What People Are Commenting
Narcissism, ‘Classical’ Music & Card. Pell
Very Good & Useful
Thank you so much for your kind reply to my inquiry [about how much of the Bible is to be literally accepted as being true]. I have just checked the website and have printed out
to my question. It is very good and useful.
Thank you for the advice; it look as if there isn't any Order or group that can be recommended, but I do trust you people !
in Christo Rege
Bergolio Narcissism Is Diabolic
Is Francis a Narcissist?
long Ann Barnhardt
youtube is an excellent expose of bergolio’s narcissism which takes a definitively diabolical form. Herein, Bergolio is compared to other current world leaders also infected with infatuation for themselves.
We pray daily for Francis and hope that he can convert ASAP with Our Lady waiting for the Consecration of Russia.
May God Bless TIA and all of the holy work you do for Mother Church.
Is Francis a Narcissist?
Hello Dear TIA,
Is Francis a Narcissist?
I am a psychologist and doctor in psychology (Ph D). My dissertation was about the leaders' personality. (cf. my book in French : "
Qu'est-ce que les Chefs Ont de Plus que Nous
?" Eyrolles 2009.)
A bigger than usual narcissistic dimension is useful or even necessary in order to be a leader. (Even if not appearing outwardly)
This has been more or less reluctantly recognized since Freud and Reich conceptualized this character type in the thirties. (Cf. Michael Maccoby in the US)
(My definition is nearer to Freud's than to Reich's. Unfortunately, the negative definition by Reich overcame the more neutral one by Freud)
But huge varieties of behavior can happen within such a framework: good (Churchill? ) or bad (Hitler or Staline?) leaders can develop along those lines.
So, yes, Francis is necessarily narcissistic, but not all of narcissists display an obvious self glorification...
The opposite polarity of humility may also predominate (Mother Teresa, Sister Emmanuelle...).
I may give more details if you want me to...
A Revolutionary ‘Classical’ Music
I was very pleased to see
an article by Dr. Plinio
Corrêa de Oliveira on music. It is a thoughtful introduction to considering how and why we should listen to music, and its effect on our souls.
I must make a note: he mentions that "classical music is a magnificent architecture of sounds". Sadly, like Progressivism, most modern classical music (post 20th century) seek to do away with this architecture by abolishing any and all hierarchy in sound. As one young composer put it, modern composers seek to reflect the "complexity" of the modern world (read: ugliness). A lot of this modern ugliness can be traced back to Vienna.
Dr. Corrêa de Oliveira mentioned that Vienna is the "lightest city in the world." It is true that Vienna has always been an important center for musical creativity; many of classical music's great composers worked in Vienna, including Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert.
However, the city's roots in classicism were negated when some composers decided to go "off the rails" in the early 20th century. I'm speaking about the composers of the Second Viennese School, spear-headed by Arnold Schoenberg and his pupils Alban Berg and Anton Webern. Schoenberg decided to take the hierarchy and harmony in music and completely trash it by creating a new musical system called atonality. In this system, music has no center of pitch, as it did for hundreds, even thousands of years. He does away with the beauty of traditional tonality and prefers his egalitarian clusters of noise.
This atonality opened the floodgates to all kinds of progressivist movements in music. We see this progressivism starting with Stravinsky, then with Boulez, Stockhausen, Steve Reich, John Cage and, more recently, with Thomas Ades. We have to refrain from calling this "music" - it can only be considered a type of organized noise.
The world's greatest concert halls, which once uplifted the soul with beautiful music, often features this modern noise. It is a type of aural chaos that causes a great deal of anxiety and unrest in our own souls. Don't take my word for it, though, just take a listen to the atonal music of Schoenberg. It's awful.
Unfortunately, some of the only modern tonal classical music we find are in films, like those that have been scored by John Williams. Too often those films with great musical scores are no good, either, and use beautiful music to entice the watcher to embrace bad customs and immorality. (think of the music of Harry Potter, the Godfather, etc.)
In the revolutionary dominant musical circles, atonal classical music is seen as "serious" music, that is, music that does away with the “silly” traditions of the past and moves on to “bigger” and “better things.” Refusing to play this ugly modern music or even expressing a public aversion to it can mean the end of careers for some.
Despite all this, I truly believe we must stay away from modern classical music that negates tradition, faith and morals, especially atonal music. This type of music is the anthem of liberalism.
Christe Rex Noster: Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
I read on your wonderful and important website this morning a comment that concerns "
" - if ever there was an oxymoron...
Back in the 90's there was a certain Carmelite priest,
Rev. Peter J. Liuzzi, O.Carm.
, in Southern California who was attached to the Archdiocese's "ministry" to homosexuals (and author of the book
With Listening Hearts: Understanding the voice of Lesbian and Gay Catholics
He would facilitate lectures concerning these topics and would talk about "gay" saints, citing as his example the saints in the Canon of the Mass: saints "linked together" by the conjunction "and" were "lovers", e.g.: John
Damian. Now the Church holds that saints John and Paul were brothers from Rome, while saints Cosmas and Damian were twin brothers from Arabia.
This type of misinformation is not new but that it now comes from "official sources" of the Church and seeks to either confuse today's modern Catholics (those attached to the
newChurch) and malform younger Catholics who are (mis) learning, and being indoctrinated into a new religion.
This makes our work as pastors of souls even more difficult, because today's faithful clergy must not only teach the truth, but actively correct error. I ask your continued prayers for the remnant Priests and Bishops faithful to tradition to have the courage to boldly proclaim the Truth of Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Faith!
As always, be assured of my paternal benediction and prayers, especially at Holy Mass. I remain,
In Christo Rege,
The Most Reverend Monsignor +Thomas JF Sebastian, SSCR
Pell or Cardinal Pell?
Hi Dr. Horvat,
by you on the Tradition in Action website about how to properly address Catholic leaders.
I got to the article somehow after reading that the Victorian police in Australia here have been given the 'green light' to charge George Pell for child sexual abuse. This news was very welcoming.
As I'm not a Catholic, my question is: Am I expected to recognize Catholic titles even though I don't recognize Catholicism?
I ask to try and get perspective from a devoted Catholic such as yourself.
For instance, George Pell, is just 'Pell' to me, and if a priest was called Thomas, I would refer to him as 'Tommy', nothing more.
I'm interested to know what fundamental Catholicism demands from non-Catholics.
Dr. Horvat responds:
There are some elementary notions that would be good for Catholics or non-Catholics to keep in mind regarding this topic about whether to call Card. George Pell cardinal or not:
Although Card. Pell has been asked to give his testimony on this or that case by an official Australian commission investigating pedophilia in the Catholic clergy, there is an elementary law of justice that obliges us – civilized persons – to consider him innocent until the opposite is proved.
If you make the habit of identifying Card. Pell as just Pell or George, instead of adding his title to his name, shortly you will run the risk of being misunderstood by your listeners, because there should be many men with the name George Pell in Australia.
Besides, by not being specific, that is, by omiting his title, you may also be insulting other persons of that name who have nothing to do with the alleged crimes or cover-ups he committed. So, you will be improperly misrepresenting and casting a shadow of shame over those others who are also called George Pell. This is a bad action condemned by Catholic Morals and probably also by the Australian Law. If you insist on this procedure, you may be looking for problems and end by having to face a lawsuit for defamation.
So, if you are a practical man, in public you should continue to call him Card. George Pell or Card. Pell.
In private and if you do not run the risk of being misunderstood, you can call him whatever you like so long as morality and justice are observed.
Marian Horvat, Ph.D.
Posted May 23, 2017
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
How to Address Priests and Religious
First Chapters of Genesis
Is Francis a Narcissist?
Considering Types of Ideal Music
The Liberal Spirit vs. the Catholic Spirit
Related Works of Interest