Author Archives: Mundabor
Bishop Galantino is on record with stating that concubines are not allowed to receive Communion. He adds a couple of bla blas, but the message is clear: I haven't said that they can, so get off my neck.
No, of course he hasn't. Not even he is so thick. He has said that they are not allowed, and this is too harsh a punishment and an unjust discrimination.
Galantino is not new to this kind of exercise. Search this blog and read how already in the past he has delivered a truckload of first-class bullcrap, and has then whiningly complained of how misunderstood he was.
Like Francis, this man should have had his ass kicked all the way to the church a long time ago.
Too late now I am afraid, as they are both bishops.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I have already written about Bishop Athanasius Schneider here and if you read the blog post you’ll see that Bishop Schneider is not one who takes his role lightly.
Thanks to another excellent comment of Schmenz, I was alerted to this great video from the “Athanasius Contra Mundum” Blog, in which this excellent bishop speaks about communion in the hand.
Many are the interesting issues touched in this fragment of TV interview. The parts which most impressed me are the initial ones, where a young boy (being raised up in a communist regime) is shocked at being informed that in Germany Holy Communion can be received in the hand as if it was a piece of cake. More moving still is the part when the bishop remembers his mother searching for a church distributing communion on the tongue and – after failing to do so – giving in to…
View original 238 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
You may think that the title of this blog post is a joke, but it isn’t.
Taking Lessons from Luther is exactly what our heroes, the “Conciliar Fathers”, should have done once come back to their diocese after V II. Luther would have told them that communion must be:
1. kneeling, and
2. on the tongue
That much is what the great Athanasius Schneider has implied in an interview given to Radio Maria Suedtirol (= Alto Adige), in German, and reported by kreuz.net.
In the words of the Bishop:
„Die Lutheraner haben bis vor kurzem und bis heute noch in den skandinavischen Ländern die kniende Mundkommunion bewahrt.“
The Lutherans have preserved until a short time ago, and to this day in the Scandinavian countries, communion kneeling and on the tongue”.
According to him, the idea of communion in the hand in the way practiced today – the…
View original 123 more words
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly”.
The “Catholic Herald” informs us that Francis has sent a “personal gift” of some consistence (“one million”) to the persecuted people in Iraq. Article not online yet, but the headlines on this morning’s CH were very big so this was the message.
One wonders what has happened of the Catholics of old, by whom the left hand did not know what the right hand did. This here reminds me, not for the first time, of the hypocrite who puts himself at a crossroad in order to be seen by everyone when he gives alms. The hypocrite, at least, did not have journalists to blow his trumpet.
Then there is the matter of the provenance of the money. Yes, the Pope is the absolute sovereign of the Vatican, and there is no distinction I know of between the bank accounts of the Vatican and his own patrimony. If it belongs to the Church, it’s his to give.
Still, every dog and cat know this is not money the man earned or inherited. It is not his money qua Jorge Bergoglio. It is “his money” because he is the Pope.
By every other man, it would be considered in extremely bad taste to let money acquired by way of the office appear as “his own money”, even if this happened to be the case. In the case of a Pope, it is in even worse taste. In the case of a Pope feigning poverty everytime is convenient, it is Francis-tasteless.
Do you think his predecessors did not send money away on such occasions? Why did they not let the world know about it, even selling it as “personal gift” of theirs?
And no, there are no excuses. The headline did not say “Francis orders help to be sent to Iraq”, as on other occasions a Government could order such measures. This is a personal gift of the oh so humble Pope.
Poor when it’s convenient.
Rich when it’s convenient.
Sanity is slowly beginning – I am the eternal optimist, I know – to go back in the consciousness of the mainstream, as more and more people realise the oppression of the Gaystapo methods.
This article here makes a very simple point:
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The man is, of course, perfectly right.
The simple fact is that at some point perverts will lose their “protected status” as a sort of Indian Reserve in the US legal system, and the silent majority will discover that they have, obviously, perverted the very concepts of freedom, equality, or decency. Slowly, normality will start to creep in. We have seen this phases of hysteria followed by (relative) sanity in many issues: from nuclear plant to global warming and from rayon clothes to quartz watches; even abortion is now under strong attack.
Nothing is irreversible. Nothing stupid, anyways.
I hope this faggot-mania will be next. It will take some time, very probably decades, as the debate sets in and new generations grow up for which the faggot isn’t “oppressed” in any meaningful sense of the term, and is rather the oppressor of anyone who does not want to be I do not say in agreement, but an accomplice in his perversion. But I think it will happen one day. Communism seems triumphant in 1979, and was already dying in the most painful, inglorious way only one decade later. Two years later, it was slain even in Russia. When the pendulum starts to swing back, it can go fairly (as world changes go) fast.
It will take time. Let us salute every little step.
Victory is ours anyway.
As more and more sickening details about the events – nay, the entire mentality – in Rotherham – wait: why would this happen only in another ham? – emerge, the first comprehensive reports appear. “Comprehensive” here means mentioning words like “Pakistani” and “Muslim”, and telling it like it is instead of trying to liquidate everything with some words of “apology”.
Go to the site of the Law and Freedom Foundation to read a comprehensive report in instalments. First two parts published as I write this. Will make a good (read: sad) Sunday reading for yours truly.
The liberal leftists want to kill our Christian society and traditional values.
Let us send them to Pakistan to learn “inclusiveness”.
Hat tip: Father Z
Two events of the last days have thrown a rather funny light on the hypocrisy, hate and ugliness of the feminist crowds.
In the first episode, a bunch of leftist (or lesbian) exhibitionists gave life to a topless manifestation in New York, inviting (cough)
modest girls fat, ugly, angry women at war with nature to show themselves in all their ugliness, manboobs (yes, feminists have manboobs; to call them everything else would be sexism…) and all.
If that was an unconscious desire to attract the attention (in the sense of “attraction”) of men, they certainly failed. An ugly feminist is transparent to a man when clothed, and utterly repulsive when bared. If the men’s gaze goes from going through them to going in the opposite direction, I am not sure this is an improvement.
I will spare you the pics. They look like an obscene parody of femininity. Actually, they look like an obscene parody of lesbianism. They reek of the desperation of very ugly sluts who would so like to be whoring around, if they only found the men to do it with. One solitary girl among them has a passable body. Methinks, an exhibitionist, or aspiring actress in search of publicity. She was put at the head of the crowd, in an attempt not to be ridiculed entirely. Again: one looks at the pics and, in a way, understands the perverted mechanics of lesbianism. Ugly, spiteful, hateful, and rejected by men. Oh, and perverted, too.
In the second episode a stunning beauty, the actress Sofia Vergara, is invited to stand on a rotating platform during a not-so-profound TV award ceremony watched by millions. She is elegant and, at least for most people, appropriately dressed. As the platform rotates, we are – all of us: men, and women – showed in a light-hearted, half-joking way the graceful, elegant, utterly un-provocative miracle that is female beauty, God’s Goodness at work. It is no coincidence that in Italy very beautiful women are called, joking on what people learnt in philosophy class, “proof of the existence of God”.
This particular beauty stands there, as the speaker talks about the ability of TV to fascinate the viewers and mixes in the usual tosh about “diversity”. The audience hear him speak but very few, I am sure, really listen to him, because the woman on the platform is, literally, a show-stopper. The platform rotates, allowing the viewers to observe her beauty from every angle, not differently from the way a viewer could walk around the statue of a beautiful woman, or a painter or photographer would observe the model in front of him.
There is nothing obscene in her. There is no baring of breasts, no twerking, perhaps the slightest accentuation of her beauty, but no meaningful provocation of any sort. Beauty is gratifying in itself, and true beauty can never be lewd, because lewdness itself would damage its beauty. Most of the time, the woman simply stands there.
Would you believe it? An army of tweeting feminists – the same ones who, you can bet your watch on it, would applaud nudity in public, and ugly nudity at that – complains Vergara has “objectified” herself. To which yours truly comments: nondum matura est.
Observe the feminist non-logic: a bunch of ugly bitches can expose their ugliness for all the world to see; and this is not disgusting and obscene, but actually good. Then, a very attractive woman stands in front of a camera in the most elegant of manners, and this is not a vision of harmony and a triumph of beauty; no, this is actually bad. They (the feminists) can be obscene, because they’re ugly. She (Vergara) can’t be decent, because she’s beautiful. Feminist non-logic at work. The new frontier of decency.
I suggest that women stop en masse to be “objectified”. Models and mannequins will have to weight at least 100 kg, and look like Elena Kagan. TV ads will have to show rolls of fat very prominently, or not be aired. Feminist land whales will be allowed to stand on a rotating platform, half naked, whilst a presenter explains to the viewers how empowered, and therefore beautiful, they are. And woe to those who dissent, and say that facts are facts, beauty is beautiful, and feminists are ugly.
Actually, we can think this further: as long as a woman tries to remain attractive for her husband, how can she be sure he does not stay with her merely for her beauty – that is: for the “object” – rather than for her wonderful qualities of, say, emancipation, empowerment and constant bitching? Stop worrying about your weight, ladies! Stop the objectification of your beautiful self! Starting from today it’s crisps and muffins like there’s no tomorrow. Your husband will (have to) be grateful that you have forced him to see your “inner beauty”, and that he has been taught to stop “objectifying” you! Or else!
The ugliest among you will be allowed to strip half-naked on TV!
Hey: who is everyone to judge?
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
A remarkable trait of Anglo-Saxon societies is a sort of human right to self-deception, that is being pushed with increasing aggressiveness as these societies become more and more addicted to political correctness.
There seem to be a consensus according to which things are not what they are, but how youfeel they are.This tragic self-delusion aliments itself in the most tragic ways.
At school, children are asked “what is God for you”, and the class listens to a bunch of little kiddies taught to shape after their own liking the most objective, unchangeable Reality there is. They learn to be confused, and to confuse their peers, at a very young age. When they are adults, they will simply export this mentality to their own adult religious convictions, shaping their own “religion” according to taste. The great season of “I am a Catholic, but……
View original 509 more words
The BBC explains to us who was in charge in Rotherham.
What do you notice?
As I post this (the article could be changed) they are almost all whites (you must go to the very bottom to find the first non-White). All of them are linked – by way of party membership of linkage to the power apparatus – to the Left. All of them are claiming ignorance, in perfect Nuremberg trial style.
All of them allowing unspeakable crimes to be committed for years; perhaps not knowing the exact scale of the trouble (how could one, by the sheer numbers and the bureaucracy layers involved), but certainly knowing what was happening on the whole.
White, leftist, cruel, and stupid.
Bishop Galantino is not new to headlines of the wrong kind, and yours truly has already reported about what kind of circus article we are dealing with in this sad case.
More and more worried with out-Francising Francis – a feat not easy in itself – or perhaps sent by Francis himself to pave the way for a new “sacrilege offensive” as the October synod rapidly approaches, the man is now on record with other scandalous affirmations, which really give all the measure of the extent to which he has prostituted himself to the world.
Galantino’s willingly made points are the following:
1. The church must make everyone feel at home.
Why it should be so, it remains unsaid. Since the beginning, the Church has maintained that if you put yourself out of the home, it is much better for you to be aware of it. Shall we, now, let Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, open adulterers, open perverts and the like also feel “at home”? What is this, a third-rate hotel which rents rooms by the hour in an unsavoury part of town, or the Church of Christ?
2. There is something like “unconventional couples”.
Subversion often goes with the creation of new words to match the subversive ideology. The word Bishop Cretino Galantino is looking for is “concubines”. For now at least: as the word could, one day, be used by the same man to describe couple consisting of two men, two women, a man and a dog, or the like.
Such couples – all of them – have always existed, as human nature does not fundamentally change. It’s not that they have begun after, erm, V II… Rather, the Bishop’s desire to create new ways of saying old things is a very obvious manifestation of his desire to substitute Christian morality for a worldly one. From their fruits you will recognise them.
3. Truth must be called “prejudice”.
Someone please tell this cretin that concubines live in mortal sin, and no amount of political correctness can change an iota in the crude facts of life. The scandal is there, the sin is there. Of course people living in scandal will meet with condemnation. They will, in fact, meet with the condemnation they have deserved; doubly so, because they cause scandal.
Every concubine couple is a bomb put under the chair of Marriage. Full stop. Of course I’m “prejudiced”. I believe in God, and in the Marriage He created.
4. The exclusion of people in mortal sin from the Sacraments is “a burden”, an “unjustified price to pay”, and “de facto discrimination”.
Silly me! I thought it is the sin which was the burden! Silly me, I thought the sin sends one, if not repented of, straight to hell! Silly me, I thought the exclusion from the sacraments – until the grave scandal continues and there is no repentance – is there exactly to make the sinner aware of the very deep shit in which he has put himself! How uninformed I was! It is a “burden”, don’t you know?
This way, we discover that the Church has always imposed an “unjustified price” on public concubines, “de facto” discriminating them. Heaven, is this cretin a Christian in the first place? His is nothing less than a war declaration on basic Christian morality; a new system of (non) values in which “discrimination” and “not making people feel at home” are the new mortal sins, and – if at all – the only ones remaining. It is obvious even to a retard that if one admits the gravity of the sin, he must approve the harshness of the sanction; and that, conversely, lamenting the latter means to negate the former. But we don’t live in logical times. We live in the “age of mercy”.
We must pray that Bishop Galantino repents – better said: starts believing in God and repents -. Let us pray that he comes to his senses and says it out loud. It’s never too late. Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia, “God forgives many things for a work of mercy”.
Let us hope and pray, for him and the countless sheep he is trying to lead astray. If he should not, let us reflect that he will die in his rebellion to Christ and go to hell, where he – in this case – belongs not one but one thousand times; together with all the other like him, prostituting themselves to the world, and whoring their way to damnation for the sake of power and popularity.
The heretics of yore, burning at the stake, had it much better than this little slut. They had a massive, massive chance of repentance as all the illusions of fame and recognition, of power and glory, or simply all the delusions of an arrogant mind were confronted with the imminence of their ignominious end.
Not so for the modern heretics. They are in positions of great power, and are greatly applauded. The Pope himself promotes and protects them. A Pope to whom, too, the stake would be a blessing, if a heretical Pope could be blessed in that way.
From their fruits you will recognise them. But from their appointments you will recognise them, too.
Boy, Dante would have a lot of fun with these two.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Rorate has these beautiful quotes from Pope Benedict. I have kept the emphases in their entirety.
Please note Pope Benedict made all these comments far before the astonishing regress in Western civilisation achieved since March 2013 in several countries.
Pope Benedict wasn’t a lion, but at least he had the lucidity to understand he had to speak, and the intellectual depth to speak in an effective way.
The contrast is, as they say in Italy, impietoso; that is: merciless.
None of us, in fact, belongs exclusively to himself or herself: one and all are therefore called to take on in their inmost depths their own public responsibility.
Marriage as an institution is thus not an undue interference of society or of authority. The external imposition of form on the most private reality of life is instead an intrinsic requirement of the covenant of conjugal love and of the…
View original 862 more words
Vatican Insider has another piece of papal madness, not older than a week and a half. I had missed the Franciscan logic. It is surely worth two lines.
The message in short:
1. Christians are dying like flies, and are being forced to flee en masse; but it should never be said I advocate war against Muslims. War doesn’t sound good. Makes one unpopular, you see.
2. The ISIS must be stopped, but not with war. Football matches might work. Or bus driving. or dialogue. Dialogue cures everything. Those poor ISIS sheep are just brothers an dsisters with whom no one wants to talk! Please note how good I look as I say that I want the problem solved, but not in the only way that could solve it.
3. It does not matter how urgent it is to intervene in Syria or Iraq. It is better that people die in a horrible genocide, rather than to allow one country ( = USA) to start a war. As I always say to my friend, the faggot Monsignor: who are they to judge?
4. Let us discuss in the most atrociously inefficient forum of the planet instead. The one well known for never solving one problem on the planet without in the end the USA taking things in their hands, with or without their perfectly useless approval: the UN. They are atheist, masonic, and with 21 Muslim countries as members. The ideal people to decide how many Christians should die. It will sound just right in Europe. Francis, the Pope who works with the UN. We are the woooorlllldddd, we are the childreeeeeeennnnn……
5. Just in case you would think as the Pope I consider myself a moral authority and think I can decide what is right and what is wrong, I say no! No! No! Let other people decide! People famous for never deciding and, when they decide, seldom deciding anything good! What do you say? People die? Unfortunate, isn’t it? Why don’t we make a football match for peace?
This man is beyond belief.