Padraig Caughey- Children of the Mist

From his Forum: motheofgod.com

Our Lady has been pushing me, in prayer to explain a few things about this thread.

 So although I am a bit reluctant to do so, I will or she will not let me alone.

First of all in the original formation of this forum and in subsequent posts I always pray to see what Our Lady wants me to write, even if it is about stuff I would really not write about, for instance graces I have received in prayer, very often I don't really want to write about, but Our Lady insists that it will be an encouragement to others to pray and a strengthening in faith and so I have done. A great encouragement has been when it seems this has helped others grow or even led them to Faith; this is such a wonderful Sign that the Hand of the Mother of God is in this and so I have continued, happily enough, though often , personally with some reluctance.


In the case of this particular thread it has been the same pattern. I am not an American of course and have little experience of America and so when in prayer Our Lady put her foot down and wanted me to write I did so like a stubborn old mule as I thought Americans on the forum would think I was being more than a little presumptuous and arrogant on writing on this subject, one which they themselves would, naturally know a million times better than I myself.

More than this as soon as I started to write I was very aware how blank my own thoughts were on this subject and so I have constantly had nothing to say and so have had constantly to kneel at the feet of Mary and so I have in effect being acting as a very reluctant and stubborn secretary, writing down what she herself has wanted and directed to be written.

But all to the best as I have learnt so much myself and since so little of myself has gone into this all the more of Our Blessed Mother shines forth; which is all any of her children could ever want or ask.

Anyhow I have done as she asked and will continue to do so. But she just wanted me to point out the hand she is having in all this. I pray and write down as she tells me, she also wanted me to tell you this because we are coming up to stuff about the future, which is the important bit and what I have explained may help folks to be more open and docile too, as this stubborn old mule keeps writing.

The Children of the Mist

The Children of the Mist are a very busy people, busy about many things. So busy, practical and up to date and relevant that time spent praying and attending to Mass seems at best a distraction or at worst like a waste of time. They seem superficially a very attractive people. Warm hearted and deeply caring. 

They are activists concerned with a whole host of issues such as the environment, wars, violence, women's rights, poverty, the criminal system, injustice, sexual issues and so on. They are attractive because they are so much people who really CARE and unlike the Children of Mary who they see as judgmental, conservative, and old fashioned and entrenched in outmoded ways of thought, too tied up in heavenly matters, the Children of the Mist regard themselves as in touch, relevant, progressive, open to present needs and very much activists.

 They are very much in setting up structures, most especially committees and agencies, groups to deal with ISSUES with which they are constantly embattled in dealing with. They are tremendous listeners and talkers and come across as very warm, your best friend, your brother, sisters, mother or father. Yet much of this is delusional for when challenged on the directions they which to persuade you to walk they are in fact made of steel. For instance I have heard of Seminarians and novices who have professed belief in apparitions, such as Medugorje being hurriedly and very efficiently and quickly being dispatched out the seminary or novitiate back door.

The Grey Mists are concerned always with, 'Rights' but seldom with responsibilities. They emphasis personal choice and decisions and are opposed to structures or 'mindless obedience' unless the structures or authorities happen to be controlled by their own folks.

They love innovation and see tradition as fusty and getting in the road.

They have no real conception of evil as a force in its own right. They regard evil as being a result of processes which they can set right.

They do not accept the reality of Satan and Hell and dislike the notion of Purgatory or a Last Judgment. On the other hand they underline love, mercy, heaven and all loving God.

They dislike devotions which they consider old fashioned and it is almost a badge for them that they very much oppose apparitions, the supernatural, the mystical or any kind of Devotion to Our Blessed Lady, especially such things as the use of the Rosary. 

...and so in the period leading up to the Second Vatican Council {11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on 21 November 1965} ; Satan gradually infiltrated and traduced as his own those whose responsibility it was to educate the young priests and religious, those who in their own turn bore the responsibility in their own turn to teach the young of the Catholic Church in their country.

In fact at least one Catholic writer, the Englishman and devout Catholic writer JR Tolkein in his trilogy, 'The Lord of the Rings (He appears in the second and third volumes of the work, The Two Towers and The Return of the King};Grima Wormtongue a type of the children of the Mist who corrupt all that they touch from within. Worms eating at the heart of goodness, the Church.

The name Gríma derives from the Icelandic word meaning "mask

'Gríma, son of Gálmód, was at first a faithful servant, but he secretly fell in league with Saruman, and from then worked to weaken Théoden and his kingdom through lies and persuasion.

Tolkien describes him as "a wizened figure of a man, with a pale wise face, and heavy lidded eyes", with a "long pale tongue"; he later says his face is indeed very pale.

He was not much loved in Edoras; everyone except Théoden himself called him "Wormtongue", for his malicious words were like that of a serpent (or dragon, as this quite fits with the speeches of Glaurung in the First Age). Gandalf repeatedly compares him to a snake:

The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.

See, Théoden, here is a snake! To slay it would be just. But it was not always as it now is. Once it was a man, and it did you service in its fashion.

It is implied that Saruman had promised him Éowyn, the king's niece, as a reward for his services. Éomer accused him of "watching her under his lids and haunting her steps", but was prevented from killing him right there and then; he would have killed him for this earlier if it had not been against the law.

As Tolkien writes in Unfinished Tales, Gríma may even have given Théoden "subtle poisons" that caused him to become frail and appear to age even more.'

SOLEMNITY OF THE HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL 

THURSDAY, 29 JUNE 1972 


…referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life. 

Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. 

 But they end up teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.” The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world. 

This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in. 

FOR A LIFEGIVING AND REDEEMING “CREDO” 

How has this come about? 

The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to.

So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns. The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth. 

Time moved on and the prayers of Blessed Pope John 23rd for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to renew the Church was convened with the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. 

The intention of the Church Fathers can be summed up very simply, renewal of the Church. Renewal by returning to sources and cleaning of the dust and rubbish that had accumulated down the centuries. to return to the sources of the streams of grace and draw from them anew.

However the Children of the Mist were now perfectly placed in America to hi-jack the wonderful; Spirit guided intentions of the Council Fathers and uses it for their own malicious and even evil ends. The Council was, for them rather like a brand new, shiny automobile that has been left in a driveway with the keys in the ignition and the engine running, they simply jumped in the empty vehicle and drove away in it to all kinds of bad and destructive destinations. They had no interest in Renewal, their whole interest was in innovation in driving towards their many and nefarious agendas.

So many and extraordinary and shocking were these innovations that it is difficult to know where to start to list them all. But they had one thing in common; they defied or misunderstood the original intent of the Council Fathers in going to the past to bring forward something new, they were total innovators ignoring 2.000 years of Church history and the wisdom of ages of spiritual wisdom to drive the automobile of the Catholic Church in the USA to total disaster. But the children of the Mist had risen over the previous decades and were emerging in positions of power everywhere. They could do pretty well as they liked as they were now at the driving wheel, and that is what they did. 

Effectively they gutted the cultural and spiritual heart of the Church, the tools their war cry being at all times, 'Vatican 2' a Church Council they neither understood nor showed obedience too but simply used for their own purpose. But much more sinister than this was that they actually changed the teachings of the Church itself so that, for instance confession boxes were empty and the children in the schools were taught some new, weird versions of the faith and, effectively whole new generations of Americans would grow up with no conception of what it actually meant to be a Catholic. They often went to Church and had their children baptized but they were no longer, very often, in any serious ways Catholic in any meaningful ways themselves. The soul of the Church in America was being gutted.

Ordinary Catholics knew this and voted with their feet.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=22821


'After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States 

dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests--and only 15,000 will be under the

age of 70, according to a study conducted by Dr. James R. Lothian of Fordham University.

The shortage of priests has created a problem previously unknown to modern Catholics: the priest- less parish.

 Only 3 percent of the parishes in the US--a total of 549--were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there 

were 2,928 priest-less parishes, about 15 percent of all US parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes,

 4,656, will have no priest.

As one would expect, the priest dearth has been fueled by a collapse in the seminarian population.

 There were 16,300 seminarians in 1930 and 49,000 in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700:

 a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, countless seminaries across the country have been sold

 or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965 and only 200 in 2002.

And empty seminaries result in declining ordinations. While there were 1,575 ordinations to the

 priesthood in 1965, in 2002 there were 450, a decrease of 350 percent. Taking into account

 ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, 

there was a net loss of 810.

RELIGIOUS ORDERS DISAPPEARING

The tragedy of the convents has been perhaps even more startling. A host of 138,000 sisters ran 

the Catholic education and health systems in 1945; their numbers swelled to 180,000 by 1965.

 In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters

 will drop to 40,000--and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. One does not have to be 

Chicken Little to predict that within a generation there will be no nuns.

The same is true for the once-proud religious orders of men. For example, in 1965 there were

 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians.

 There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were

 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; 

in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. It does not require special training in statistics

 to conclude that by 2050, if these trends continue, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the

 Christian Brothers, will be the virtually extinct in the US.

Other statistics on the life of the Catholic Church in America tell the same story. At the time

 of the Council there were 4.5 million students in US parochial schools; now there are 2 million. 

Before the Council there were less than 400 marriages annulled by Catholic diocesan tribunals in 

an average year; now there are 50,000. Before the Council 3 out of 4 Catholics

 attended Mass each week; now the figure is 1 in 4. ' 

On 25 July 1968 Pope Paul VI did something incredible and Prophetic in publishing a letter on Human Life, 'Humae Vitae'. People, including many clergy had forgotten the role of the Spiritual Leader, especially the Pope as Vicar of Christ is intensely Prophetic and Humanae Vitae was perhaps the most intensely prophetic document of modern times.

Like Moses , Pope Paul called Chosen People from the flesh pots of Egypt. He had been to the desert and encountered the Fire of the Holy Spirit in the Desert and brought the fire back to the People of God. This was an intensely counter cultural act in that it called for the people of God to renounce the values and direction of Western Societies at that time. It would cause folks to take risks and turn their backs on the material, on the flesh pots of Israel. It was Prophetic in that it took the Word of God to shout a cry or warning to a people grown deaf to its voice. It was Prophetic in that it risked martyrdom to those who followed it and to the Prophet himself. It was Prophetic in that it saw round the bend to the future, a future were the people of the United States would become enslaved to the value systems and beliefs of the Egyptians around them to a point where they themselves would worship the false Gods of the Egyptians themselves. God, through His Prophet was calling them to make an exit, a turning point a walking away from the Mist, the cold Satanic Mist that had fallen so hard and fast on their Nation and forge a new path in the Light, the Spiritual Clarity of the Desert.

Like Moses, the authority of the Pope was challenged by his own people:

Exodus 2:14
The man said, "Who made you ruler and judge over us?

 Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?”

The people contended with the Pope's prophetic role, his spiritual leadership as they had with Moses and set God to the test.

17:2 So the people contended 7 with Moses, and they said, “Give us water to drink!” 8

 Moses said to them, “Why do you contend 9 with me? Why do you test 10 the Lord?”

For Humanae Vitae we can say with Jesus:

Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 

This rejection by the majority of the Church in America was to institute the low point

 of effects of Satan's War against the Children of God in that Nation. One Protestant commentator, Mary Eberstadt, brilliantly charts the effects of its rejection, for instance on the Anglican Communion and much of what she says can be applied, in a lesser way to our Church: 

‘How did sex, of all subjects, come to occupy such a prominent place in the division of Christendom? In a sense, the potential was always there. From the first believers on up, the stern stuff of the Christian moral code has been cause for commentary—to say nothing of complaint. “Not all men can receive this saying,” the disciples are told when Jesus puts divorce off limits. Observers throughout history, Christian or not, have agreed: that particular moral teaching and its corollaries are hard indeed. From pagan Rome two thousand years ago to secular Western Europe today, the Church’s rules about sex have amounted to saying no, no, and no to things about which non-Christians have gotten to say yes or why not.

Even so, there is no denying that the traditional rules do seem more problematic now than ever before. Widespread abortion, ubiquitous pornography, diminished social opprobrium, and above all easy and effective contraception: All have divided recreation from procreation as never before in history. They have also been the driving force behind the embrace of Christianity Lite itself. After all, many would say, hasn’t this explosion of sexual expression made what was once a difficult moral code practically an impossible one? Shouldn’t the proper Christian response be one of mercy, rather than censure—including a merciful rewriting of the moral rules in these particularly difficult times?

Yet to say that the sexual revolution made Christianity Lite inevitable, as many people would, is to miss an important historical point. It was the Anglicans who first started picking apart the tapestry of Christian sexual morality—hundreds of years ago, long before the sexual revolution, and over one particular thread: divorce. In fact, in a fascinating development now visible in retrospect, the Anglican departure over divorce appears as the template for all subsequent exercises in Christianity Lite.

For about two centuries, and despite its having been midwifed into existence by the divorcing Henry VIII, the Church of England held fast to the same principle of the indissolubility of marriage on which the rest of Christian tradition insisted. According to a history of divorce called Untying the Knot, by Roderick Phillips, “no bishop, archbishop, or incumbent of high Anglican office in the first half of the seventeenth century supported the legalization of divorce.”

Even so, this early dedication to principle would turn out not to hold, ultimately eroding one priest and one parish at a time. In the United States, Phillips reports, Anglican churches soon were relaxing the strictest restrictions, making divorce more or less easy to come by depending on where one lived. Meanwhile, although the Church of England lagged behind the Episcopalians, by the mid-eighteenth century divorce was theoretically and practically available by an act of Parliament—a recourse that, although not widely exercised, went to show that exceptions to the indissolubility principle could be made.

Then came another turn of the theological wheel that could not have been foreseen by the first reformers.  As of the General Synod in 2002, divorced Anglicans could now remarry in the Church. A spokesman noted carefully at the time: “This does not automatically guarantee the right of divorced people to remarry in Church.” But such cautions were plainly a matter of whistling in the dark. If Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles can now marry in the Church—having already married and been divorced from other people—why should every other Anglican not enjoy the same mercy?

Thus does the Anglican attempt to lighten up the Christian moral code over the specific issue of divorce exhibit a clear pattern that appears over and over in the history of the experiment of Christianity Lite: First, limited exceptions are made to a rule; next, those exceptions are no longer limited and become the unremarkable norm; finally, that new norm is itself sanctified as theologically acceptable.

Exactly that pattern emerges in another example of the historical attempt to disentangle a thread of moral teaching out of the whole: the dissent about artificial contraception. Here, too, Anglicans took the historical lead. Throughout most of its history, all of Christianity—even divided Christianity—upheld the teaching that artificial contraception was wrong. Not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 was that unity shattered by the subsequently famous Resolution 15, in which the Anglicans called for exceptions to the rule in certain difficult, carefully delineated marital (and only marital) circumstances.

Exactly as had happened with divorce, the Anglican okaying of contraception was born largely of compassion for human frailty and dedicated to the idea that such cases would be mere exceptions to the theological rule. Thus Resolution 15 itself—for all that it was a radical break with two millennia of Christian teaching—abounded with careful language about the limited character of its reform, including “strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”

And also as had happened with divorce, the effort to hold the line at such carefully drawn borders soon proved futile. In short order, not only was birth control theologically approved in certain difficult circumstances but, soon thereafter, it was regarded as the norm. Nor was that all, In a third turn of the reformist wheel that no one attending Lambeth in 1930 could have seen coming, artificial contraception went on to be sanctioned by some prominent members of the Anglican Communion not only as an option but in fact as the better moral choice. By the time of Episcopal Bishop James Pike, only a quarter century or so later, it was possible for a leading Christian to declare (as he did) that parents who should not be having a child were not only permitted to use contraception but were, in fact, under a moral obligation to use the most effective forms of contraception obtainable.

Bishop Pike was only one of many leaders of Christianity Lite to participate in this same theological process leading from normalization to sanctification. Although the Eastern Orthodox churches sided generally with Rome on the issue of contraception, most Protestant churches ended up following the same script as the Anglicans—moving one by one from reluctant acceptance in special circumstances, to acceptance in most or all circumstances, and finally (in some cases) to complete theological inversion. No less an authority than the Baptist evangelist Billy Graham, for example, eventually embraced birth control to cope with what he called the “terrifying and tragic problem” of overpopulation.

In just a few decades, in other words—following the same pattern as divorce—contraception in the churches of Christianity Lite went from being an unfortunate option, to an unremarkable option, to the theologically preferable option in some cases. Now consider a third example of the same historical pattern holding in another area: dissent over traditional Christian teachings against homosexuality.

Although homosexuality may be the most explosive current example of the effort to reshape Christianity into a religion more congenial to modern sexual practice, it is actually new to that party. As many on both sides of the divide have had occasion to remark, homosexual behavior has been proscribed throughout history, by Judaism as well as Christianity, until very, very recently—including in the churches of Christianity Lite. (Henry VIII, to name one prominent example, invoked the alleged homosexuality of the monks as part of his justification for appropriating the monasteries.)

Yet “extraordinarily enough,” as William Murchison puts it in his book Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (2009), “a question barely at the boundary of general consciousness thirty years ago has assumed central importance to the present life and future of the Episcopal Church.” Why this remarkable transformation? In part, because the reformers at Lambeth and elsewhere did not foresee something else that in retrospect appears obvious: The chain of logic leading from the occasional acceptance of contraception to the open celebration of homosexuality would prove surprisingly sound.

That is precisely why the change in doctrine over contraception has been used repeatedly by Anglican leaders to justify proposed changes in religious attitudes toward homosexuality. Robert Runcie, for example, former archbishop of Canterbury, explained his own personal decision to ordain practicing homosexuals on exactly those grounds. In a BBC radio interview in 1996, he cited the Lambeth Conference of 1930, observing that “once the Church signaled . . . that sexual activity was for human delight and a blessing even if it was divorced from any idea of procreation . . . once you’ve said that sexual activity is . . . pleasing to God in itself, then what about people who are engaged in same-sex expression and who are incapable of heterosexual expression?”

Similarly, archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has also retrospectively connected the dots between approving purposely sterile sex for heterosexuals on the one hand and extending the same theological courtesy to homosexuals on the other. As he observed in a lecture in 1989, three years before he became bishop, “In a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarily, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.”

Thus, in retrospect, does the modern Anglican path—from careful, even reluctant line-drawing over contraception at Lambeth in 1930, to divorced noncelibate homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson today—appear not only unsurprising but practically inevitable. Put differently, the rejection of the ban on birth control was not incidental to the Anglicans’ subsequent implosion over homosexuality. It was what started it.

Moreover, as of the December 2009 ordination in Los Angeles of the Episcopal Church’s second noncelibate gay bishop, it is clear that homosexuality’s theological status—like that of contraception before it—is now moving from an option to a religiously approved option. It therefore joins divorce and contraception in the signature religious cycle of Christianity Lite, conferring on a once prohibited sexual practice a theological seal of approval'.

You know I always felt sorry for Paul VI, for I always felt he was a martyr...and you know who stuck the nails in that laid him on a cross? His fellow Bishops and priests... mostly over Humanae Vitae. 

But that's where Prophets always wind up; hanging on a cross.