, not numeric; they are quantum, not deterministic.

I cannot help be reminded of a similar problem faced years ago by the Lutheran church Missouri Synod, of which I had a connection before my conversion to Catholicism. The president of the LCMS declared that the solution to declining attendance was to establish new churches in upstate New York, where the population was historically Germanic and thus (supposedly) more psychologically aligned with Lutheranism. The red flag waving frantically called attention to the lack of the LCMS's attention to the fundamental evangelical nature of the Christian Church—The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16–20) and concern instead with adjusting the demographics and geography, for the purpose of increasing attendance. If Lutheranism (of the Missouri Synod nature) was so good and true, then why not evangelize where the churches were currently located? (The answer to that is book-length, and I'll not try to answer.)

I see in the AOD restructuring effort an embrace of similar blindness. I don't see the solution as physical restructuring but rather spiritual revival. Here are four considerations that, if implemented together, would eliminate the need for the AOD to restructure.

1. Do not restrict priests to only 1 or 2 Masses per day.

Canon Law 905 allows a priest to celebrate up to 1, 2 or 3, even 4 Masses per day, especially on weekends and festivals. Canon Law (905) is not infallible, dogmatic, or doctrinal. To rigidly hold to this restriction without considering the spiritual demands of a parish is to be pharisaical...holding rigidly to a law that harms the more important roles for a priest. 

2. Remove all administrative duties from the parish priest and give such duties to a full-time LAY administrator who is trained in or has demonstrated successful organizational leadership in the secular realm.

Acts 6:1-6 establishes the role of a deacon for the purpose of administering the parish, leaving prayer and teaching (and celebrating Mass and sacraments) to the priest (or ordained deacon). I do not think a parish administrator needs to be an ordained deacon, unless seminaries begin granting degrees in Organization Development and Leadership. This move alone would allow priests the time and energy to say more Masses, to pray and study the Word, and administer the sacraments. There are plenty of capable men who can be full-time LAY-administrators who are skilled in organizational development and administration. 

3. Remove ALL restrictions EVERYWHERE for celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass. 

This alone will attract more people to Mass. A simple census will reveal the GREAT attraction of young professionals and their families to the TLM. When I attend a TLM, I'm amazed by the deep reverence and the presence of young families with many children. They avoid the Novus Ordo for a variety of reasons, one being Vatican II's dismissive attitude toward reverence in the TLM. I believe that the invention of the Novus Ordo has resulted in fewer people taking the sacraments and fewer men considering the priesthood. The Novus Ordo has made common the worship of God.  (cf: https://www.youtube.com/c/MassoftheAges)

4. Attract young men to the Priesthood through the mystery of the TLM.

This will solve the shortage of priests. By opening the TLM everywhere and training priests to celebrate the TLM, you will attract more good and intelligent men to the priesthood. The priesthood is special and miraculous. Show young men how special and miraculous worship can be by celebrating the TLM. Avoid the common place of the Novus Ordo rubrics, reinstate ad orientem, chant, Latin hymns, organ, kneeling, communion on the tongue at the rail by ordained men, and the mystery that has been removed by the Novus Ordo (commonly referred to by many as simple "NO.")

5. Reinstate orthodox professors to the Seminary that the Archbishop fired without good cause.

Rejecting these holy men dissuades young men from the priesthood. Arbitrary and questionable decisions by an Archbishop are an offense to young men who want an orthodox faith. Intelligent, clear-minded men, who are called to the priesthood, do not want to pledge obedience to an Archbishop who blindly embraces Post-Vatican II ideology that punishes the centuries-old traditions of the church, and goes so far as to embrace Islam as a valid path to know God, and call Islamic places of worship "sacred." I could easily long to be a priest (although too old now), but I could never promise obedience to our current archbishop. I am sure his woke administrative decisions have turned young, faith-minded young men away from the priesthood in the AOD. Get the archbishop to confession and recant his sinful behavior. Young men will flock to the seminary. 

6. The Archbishop (Edward J. Weisenburger) needs to publicly recant and confess as "sin" his decisions that contradict the tradition of Catholic orthodoxy and worship. 

Weisenburger's accommodation to political liberalism and the LGBTQ trans community, his demeaning the importance of penance and post-Vatican II "reforms," his embrace of the Synod on Synodality with its shift toward modernism, and his championing of the ambiguous and inclusive pronouncements of Pope Francis (Todos, todos, todos), have turned many devout Catholics away from the church, the sacraments, and financial support of the AOD.  Conversion has been replaced by slogans, repentance has been replaced by (DEI) inclusion, and doctrine has been replaced by "lived experience." Weisenburger needs to repudiate all of this and shepherd the Church in Detroit back to the faith. If he does so, God guarantees there will be no need for restructuring. 

Will You Help Me Find My Schism?

 

Intro
Yeah
They kicked in the chapel door
Looking for schism
Found a veil, a missal
And six kids eating donuts
Uh oh

Chorus
Will you help me find my schism?
I think Rome left it on the floor
They searched the Latin chapel
Then blessed Georgetown next door

Will you help me find my schism?
They said it’s somewhere in the pew
But the rainbow conference got a cardinal letter
And a “Holy Spirit” stamp too

Todos, todos, todos
Everybody come on in
Except the folks with old missals
That’s apparently the sin

Verse 1
Cardinal Bob wrote a love note
Said the Spirit would attend
At a conference full of buzzwords
Where the doctrine likes to bend

Cupich sent a greeting card
With a Chicago velvet smile
“Walking side by side,” he said
For about five synodal miles

They got badges, they got lanyards
They got panels on the floor
They got “lived experience”
Beating doctrine two to four

Then Grandma brings her rosary
And whispers “Kyrie eleison”
Rome jumps out the bushes yelling
“Call Fernández, seize the reason!”

Chorus
Will you help me find my schism?
I think Rome left it on the floor
They searched the Latin chapel
Then blessed Georgetown next door

Will you help me find my schism?
They said it’s somewhere in the pew
But the rainbow conference got a cardinal letter
And a “Holy Spirit” stamp too

Todos, todos, todos
Everybody come on in
Except the folks with old missils
That’s apparently the sin

Verse 2
Study Group Nine came rolling in
With a binder full of haze
Said doctrine’s pre-packaged now
And experience gets a raise

They put sin in the suggestion box
They put Scripture on a slide
They put “journey” in the driver’s seat
And let the commandments ride

At Georgetown, they say “listen”
At Écône, they say “halt”
At Outreach, it’s the Spirit
At the old Mass, it’s assault

They can nuance every rainbow
Till the catechism faints
But a priest says “Introibo”
And they’re rounding up the saints

Chorus
Will you help me find my schism?
I think Rome left it on the floor
They searched the Latin chapel
Then blessed Georgetown next door

Will you help me find my schism?
They said it’s somewhere in the pew
But the rainbow conference got a cardinal letter
And a “Holy Spirit” stamp too

Todos, todos, todos
Everybody gets a chair
Unless you chant the Credo
Then security’s over there

Verse 3
Argentina thanked the courage
Of the lady with the scarf
Green as springtime, red as warning
Somehow bishops missed that part

They remembered all the slogans
They remembered all the pain
They forgot the little babies
And the blood behind the campaign

They can spot a schismatic
At three hundred yards in lace
But abortion’s just a footnote
When it wears a left-wing face

Give a speech on human rights
Get the incense and applause
Ask for the old religion
And they hit you with the laws

Chorus
Will you help me find my schism?
I think Rome left it on the floor
They searched the Latin chapel
Then blessed Georgetown next door

Will you help me find my schism?
They said it’s somewhere in the pew
But the rainbow conference got a cardinal letter
And a “Holy Spirit” stamp too

Todos, todos, todos
Hear the happy slogan ring
Everybody means everybody
Minus those before the spring

Bridge
They got mercy for the movement
They got mercy for the trend
They got mercy for the bishop
Who can’t tell where morals end

They got process for the Germans
They got smiles for every fight
They got dialogue for everyone
Who attacks the Church from left to right

But a chapel full of families
With a missal and a bell
Gets a Roman SWAT team memo
Saying, “See you folks in hell”

They kicked down the chapel door
Looking for rebellion
Found three altar boys, a potluck
And a dad in a Suburban

They said, “Where’s the danger hiding?”
I said, “Maybe down the street
Where the cardinals wrote endorsements
For the sexual retreat”

Final Chorus
Will you help me find my schism?
I think Rome left it on the floor
They searched the Latin chapel
Then blessed Georgetown next door

Will you help me find my schism?
They said it’s somewhere in the pew
But the rainbow conference got a cardinal letter
And a “Holy Spirit” stamp too

Todos, todos, todos
Let the slogan do its dance
If you’re anything but trad
You get a fifty-second chance

Outro
So please repair the chapel door
You broke it hunting ghosts
The schism wasn’t hiding there
It’s wearing Roman posts

You found a missal and a mantilla
You found donuts after Mass
You found kids who know the Sanctus
And a dad low on gas

Meanwhile down at Georgetown
They got bishops on the bill
Saying “Come on, Holy Spirit”
While the doctrine sits still

Will you help me find my schism?
Maybe check the VIP room
Where the fog machine is running
And the synod flowers bloom.

Read the article that inspired it here:

McElroy Says Leo Deepens Francis’ LGBT Project While Rome Looks to Excommunicate Every SSPX Priest

CHRIS JACKSON · 9:35 AM

McElroy Welcomes Outreach to Washington

Read full story

What is "Post-conciliar"? Is it Dangerous or Benign?

I copied this short essay from Catholic.com. It is cited (at the end) as written by John Henry Cardinal Newman,  from his document: “Prospects of the Catholic Missioner” in Discourses to Mixed Congregations. I am not well-read on this topic, but the term "post-conciliar framework" was used in an essay by Chris Jackson to reference to Pope Leo XIV's recent appointment of a laywoman (Maria Montserrat Alvarado) as Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication, a position historically held by a male priest. Leo XIV worries me, as did Francis. This essay explains why.

The professional avant-gardists in the Church today never tire of telling us of the Christian faith in the post-conciliar epoch—of the changes called for by the “post-conciliar spirit.” These vague slogans conceal a tendency to replace the infallible magisterium and unchanging faith of the Church with something else, something new. I am reminded of the famous program of the German National Socialist Party, which in paragraph 17 declared that it accepted Christianity insofar as it corresponded to the “Nordic ethos.” In that case too the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church was supposed to subordinate itself to an extremely vague and, moreover, purely natural norm. 

John Henry Cardinal Newman

But does not the expression “post-conciliar spirit” refer to the “spirit of Vatican II”? And is it not, therefore, something precise and Christian? But even if this were the intended meaning, the effect would be to represent the Second Vatican Council (the “spirit” of its decrees) as an ultimate norm that is played off against the former Councils—above all, against the Council of Trent. Now, the moment one implies that one council has rendered others outmoded, irrelevant, the question immediately arises: Whence does one derive the conviction that the truth of the Holy Spirit is to be found more in this council than in others? In the first place, even if a council could err in its dogmatic definitions, there is no reason to suppose that the latest council is less exposed to error than former ones. 

But, of course, any contradiction in defined dogma is incompatible with the infallible magisterium of the Church. Any implication, therefore, that Vatican II has in any way abrogated dogmatic expositions of former councils calls into question the divine institution and perpetual guarantee of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council made no dogmatic definitions: Its purpose was strictly pastoral in nature. And Vatican II declared expressis verbisthe continuity of the “spirit” of its utterances with that of former councils. The Holy Father gave a clear answer to those who wish to treat Vatican II as a kind of beginning of the authentic Christian revelation, as a new norm against which the teachings of former Councils must be measured: “The teachings of the Council do not constitute a complete, organic system of Catholic doctrine. Doctrine is much more extensive, as everyone knows, and it is not called into question by the Council nor substantively modified” (Address of Pope Paul VI, Jan. 12, 1966). 

But in reality the propagators of the “post-conciliar spirit” do not truly identify it with the spirit of the decrees of Vatican II. The term itself—”post-conciliar spirit,” “post-conciliar Church”—clearly suggests that something quite different is meant. Often this is openly and frankly admitted as at the [1967] Toronto Congress, where the Vatican Council was seen by some speakers as only a beginning but as not fully expressing the “post-conciliar spirit.” In fact, this conveniently vague notion has no basis in the infallible magisterium of the Church. It represents, rather, a mentality nourished by historical relativism and at the service of that fictional creature “modern man.” 

Yet, the “post-conciliar spirit” cannot justly designate the state of the Church after Vatican II, for no one can deny that there are contradictory currents within the framework of the Church today, not one trend that embraces all Catholics. Thus, it is not even possible to speak of a “post-conciliar spirit” that is analogous to the “post-Tridentine mentality.” The Council of Trent imposed through its precise and emphatic definitions of faith a lucid unity of spirit on the hierarchy, clergy, and all the faithful, a spirit that stamped the time which we know today as the Counter-Reformation. 

If we wish to know precisely in what the new modernism that calls itself the “post-conciliar spirit” consists, we have only to turn to the numerous warnings of the Holy Father. If we examine the speeches and writings of the heralds of the “post-conciliar spirit,” we shall find that the real content of this spirit is the desire to conform to “modern times,” “the scientific age,” to “man come of age.” (Of course, the new norm is as much a mere speciality of a single epoch as the National Socialist “ethos of the Nordic race” was a specialty of a single people.) 

This modernization of the Church is put forward as an attempt to deepen the truth of Christian revelation, to free the deposit of Catholic faith of “mythological elements.” But in making the alleged mentality of our epoch the criterion of the faith, these post-conciliar spirits are only replacing the perennial faith with short-lived and often self-contradictory slogans. The fashionable theories that fill the air are usually no more than sophisticated superstitions. In choosing these as the norm for their alleged deepening of the Christian truth, the post-conciliarites have, in reality, set the wolf to mind the sheep. 

Perhaps the most pervasive manifestation of the “post-conciliar spirit” is the unrestricted freedom many assume in the discussion of religious matters, a penchant for re-examining the dogmas, instead of accepting the deposit of Catholic faith as transmitted infallibly by the Church. But when these post-conciliar persons assert that the Church must be adapted to the mentality of our epoch, they had in mind meeting all the objections that are made against the Church—notionly by the Protestant denominations but also by the “world.” The deepest desire of some of our progressives seems to be to measure up in the eyes of the world. But this attitude in no way grows out of a genuine thirst for truth, but comes, rather, from an unwarranted respect for the opinions of the world and from fear of the world’s censure; it comes from having chosen to replace the infallible magisterium of the Church with certain contemporary opinions. 

The absurdity of all these perversions of the faith is most flagrant in those who assert that they are deepening the truth, after first having proclaimed that there is no “static truth.” This self-contradictory position, born out of radical historical relativism, would (if it were possible to take it seriously) make all striving for truth senseless, the appeal to truth an empty gesture, and faith and religion utterly meaningless. 

Of course, the unchangeable character of the Church is a scandal to the world and the worldly. But the Catholic should rather affirm this unchangeableness as a sign of her supernatural foundation: “Lo! The fair form of the ancient Church rises up at once, as fresh and vigorous as if she had never intermitted her growth. She is the same as she was three centuries ago, ere the present religions of the country existed, you know her to be the same; it is the charge brought against her that she does not change; time and place affect her not, because she has her source where there is neither place nor time, because she comes from the throne of the Illimitable Eternal God” 

(John Henry Cardinal Newman, “Prospects of the Catholic Missioner” in Discourses to Mixed Congregations).