Tactics of Manipulation used by Modernists against Catholics
Note: This was written by the editor of the blog "FromRome.wordpress.com" on November 4, 2014.
“Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.” - Jeremiah 23:1-2
I do not claim to be an expert. I am sure that there are many Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious and Laymen who have better knowledge of such things than myself. But in my nearly 30 years of personal experience in Ecclesiastical institutions or as a religious/hermit, I have noticed some patterns of deception and manipulation, which I believe in conscience I am obliged to name, explicate, so that Catholic Faithful at Rome and around the world might take guard against them.
"Manipulation", in the dark sense of the word, is a way of misleading, maneuvering, deforming, altering, etc., the mind, actions or even words or reactions of another, to serve one’s own goals. When the victim is a faithful Catholic and the perpetrator is a Modernist, you have a very evil and wicked malice at work.
Yet, to those who know anything of the history of the Church during the last 100 years or more, the Modernists have honed to perfection many methods of manipulating Catholics to serve their own abominable conspiracy to overthrow the true Church of Christ, from within, using the very institutions and offices of the Church, established by Christ and by ecclesiastical tradition, against Her.
Having studied Cultural Anthropology at the University of Florida, I was trained in the methods of participant observation, which is a way of learning about a subculture’s mores, rules, ethics, behaviors, by sharing or keeping company with them.
I never consciously used this method, but now, after many years of fighting against Modernists, I will take a moment to step back and analyze and categorize some of the methods of manipulation I have seen or learned firsthand against faithful clergy, religious and laity.
The Church, being the perfect society founded by the Incarnate Word of God, enjoys an order of society which enables Her to achieve the end which God gave Her, the honor and glory of God through the worship of God and the salvation of Souls. This being the case, the Modernists, who believe in no God, but only in the god of personal sentiments, thus have an upward battle if they are to use the very things of the Church to overthrow the Church from within.
Alas, however, since many modernists have been members of the clergy, and this throughout the last 180 years or so, they have had the ability to use all the forms of clerical and moral corruption, known beforehand, to their end. They have also had the assistance of the general moral degradation which has been promoted by the Free Masons in the West (and not only in the West), which has led many a Catholic to be disposed to be easily deceived about what constitutes Christian virtue and ecclesiological justice and honesty.
In former ages, we read of the heroic and saintly Bishops who did not hesitate to threaten unfaithful Catholics, Kings, Dukes, Princes, Mayors, and Scholars (even the Pope), with excommunication if they did not stop from their pubic sins or injustices. There are cases, where immoral bishops, were taken outside of the town walls and hung from a tree by the Catholic faithful, to rid the local church of their vile depravities. There are cases where laymen shot corrupt priests dead for the crimes they perpetrated against children or families.
In the modern age, with all our institutions of civil and ecclesiastical justice, we are apt to look down upon the Catholics of former ages, who understood that in some cases, waiting for lengthy procedures would only endanger the public good the more. They understood that after some point, the depravity of a man could be such that he merited no longer the customary due process accorded to the merely suspected of a crime.
They also understood that obedience to an evil command did not absolve from the sin of collaboration or participation in the evil commanded.
Former ages enjoyed a sense of personal honor and manliness that is rarely admired and even more rarely tolerated in modern times. Indeed, corrupt and evil men have all kinds of words to lambast such honorable men.
The decline of morals in the West did not begin with the Age of the Enlightenment, yet, Rationalists of that age started a trend which has been greatly exploited by Modernists (even though Modernists are sentimentalists not rationalists): that trend is the use of deprecatory language to subvert the sentiments of Catholics away from admiration of virtue, especially away from admiration of heroic virtue.
You can see that effect palpably in the common and vulgar opinions some men, even clergymen, have of the Saints of old. The most striking example I know of personally, is the comment made by a priest, now deceased, who remarked to me one day, after he read a very short life of Saint Francis of Assisi, that if anyone did such penances today, he should certainly be locked up in a mental asylum. To which I replied, with not a little shock, “Do you mean that just today, or is Saint Francis any less suspect for having done them long ago”. He replied that he was no less suspect, and added, “I have great difficulty understanding why such a man was ever made a saint”. (This priest, by the way, died of being overweight by about 200 pounds.)
Ah, what has happened to that age of chivalry and honesty, where even a sloucher or glutton admitted that the diligent and abstemious man was virtuous?
Is modern man so ignorant, as to not understand, that it is one thing to be virtuous, another to admire virtue; and that if you are not at least the first kind of man, that you can at least save your honor by being the second?
God forbid, however - as the Modernists think and consider the matter - that there even exist in the Church the second kind of man, the man who actually admires the heroic virtue of the Saints of old! And here we have the first tactic in the tool box of manipulations, used by Modernists:
1) Denigrate what is best, and make it the enemy of all the rest. You see, if the Modernists are to prevail in the Church, they must put into practice some of the general tactics of the fallen angels, because the Church, being principally a spiritual society, Her strength lies principally in spiritual things. Now there is nothing more principally spiritual in a believer than his virtue, and the prince of all virtue is the virtue to the heroic degree. Consequently, to shut out all possibility of this most spiritual enemy of Modernism, the first and prime spiritual goal is to ostracize and exile heroic virtue. And this is done chiefly by denigration.
Denigration of what is best is the first tactic to employ, because when the best is no longer seen as the best, the soul and the society no longer strives to reach the proper goal by the only methods which can attain that goal. Giving up the only tools to arrive at that goal, one guarantees in the very first instance, that the Catholic side of the battle will not and will never win; and that the battle will continue interminably, without victory for the Catholic party.
This denigration has gone on for many generations now: Rationalists did this by debunking the lives of the Saints, debunking the authenticity and authority and veracity of Scripture; by debunking the normalcy and authority of Tradition; by debunking the sanity of heroic virtue, by recourse to modern false sciences of psychology and psychiatry as the “true” authorities on human behavior. This could not be done without despising and denigrating Scholastic Theology and Philosophy.
The result of such a campaign of denigration, is a Catechism of Denigration, induction to which is common place in Catholic Seminaries today, throughout the whole world; and especially so in the Pontifical Universities at Rome, where the majority of professors believe education means debunking every historical, theological, moral, ethical, religious, liturgical ideal which a seminarian might bring with him to Rome.
Simultaneous, to this work of denigration, is the work of substitution. After railing against the ideals which the Church has from Christ, the Apostles or from the Holy Spirit in the Saints, it is necessary but easy to suggest and laud the ideals and criteria which prevail in modern times, and this, in the name of being “acceptable”, “up to date”, “normal”, “middle of the road”, etc.
Vatican II (holding that it is obligatory and dogmatic just like, nay, better than Vatican I) etc. Thus:
to Virtue, we have sound and healthy psychology;
to Faith in Scripture, the critical historical method of rationalistic interpretation;
to Christian Charity, social justice work;
to Preaching, neutralizing rhetorics;
to Worship of God, worship of self or of man;
to Tradition, the modernist reading of Vatican II (holding that it is obligatory and dogmatic just like, nay, better than Vatican I) etc.
2) Identify and root out the “non-compliant”, “intransigent”, “rigorists”, those who take the Faith “too seriously”.
The work of denigration provides the best context for the second method or tool of manipulation: identifying those who have such virtue as to resist or oppose the denigration of the best.
Social cohesion and the insistence that one not be divisive, not jeopardize approval of superiors who hold the keys to the formation process, are powerful emotional threats used to cajole acquiescence to the program of denigration.
If this fails, then one moves easily to accusing the resistant of being “rigorists”, “ideologues”, “intransigent”, simply because they resist the process of denigration. Few, in such an emotionally charged atmosphere as the Seminary or Pontifical University where denigration has replaced formation and information, have the spiritual balance to notice that it is precisely in this personal attack of those who resist, that there becomes manifest the actual ideals of the denigrators; ideals which are contrary or opposite of those which Catholics should hold.
Many, beholden to a “follow-the-group, don’t-rock-the-boat”, ethic, easily succumb to such an attack. Those who don’t, thus, are then easily isolated and separated from the group, when the attacks move from opposing ideals of the Faith, to denigrating those who show loyalty to them. With all the filters Modernists now have in society and in ecclesiastical institutions today, it will be few vocations who show such fortitude and resistance, it is thus easy then to divide them from the group and from others in the group who would give moral support.
This separation is a necessary part of the re-education program of the Modernists. Insistence on attending certain Pontifical Universities is a sure sign that re-education is the goal. It is not that re-education is the necessity, but a seminarian or religious has to be very knowledgeable and virtuous beforehand, to survive without being scathed. Such a man is a rare breed today, though.
One effective tool in this work of weeding out the virtuous, is the system of falsification of formation and formators.
In seminaries the Modernists most capable of appearing Catholic and most knowledgeable in how to flip a Catholic to a Modernist, or at least to a compliant do-nothing, are placed in the roles of Confessors, Spiritual Directors, Vocation Directors, Rectors, or other formators.
This is important so that not only the gate-keepers but the counselors of the victims conscience are compromised, so that if he seeks help and guidance, he is guaranteed to get advice that will do him in; either by advising compliance, silence, or excesses which will guarantee expulsion or exclusion, or serving as pretexts for such.
Indeed, a common tactic, is to propose friendship and sympathy for the victim, with the condition that he compromise in something, which will only prolong his ordeal and wear down his resistance.
These two tactics, Denigration and Identification/Segregation regard individuals. Now, let us consider the cases of groups.
3) Disfavor initiatives aimed at promoting the Faith in a non-compromised manner.
In regard to groups, distinct but similar tactics must be employed. In the age following the diffusion of the errors of voluntarism and totalitarianism, many a person has come to accept in principle that obedience to a superior is never wrong, even when a superior commands to be done that which is wrong.
A whole host of excuses is given, but to the group which is poorly formed in the Faith and enmeshed in the errors of the present age, the power of the accusation of disobedience to a superiors commands or disfavor in regard to superior’s wishes is never to be discounted. How many holy initiatives, works of the Holy Spirit’s suggestions, have come to naught since Vatican II simply because someone whispered, “The Bishop won’t like that”, or “the current Pope does not favor that”, etc.!
Mind you, the Catholic Faith aims to please God alone; when a superior’s wishes diverge from what God has revealed to be pleasing to Himself, either in scripture, or throughout the course of the ages in the Saints’ and their works, then the faithful should have the common sense to ignore his wishes, no? You’d think so; but, alas, this sense of integrity is rare today.
Only when Catholics by long years of good works come to understand the profound connection between them and the Faith which comes from Christ, do they have any interior conviction to question such an evil suggestion as, “the Bishop won’t like that” holy proposal.
The errors of voluntarism and totalitarianism have become so widespread, that many Catholics no longer hold their pastors or Bishops’ to be their shepherds; they now consider them to be their “heads” and “hearts” proper!
Content with the satisfaction of their daily lives and common pleasures, and rarely prepared by modern culture to have a sense of personal dignity which is founded in loyalty to Christ first and foremost, few initiatives, even holy initiatives, of Catholics, whether laymen or clergy or religious, withstand a concerted or long process of Modernist manipulation tactics. The fortitude is simply lacking; the clarity of judgement too poor; the heroic virtue, not something they have every prayed the Lord to give them.
4)Accuse of Disobedience, especially after unreasonable or unlawful requests.
Accusations of disobedience are a grave matter, since the Code of Canon Law especially identifies these as grounds for imposing censures or penalties. Most Catholics, when accused, do not have the clarity of mind or knowledge of the faith to distinguish a just command which should be obeyed, from an unjust or unreasonable one which should not or could be ignored. The mere stigma of not doing what a superior has commanded is so strong in modern times (despite the false exaltation of liberty) that nearly no group escapes from such an accusation.
What results is disintegration, internal divisions, which render the group non-effective in its holy proposals, or so divided, as to dissolve; in any event, the mere accusation when leveled is sufficient to guarantee that a group be exterminated from the life of the Church, if the Bishop should so wish, or even, to obtain complete acquiescence to the Modernist agenda in the Church as the penance necessary to remove the stigma. This is why a reasonable or just request, refused, need not be the basis of the accusation.
Now let me adjoin some commentary on the so-called negotiations which have been required of Catholic groups since the Council, which have “dared” to resist the Modernist reformulation of the Faith.
5) Require negotiations for reconciliation.
I have always wondered just why some groups are required “to be reconciled” so as to obtain favor or approval from superiors, where it is rather the superiors who have been known for years, decades, even their entirely priestly lives, for deviations from the Faith or right ecclesiastic practices.
The reason may be, that the opportunities, to be had, from negotiating the reconciliation of such groups provides a powerful social-psychological force for demanding and obtaining compliance.
Social-psychology is the study of how groups behave and interact in such a way so as to influence the behavior of individuals and individuals of groups.
The mere announcement of an offer of reconciliation makes the imposition of the requirement of negotiations all the more noteworthy, the object of much emotion and speculations.
The hope that persecution and justice will be granted, is combined with the natural desire of the victim to exit the suffering imposed so unjustly. It is a powerful magnetic force, therefore, to propose to the abused a negotiation with the abuser to stop the abuse. It also sets up the context where any discussion of the injustice or abuse appears not to be useful to obtain the needed reconciliation.
For this reason, I ask, just why is it that some groups, and not all groups or all Catholics, are required to accept by written signature the legitimacy, authority, or doctrines of the Second Vatican Council? If the Fathers of the Council had the liberty to choose to sign or not to sign, and if the Council did not in any anathema or canon obliged its acceptance or the acceptance of any of its pastoral proposals, why is it then that such written acceptance is required?
I believe the reason is, that such a written document, can serve very ably in coercing and guaranteeing compliance, and in shutting off the ways of escaping from further abuse, when the malice or perfidy of one party might later become evident. After all, that is the reason for every peace treaty between disputants, is it not, to guarantee compliance of the weaker party?
Thus, if the Modernists simply falsely accuse their opponents of being schismatics, or in danger of schism, as has frequently and recently been done by some Bishops, it becomes very easy to propose reconciliation as a condition for being pardoned of the false charges.
In truth, Catholics need not compromise, reconcile or negotiate with Modernists; they need only to refuse false obedience and false acceptance when and wherever it is offered.
Rather, it is Catholics who should preach and demand repentance of the Modernists, their resignations and their removal from office, howsoever high it may be.
Pax Tecum