Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Vortex -- Don't Fall Into Defeatist Mind-Set

There has been spirited debate on St. Corbinian's Bear blog whether the Synod was a victory or a defeat. I believe it is fair to say that more traditional Catholics seem to be the ones denying that we won a victory.

Michael Voris makes an excellent point -- we must not succumb to a "defeatist mind-set." (The Bear is just going to ignore the execrable "Blame It On Pope Emeritus Benedict" Vortex from the day before.)

The Bear would like to clarify some things.

First of all, the Bear may get frustrated and growly when debating. That's just a Bear. In the courtroom, there are rules and traditions that channel polite debate into useful issues based on evidence. While his commenters are smart, and do a pretty good job, the Bear misses a referee to rule on (and require!) evidence.

Maybe he should just stay out of the comment box altogether. The problem is that this is no ordinary blog. It has a mission to support the Plain Ol' Roman Catholic Church without bringing avoidable scandal into the picture. If the Bear abandons the comment box, he is certain you can see how that mission could be quickly overwhelmed. (And the Bear is not thinking about anyone in particular. so relax.)

He could also simply not allow comments, or heavily moderate. That is pretty much up to the commenters. This would grieve the Bear. You guys usually have good comments, but the Bear is asking you to step up your game so there don't have to be any changes.

Victory. If you're going to discuss it, you have to define it, agreed? The Bear might agree with you that we did not win a victory if crushing Modernism was the condition. That's why we try to keep things within the realm of reality.

In the Bear's case, it seems clear that they had every advantage in the world. Counting on that, they raised expectations with the help of a complaisant media. And yet, at the end of the whole unnecessary mess, they managed to eke out some wishy-washy language in a document that doesn't really mean much anyway. Who knows, maybe it was your rosary that tipped the scales, that one you prayed when you really didn't feel like it.

By any reasonable measure, this was a victory. We've had over a year of celebration dances by our enemies that have not stopped to this day. But they were beaten, even humiliated by any reasonable standard. But our glum attitude makes their charade look true.

Why are the Modernists and their fellow travelers able to pretend like they won, while we, having actually won, huddle in the corner straining, blood vessels near bursting, trying to make a cloud of defeat appear over our heads?

Why is it only the Modernists who are capable of never giving up, and always pursuing their tangled plots? We, on the other hand, throw in the towel after the first punch.

Why is it that only Modernists can argue the language on what an ultimately meaningless document permits? Do we have no one to argue against them, so we must hang our heads in defeat?

Why do Modernists always project optimism, while we are not only far from joyful, but make fun of Pope Francis when he urges us to be so? Which group would you rather join, the glum defeatists, or the confident and happy Modernists?

Where is the supernatural element in the way we attack, attack, attack, retreat, retreat, retreat, and why does it seem so absent from our attitudes?

Bears don't lose. The Bear never lost a death penalty, and he tried many. Those are hard cases. Everything is against you. But every time the Bear found a way to win as the underdog.

We need to think like generals, recognizing our wins as well as our losses. The enemy observes our reaction. If we project defeat, evil rejoices in both natural and supernatural realms. They sense our weakness and fear. A demoralized enemy is one you have already defeated.

We won the Synod. And even if we didn't, we should celebrate as if we had.


  1. Bear, as an attorney, you know that it would not be prudent to claim victory in a case until after the verdict is rendered. The latest synod is analogous to a bench trial, with the judge taking the matter under advisement. We don't have the verdict yet, as we wait to see what the judge does with the evidence.

    That said, we know there is a Court of Appeals which, in this case, also functions as the Supreme Court. That Court was stacked a long time ago, and we know the outcome of any appeal, should one be necessary.

    So, in that sense, I think we can claim victory, but in the lower court, I'm not so sure.

    That said, I don't understand the CMTV position regarding all the "wicked prelates" being spoken of.

    Isn't the pope of the exact same mindset? Hasn't he done the exact same things as they when he was Ordinary of Buenos Aires (the evidence exists in that regard)? If so, doesn't he fall under the same category of "wicked prelate"?

    Ultimately, isn't CMTV fighting against the pope himself while at the same time denying doing so?

    I've raised an objection. Now I need a ruling from the Bear.

    1. You (understandably) stumbled into a motion hearing and assumed it was a trial, given argument, and evidence an what not. This was a motion hearing on an important issue, at least important to the opposing side. They made a big noise about how they were going to win. In the end, the court ruled against them on everything the public had been led to expect. But even though we won, we look like schmucks because we are acting as if we lost. The public is confused, and our case is damaged.

      As I point out in my latest, CMTV HAS finally started with direct criticism of Pope Francis, although they're saying "yes, yes, but it was all Benedict's fault for putting Francis there." Something strange is going on at CMTV. I don't know if they need a new producer or Michael is just tired, but we've had two bizarro Vortexes close together: the indecipherable one about bad men duping poor Pope Francis, and now this truly VENOMOUS piece dragging poor Pope Emeritus Benedict out as a human shield to say, "See! Yeah, Francis may be a rascal, but it was Benedict that put him there!"

      You can't make this stuff up.

    2. To me, the most important thing in this whole mess is that we had conflict inside the Synod at all. The fact that there were two sides (never mind who won) is troubling.

      The point was supposed to be a discussion of the present state of the Family, what was good, what needed to be fixed, and how Mother Church could present her perennial teachings in a way that would help those who would not, or could not, obey these teachings to obey them.

      Is that what happened? Anything other than the above is BAD. And no good can come from it.

    3. "The point was supposed to be a discussion of the present state of the Family, what was good, what needed to be fixed, and how Mother Church could present her perennial teachings in a way that would help those who would not, or could not, obey these teachings to obey them. "

      I dont think everybody came with that agenda.

      The ones who did not needed a Bear- smacking.

  2. Nice to see you're back writing and not too discouraged by the chaos of the peanut gallery. You've got a unique style and unpredictable content. I've got a few blogs I read every day, and yours is one of them, (hope you don't mind).

    I hear what you're saying about your preference for the order and logic of conversation in a courtroom, compared to the anarchy of blog commentary. I suppose they both have their place, with strengths and weaknesses inherent in each. The reward for running a blog is that you get to be the judge and set your own rules of law. I've been called to the bar in your court a few times for procedural errors. On a different blog, I was expelled from his courtroom. No offense. I'll move on. But I do think it's kind of silly.

    In regards to your central point, I see what you're saying; I agree to a certain extent, but think you mischaracterize the field of play. Grim determination is not depression and defeat. Happy Clappy is not a sign of confidence and victory. Jesus was a "Man of sorrow and acquainted with grief." Good enough for me.

    Satan sees ONE mortal enemy on earth and that is the Bride of Christ. We will be attacked until the day we die. Conflict is permanent on this Orb. If we are not being attacked, then we have great cause for concern. I may appear to you as depressed and defeated, but in reality I am merely trying to figure out who and what the enemy is in really confusing times. I will not put a happy face on a desperate situation. Doing so is not a stratagem for success. Clearly defining the foe (easier said than done) and responding with firm resolve and clear purpose is a constant struggle and has been the point of my life long before I became Catholic.

    Whether one side or the other "won" is really kind of pointless anyway. The battle goes on. Keep or eyes on Christ and the Blessed Mother who points the way.

    1. Have you ever been involved in serious sports, say college level, high-level chess, Anglo-American criminal law or the military? Perhaps it takes a certain personality to see things in terms of win-lose.

      If you can't bring yourself to believe we won, please at least act like it. It annoys the Hell out of the other side.

      BTW, I appointed you press secretary a couple of days ago and forgot to tell you.

    2. Bear. We've already won! Game over. We are just actors in a play. This story does not belong to us.

      In regards to my new job, thank you. What's my salary? I hope it's not a problem if I belong to a Union.

  3. One further point. When you were defending your client from the death penalty, I suspect your approach and demeanor was all serious; all business. Life was at stake and there was nothing to smile about while the facts were in play. I think there is a parallel here.

    1. Yeah, you might think so. In one dp case I was called to the bench along with the prosecutor and we were admonished to look to our demeanor as it was a serious matter. It's like "Chicago's" old dazzle-dazzle in a way. Everything has its place. Except where it doesn't. Did I miss something here? Bears can seldom be serious about anything for very long. You may come to imagine that we are humans, but we're really just large, clever circus animals.

    2. all mistakes attributed to auto-correct, which I am going to turn off as soon as I can figure out how.

    3. Once a long time ago, in the county where I then lived, we had a trial in which a young man was accused of killing both his parents. He comes from a big Catholic family that resided near me. His brother is a priest and oftentimes offered Mass at our parish.

      Part of the young man's family believed him to be guilty (the defendant accused one of his own brothers of the murder) and part of his family believed him to be not guilty.

      The courtroom was packed with half the county when the verdict came in, and the level of tension was extreme. The man's priest brother was sitting in the front.

      When the judge began reading the verdict, (not guilty), the young man was crying and started to collapse, and the judge began chuckling.

      I was taken aback at the judge's reaction and I never did understand why he began laughing, but I think I'll always remember it.


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...