Monday, July 26, 2021

Attempted Coup

 

A priest of the SSPX leads the faithful in a
Rosary against satanists trying to take over Idaho's capitol.

Today, the feast of St. Ann, mother of Our Lady, a group of masked, robed and hooded satanists gathered at the Statehouse in Boise, Idaho, to conduct a "prayer" ceremony in an attempt to turn Idaho over to the will of the devil.  A group of Protestants gathered at the bottom of the steps to counter the satanists.  A group of Catholics, led by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, climbed the steps past the satanists and gathered in the rotunda to pray the Rosary.  The satanists came in and stationed themselves at the four compass points within the rotunda (where there is currently construction underway) and shouted prayers to satan.  The Catholics prayed all the louder.  Before long, the satanists walked out and returned to the steps where they blew a horn or two and made some noise for about a minute.  After the Rosary, Father prayed a prayer of exorcism out of the Rituale Romanum while the Catholic group continued to pray silently, and then walked around the rotunda, sprinkling it with holy water.  He then blessed the group, which left the way it came.  By that time, the satanists were off the steps and in some unknown location.

This is not the only time or place where the devil's minions have launched a public offensive against a state or city or town.  Why are satanists bold enough to come out in the open (albeit hiding behind their masks) and conduct black rituals to try to capture a political entity for the powers of darkness?  It must be because, saturated with the ideology of "religious liberty," or a failure to take the devil seriously, or a disbelief in their own powers given to them in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, or some combination of all three, the Catholic hierarchy turns a blind eye.  But this is not a battle that they can just leave to the laity, who are usually the ones keeping track of these things.  If the local priests and bishops are not aware that these ceremonies are going on, why aren't they aware?  How is that not their business?  And if they are aware, how can they bear to allow it to go on?  Why do they mostly leave these things to the laity to deal with by themselves?  It's like sending an eight-year-old out to deal with a wild animal.  One can only speculate what the repercussions might have been, if there had not been a priest on the scene today to beat back the assault.  If priests and bishops haven't got time to chase devil worshippers off their doorstep, they haven't got time for anything.

Excellencies and reverend fathers: you have got to go out in the forefront of this battle and drive back the powers of darkness.  We pew sitters are willing to come with you and back you up with our prayers, but you must lead us.  You are the ones who wield the power of Jesus Christ.  This is why it was given to you.  It is up to you to send the satanists away, tail between legs, and make them fear to ever dare to launch an offensive against our states and cities.  Nobody else has been given the power and authority to do it.

Saturday, July 24, 2021

Ultra Vires

 "Ultra vires" is an old legal term that describes an act that exceeds the limits of the actor's authority.  Fr. Hunwicke explains why Traditionis custodes is ultra vires.

Thursday, July 22, 2021

Ideological Litmus Tests as a Condition of Keeping the Traditional Mass


The letter from Bishop Sticka of the Diocese of Knoxville, released yesterday, expresses His Excellency's solicitude for the members of his flock who love the traditional Mass.  In essence, the bishop says he will allow the traditional Mass to continue status quo ante, at least for now, and even grants faculties to all priests ordained by the cutoff date to celebrate it.  However, the bishop also implements the litmus test of accepting all the teachings of Vatican II, as well as the validity and liceity of the implementation of the new Mass. 

One has to pause and hover over that litmus test.  First of all, is there no basis for questioning the liceity of the new Mass, especially in view of the extreme upheaval that resulted from the attempt to completely replace the old Mass?  Does there exist widespread agreement among high churchmen, reached after careful and deliberate consideration, about the liceity of imposing a new, manufactured rite of Mass, however valid, on the Church?  If not, why are the little people not allowed to question it?  

Secondly, why are we not allowed to question an ecumenical council that explicitly was "pastoral" and refrained from defining any dogmas?  Since there are priests and bishops who question parts of the Second Vatican Council, and whose objections are not trivial, why must the people in the pews take sides?

Thirdly, if we need litmus tests, why don’t we have an “acceptance of all the Ten Commandments and all the Precepts of the Church and all the Sins that Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance” litmus test to let people in to any Mass whatsoever?  Why is there no litmus test to screen out those who reject those parts of Vatican II that were already defined and infallible doctrine before the Council?  And why are we doing this at a time when we have bishops and priests refusing to implement the canonical litmus test of not being a manifest public sinner in the case of pro-abortion and pro-same-sex-marriage politicians presenting themselves for Communion?

To ask some questions is to answer them.

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

One of the Sanest Things I Have Seen Yet...

 ...on the subject of the new motu proprio.  

Hillary White: The Purge.  A teaser:

Why am I not mad? Why am I not freaking out? Why am I not panicking? Why, in fact, am I something along the lines of ferociously joyful? Because a very grave evil, that has duped a great many people with quite a lot of comforting, sleep-inducing lies for quite a long time, is coming to an end. An entire regime of Un-Reality is collapsing before the inexorable demands of the Real. And the defeat of lies, the defeat of UnReality is always a triumph for Christ who is Truth incarnate.

Hillary White gives clear expression to a lot of my own inchoate thoughts on the crisis in the Church.  Follow the link and read the whole thing.

Sunday, July 18, 2021

YES, The Holy Father Will Try to Suppress the Traditional Mass. War Has Been Declared.

 

Well, now we have the answer to the question I asked last month.  Besides saying I stand by everything I said last month, I will add the following observations:

- The blow, once landed, does not hurt any less just because you saw it coming.  This is no surprise.  Still, it may be that the biggest shock is how utterly devoid of even a scintilla of human empathy the document is.  It doesn’t even have a grace period before taking effect.

- It’s unfortunate that some people think this move by the Pope was justified and proportionate to the alleged provocation.  For decades, and especially over the last year and a half, we have been inured to exercises of raw power and draconian overreactions by those in authority, so that we have lost our sense of how wrong it is to depart from legitimate authority and proportionality.  We have also lost our sense of what an evil thing it is to try to stamp out the time-honored and tested Mass that has nurtured generation upon generation of saints.  It was an evil the first time around, and it is no less evil this time.

- Power and authority are not ends in themselves, but means to ends.  An exercise of power and authority that is destructive of the ends for which they were instituted is an abuse.  The end for which the Catholic Church was founded is the salvation of souls.  There is no sense in which the salvation of souls has been served here.

- This Orwellianly-titled motu proprio couldn’t be further beyond the Pope’s authority.  I can’t think that anyone is really bound to obey it, even if it weren’t full of things that don’t make sense.  Bishops should recognize it as the usurpation that it is.

- Let’s be clear about who is responsible for divisions in the Church.  It’s not the people who want to stick to tradition.  It’s the revolutionaries in the Church who think she is their personal property to do with as they please, and who try to transform her into something unrecognizable from what she had previously been.  In fact, those who govern the Church do not own tradition, but only hold it in trust.  These prelates and priests who cannot leave well enough alone are violating their obligation to keep care of the patrimony that has been entrusted to them, so that the present generation may enjoy the benefits of peace and order, and so that it will be there for future generations.  They are also violating their obligation not to put their flocks in a position of having to choose between obedience to them and obedience to God.  

- The enemies of the Church, both within and without, hate not only the Mass, but the papacy.  In our time, this would seem to include the current holder of that office.  He demonstrated that early on with his disdain for the customs and trappings and small “t” traditions that come with it.  Then there was his belittlement of the papacy by his continued promotion of “collegiality,” and his use of its prestige to make common cause with globalist leftists against the flocks he was appointed to protect.  Now there is this frontal assault on the Church herself, using his power as Supreme Pontiff to destroy what his predecessor built and to eviscerate the patrimony he is bound to defend.  These are all attacks on the primacy of Peter.  If you really hate the papacy, and want to bring it into disrepute and ultimately destroy it, what better place to try to do it from than the throne itself?

- Still, no: this move by Pope Francis does not prove he is an antipope.  If God demonstrates his wrath against His people by allowing them to fall into the hands of bad priests, as St. John Eudes says, how much more wrathful must He be to allow us to fall into the hands of bad bishops, and, above all, a bad Pope?  There have certainly been plenty of candidates in recent decades.  Pope Francis is a typical cleric of his generation: mean, nasty, arrogant, brutal, and contemptuous of all things Catholic.  The hierarchy is still chock-a-block with guys like him.  It was only a question of time before one of them landed his kiester on the throne of Peter.

- From what I am seeing on social media, the lumpen cruelty of Friday’s bombshell shocks the conscience, not only of die-hard Latin Mass-goers, but also Catholics who only attend the Novus Ordo, and even some non-Catholics.  It’s impossible at this early stage to know how many people who don’t think they have a dog in the fight have been shocked by this, but it’s possible the Pope has jumped the shark.  (I say “don’t think they have a dog in the fight,” because really, there is no one who does not have a stake in the preservation of the Mass of tradition.)

- I expect that the Society of St. Pius X will keep on keeping on, as they have been doing since they were founded in the 1970s.  I also expect they will have a lot more souls on their hands after this, over and above the increase they got out of the covid shutdowns.  Their uncompromising stance in favor of tradition is looking less and less like “disobedience” and “schism” and “rebellion” as more and more “Spirit of Vatican II” chickens come home to roost.  Their canonically irregular situation — which they acknowledge as an abnormality, and hope one day to be able to rectify — is also, in the present moment, looking more and more providential, as it allows them to plant standards pretty much anywhere, and to marshal resources that no bishop can strip them of.

While we wear out our Rosary beads, stock up on our supply of sacramentals, and go to confession and receive Holy Communion as often as possible, we need to stay sane inside insanity and remember that this ain’t 1970 anymore.  The traditional Mass parishes are loaded with babies and toddlers and young adults too young to have boomer and Gen X baggage.  They are where the future is.  Also, in 1970, we hadn’t had 2020 yet.  People noticed which sector of the clergy defended their flocks in 2020, and which didn’t.  

Above all, this is God’s Church.  Sooner or later, He will intervene.

Saturday, June 05, 2021

Will the Holy Father Try to Suppress the Traditional Mass?

 

What are we to make of the reports, from apparently reliable sources, that Pope Francis is in the process of repealing Summorum Pontificum?

Personally, I have been expecting a move like this almost since the beginning of his pontificate.  I figured he'd wait until his predecessor is out of the picture before making it, but Benedict XVI goes on living and living, God bless him, and his enemies are growing restive and impatient.  There are those who point out that it would be stupid and destructive of the good of the Church for Summorum Pontificum to be repealed or restricted, but the good of the Church hardly ever seems to factor into any decision made in her upper echelons these days.  I for one doubt it will have any influence on this issue.

The first attempt to suppress the Mass of Tradition half a century ago ultimately failed, thanks to men like Archbishop Lefebvre who clung tenaciously to the faith as they had had it handed down to them, and as they had always known it.  According to Benedict XVI, these men and their followers were right: the traditional Mass was never abrogated, and what was good and holy for previous generations cannot suddenly be condemned.  Can a second attempt by the same enemies of the faith, now mostly octogenarians, succeed?

A decade and a half after Pope Benedict brought it out of mothballs, the Mass of Tradition has captured the hearts and imaginations of the young.  Where the TLM flourishes, there also flourish young Catholic families with lots and lots of babies, and more on the way.  Very many, if not most, of the people flocking to the traditional Mass are too young to remember the salad days of the boomers who led the assault on tradition in the wake of Vatican II, and too young to have any baggage from that dark time.  Traditional priestly societies have large numbers of seminarians.  Above all, last year's alleged pandemic has exposed the utter bankruptcy of the post-conciliar modernist experiment within the Church.  While liberal bishops cut off their flocks from the Sacraments, traditional pastors doubled and trebled their exertions.  Also, the live-streaming of traditional Masses probably exposed a lot of people to that form of the liturgy, and also to solid Catholic preaching, who otherwise might not have been.  It would be a mistake to assume that nobody noticed the difference.  We saw clearly who in the Church takes the faith seriously and who does not.  Maybe the octogenarians have waited too long.

Or, maybe they haven't.  Whatever the case may be, in reading and listening to what people have to say on this subject, it appears that many on both sides act as if the modernists and liberals are invincible.  Every time they suffer a setback, there is always somebody on our side trying to throw cold water on any rejoicing: the setback, they argue, is just a part of the Big Plan, just another play in the Long Game.  There is no doubt that the liberals are more determined and -- unconstrained by moral considerations -- more ruthless and daring than those genuinely devoted to the Catholic faith; but they are still capable of miscalculating, of overreaching, of underestimating, and of being just plain stupid.  Indeed, since sin makes you stupid, they are more apt to err than we give them credit for.  Basic stupidity, as an inevitable consequence of vice, is one of the instruments God uses to set limits on His enemies.  He may allow them to wreak destruction, but while they destroy everything around them, they pull down their own houses too.  Look at any evil regime in history, and you find stupid people in positions of responsibility that ultimately contributed to its fall.  Look around anywhere in the world right now, and there is stupid as far as the eye can see.  There is no question that the stupidity creates untold suffering; but it also necessarily carries within it the seeds of its own fall.

Another thing people fail to factor in is prayer.  There are an awful lot of people who don't pray, but this is by no means true of everybody.  Have you stepped up your prayer game in response to what has been going on, and the realization that God has permitted all of it?  If so, what makes you think you're the only one?  How do you know the failures of our enemies, like the collapse of the coronapanic narrative and the collapse of antiseptic totalitarianism in certain parts of the world, weren't answers to specific prayers?  Even if it is too late to prevent a divine chastisement, that does not mean the chastisement cannot be mitigated by prayer and penance.  If there is something you particularly want to see happen, or not happen, are you praying and fasting for it?  

Which brings us to the third misconception: that God does not somehow factor into the equation.  Even the bad things that happen, happen because God allows them to.  I don't know about you, but the single most sobering thing to me about the world-wide cancellation last year of public Masses, especially during the holiest season of the year, was the realization that God permitted this wholly unprecedented event, and He must have permitted it because we are not as wonderful as we think we are, and we have provoked His wrath.  If the Pope and his allies in the hierarchy do succeed in once again quashing the traditional Mass, it will be because God has allowed it, and we will need to ask ourselves why.

As Bishop Athanasius Schneider has pointed out, God ultimately will intervene and put an end to this crisis.  He certainly will rescue His Church.  This may not happen as quickly as we want, or in the way we want, or without our having to suffer even more than we already have, but it certainly will happen.  That does not mean that we just get to sit back and not do our part to resist the evil that we see before us.  Indeed, we do not have any excuse not to resist, having as we do some great predecessors who showed us how it's done.  But it does mean that God's inevitable triumph is the real Big Picture we have to keep our eyes on, and not despair.

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Happy Lenin’s Birthday!

 Earth Day is really Lenin’s birthday — an anti-feast if ever there was one.  Here is Lenin in a mugshot from 1895, looking every inch the punk kid brother of satan.


Let us also not forget that the founder of Earth Day was Ira Einhorn, a guy who murdered his girlfriend, Holly Maddox, in 1977 and then hid her body in a trunk in his closet.  He jumped bail, fled to Europe on the eve of his trial, and was extradited back to the United States in 2001.  Although he had previously been convicted in absentia, he received a new trial upon his return.  At his trial, he blamed the CIA for her murder, saying they framed him because he knew too much about their paranormal research.  The jury disagreed and convicted him.  Last year he died in prison, a real hero of our times.

Today I am happy to be able to burn some light bulbs and run an internal combustion engine several times in honor of Earth Day.


Monday, April 19, 2021

Outrage

 

Jonathan Brady/AFP/Getty Images

This is the image of a moral outrage, an elephant in the room that ought on no account to be ignored or glossed over amid praise for how moving was the funeral of Prince Philip.  It is a sign of how far the West has fallen, that the fear of a virus with an almost 100% survival rate has moved us to cast out kindness, charity and compassion.  This is the brave new world our owners and masters are preparing for us.  For over a year, bereaved families all over the world have been severely hindered if not completely prevented from paying their last respects to their beloved dead; now we see that not even the most venerable and highly-placed people — at least those who represent the last remaining shreds of authentic Christian civilization — are exempt from these appalling strictures.  Elizabeth II, Queen of England, age 94, the longest-reigning monarch in British history, sits all alone at the funeral of Prince Philip.  Newly widowed after 73 years of marriage, she is deprived of the consolation of her family and her subjects.  Miles away from any other human being, she is compelled to mask up.  That there is no way, seated all by herself, that she could possibly catch or communicate the coronavirus, is further proof that the face muzzle is really a yoke of submission and has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping the spread of disease.  Even in her grief, Elizabeth Regina is pressed into the service of furthering the agenda of the godless antiseptic dictatorship.

On a human level, the treatment Britian’s political class is meting out to their Sovereign is an outrage, even after two centuries of revolutions and regicides that have blunted and coarsened our sensibilities.  On a societal level, it should show us how complete is the triumph of totalitarianism, when even the Queen of England is a slave of the microbes who, disguised as servants of the people, rule us all with an iron rod.

One of the big takeaways of the coronapanic is the glaring proof that the result of toppling throne and altar in the West has not been the advent of freedom, but of godless, amoral oligarchies.  We are no longer ruled by Christians who take to heart their obligations to those under them, and fear eternal damnation for misruling them, but by ruthless moneyed interests who care only about human beings to the extent they find them useful, and do not even believe in hell, much less fear going there.  In Britain, the appalling treatment of their widowed Queen proves that the monarchy is effectively abolished in all but name.  This is the evil fruit of Henry VIII’s break from the Catholic Church: that the oligarchy he set up to help him crush Catholicism within his realms should make slaves even of his distant successors.      

God rest Prince Philip.  God save the Queen.  God rescue us from our apostasy and self-inflicted thralldom.

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

We Really Need to Think Before We Run Our Mouths

 ...or whatever other orifice we're used to communicating out of.  

When you meet a stranger, you have no idea where that person started from, or how far he has come from where he started.  You really have no idea what he has had to overcome to get to where he is right now.  

What looks to you like a train wreck, to him might be a hard-fought victory.  As bad as that person's condition appears to you, it might be orders of magnitude of improvement from where he began.    

And, it may be that he does not see how much progress he's made.  The reality is that we are often not the best judges of where we are in relation to where we've been, and where we ought to be.

For these reasons, a tongue-lashing from you under the guise of "charity" or "fraternal correction" just might be the last thing that person needs.  You really cannot know how devastating and discouraging your words can be to someone who is already struggling, and already too ready to believe the worst.  And the more convinced you are of the righteousness of what you're doing, the less likely you will be to grasp the full horror of it, until you are standing before God in judgment and He confronts you with both your words and the fullness of the effects they have wrought.

Yes, we will be held accountable for every last word.  As somebody with very strong opinions and a very big mouth, it's sobering to think of how much I have failed over the years to take seriously this truth that comes straight from the mouth of Christ in the Gospels.  

For the sake of the common good as well as for our own welfare, we should probably all spend a lot more time with our mouths and other orifices closed.

Monday, April 12, 2021

Did Charles Coulombe Go Too Far?

UPDATE: Charles Coulombe responds to the requests of a priest who, unlike many of his critics, addressed him on this subject with charity.

I gather, from the latest episode of Off the Menu, that Charles Coulombe is once again being attacked as an occultist.  I’m not clear what prompted the hue and cry this time—unfortunately, Off the Menu tends to assume, erroneously, that everyone is plugged into the Twitterverse—but it is not the first time that Coulombe has been so accused.  Part of the basis for the accusation is that Coulombe knows how to read tarot cards and has publicly done so on a number of occasions.  He addressed this in this latest podcast, as he has on previous episodes.  Another part that was not addressed is Coulombe’s alleged association with certain esoteric/occult groups.

Full disclosure: I am a big fan of Charles Coulombe and Off the Menu.  I like to listen to Off the Menu during my long commutes to work and to Sunday Mass.  I enjoy it because the content is solidly Catholic; Coulombe’s knowledge of history is encyclopedic; he is blunt and plain-spoken; and, above all, while he doesn’t candy-coat the crisis in  Church and state, his overall attitude is one of joy and hope.  Instead of raging about the things that are wrong, to the exclusion of all else, he focuses a lot on the things he loves; and he finds much to love about the Church, the United States, the places he has traveled and the people who make them all work.  He is a monarchist, which causes many to dismiss him as a crank, despite the fact that his arguments in favor of monarchy are well-reasoned and backed by historical events, including recent U.S. history, and despite the fact that he readily acknowledges the extreme improbability of his hopes for a monarchy coming true in these United States.  It is true that Coulombe grew up in Hollywood and comes from a show-business background — both his parents were actors, and he himself was once a stand-up comedian — so there is a chance I could be completely wrong in thinking him a devout Catholic.  On the other hand, the possibility that a person is not in the least who I think he is is a chance I have to take in dealing with anybody.  I have listened to many hours of Coulombe’s talks, both on Off the Menu and elsewhere, and I have read several of his books, and have found no evidence that he is out to undermine the Church or even covertly promote the occult.  Even a really good actor has his limits and must at some point let the mask slip.  His critics will argue that the tarot card thing is the slipping of his mask; on the other hand, their snarky comments about him that focus on his appearance and his dress and his social contacts indicate the most superficial knowledge of his substance as expressed in the things he has actually said and how he says them.

Coulombe has reiterated what he has said before about being an occultist and using tarot cards: he denies the former, and says that the latter has been for purposes of evangelizing those who are interested in such things.  In light of the many talks of his that I have heard, and the many words he has written that I have read, I see no reason not to take Coulombe at his word on this.  So the question becomes one of whether his prudential judgment on these points has been sound,and whether his attackers are really in a position  to condemn him.

Frankly, the question of how far is too far in the pursuit of fulfilling our Lord’s Great Commission that is binding on all Catholics is one that I have long wrestled with myself.  Specifically, how far do I go, not merely in risking my physical well-being, but also my spiritual well-being?  What if, going too far, I sin?  Is it possible to worry too much about keeping my skirts clean and pressed and starched?  At what point does prudence become cowardice?  On the one hand, if you hang out with certain types of people, you could be dragged down; on the other hand, to bring them into the Church, it is necessary to go to where you will find them, and to associate with them.  If these are the people that, by dint of my background and circumstances, I may be well-suited to evangelize, would I be right to decline the risk?  In a real way, spreading the Gospel is a battle to the death, especially if the people in question are also determined to bring me around to their way of thinking.  When the rubber meets the road, it’s them or me, and I have to walk onto the field of battle open-eyed, knowing that.

I also have to come prepared.  I have to do this first by frequenting the Sacraments as often as possible, and having a solid prayer life.  Second, I have to know what motivates the people in question, what they are looking for, what their expectations are, and how to respond to their questions and objections.   If I’m really serious, that is going to involve making a study of the things that interest them.  Therein lies a big danger.  Coulombe says that he has studied tarot cards in order to be able to use them to reach a certain class of people and interest them in the Catholic faith.  Was that a wise idea?  I don’t know.  Certainly the Dominicans under St. Raymond of Penaforte took their chances studying the Talmud in order to convert the Jews; Bl. Raymond Llull took his chances studying Islamic philosophy in order to convert the Muslims; Bl. Bishop Clemens von Galen took his chances studying Nazi literature in order to combat their ideology.  I myself would not mess with tarot cards; but then, my background and upbringing are such as lead me to a different prudential judgment than Coulombe came to.  I grew up in the Los Angeles area, like Coulombe did, but I was not well-acquainted with the show business set or how they function.  I do not have the same type of personality that Coulombe has.  Above all, I do not have the same kind of background as a Catholic as he has.  Coulombe grew up in a solidly Catholic home, with solidly Catholic extended family, and a solidly Catholic ancestry stretching back generations and rooted in what was once a solidly Catholic society.  This, coupled with the frequent use of the Sacraments, probably gives Coulombe a lot of security of a sort that is frankly foreign to me, and probably to a lot of other traditional Catholics in an age when we have hirelings in place of shepherds.  

If we are honest with ourselves, one of the ways in which this lack of security manifests itself is in our hair-trigger readiness to condemn other Catholics.  Forgetting the scriptural admonition to put not our trust in princes, in the children of men in whom there is no salvation, we have been disappointed again and again by priests and bishops and Catholic authors and commentators who turn out to be no better than they should be, to the point where now we expect to be disappointed.  In fact, it is almost as if we are disappointed any time we are not disappointed.  When some Catholic public figure does something we don’t like, we pounce on him, shouting “AHA!  I always KNEW this guy was a crook!”  We are almost gleeful at revelations that one of our co-religionists is less than perfect.  Then, whenever anyone defends that person, or even merely refrains from joining the chorus against him, we pounce on that person too for “siding with the enemy.”  Is this really how Catholics ought to behave?  If Coulombe is really a public violator of the First Commandment, wouldn’t the proper Catholic response be to mourn over his fall and try to win back our brother, rather than gloat over how much better we are than he?

Has Charles Coulombe gone too far in reaching out to the tarot-card-esoterica-gnostic-occult set?  I don’t know: given his stated intentions, which I see no reason to either disregard or disbelieve, the prudence of his methods is between him and God.  But surely Coulombe deserves credit for caring enough about the tarot-card-esoterica-gnostic-occult set to think they deserve to hear the Gospel, and to try to bring it to them in such a manner as to make them more open to receiving it.  He has judged himself up to the task, given his personality, his circumstances and his background, and he has not shrunk from trying to accomplish it.  That I personally would not do what he has done does not mean that he is wrong; it only means that I am probably meant to try to bring the Gospel to a different set of people with different needs that I am better equipped to meet.  I hope I will not shrink from trying to accomplish it.