Author Archives: Mundabor
The Pepinster female wasn’t slow in asking that priests’ celibacy be ended, as evidenced by Bishop Conry sleeping around.
Truly, this is liberal, and feminist, logic.
As I have already pointed out, Conry did not even simply fornicate. He was in an adulterous relationship! Twice! At least!
Evidently, “Ma” Pepinster demands that priests be free to sleep with other women’s wives.
She feels, evidently, safe from danger, and we agree with her (photo above). But this is truly atrocious.
This is Liberal Polyamory, with added spice.
Or perhaps the female thinks that a bishop goes for the married forbidden fruit if he is not allowed any fruit; but would, if allowed to marry, suddenly start to respect other people’s marriage? Now he can’t, of course; because you see, he is a priest; so he just can’t stay away from other people’s wives, right?
It’s because he is not allowed to marry, do you understand?
Liberal, and feminist, logic.
In another astonishing and rather tragicomic turn of event, the Vatican (by mouth of Father Lombardi) accuses the persecuted of being the wrong kind of guy, because he opposes the persecution.
Bishop Livieres Plano, the bishop persecuted in FFi-style, asks what the rhetoric of mercy is all about:
although Pope Francis has spoken often about “dialogue, mercy, openness, decentralization, and respect for authority of the local churches,” he did not give Bishop Livieres a chance to “clarify any doubts” about his ministry.
What does TMAHICH, the pope of ” mercy” and “dialogue”, answers by way of his speaker?
“Maybe it is easier to understand why there was a problem.”
You get persecuted. When you object to it, they say “look! That’s why you are persecuted!” By the way, this is exactly the same bollocks already heard about the FFI.
You are, then, “violent”. Bad. How can Pope, who hobnobs with atheists militant, ever talk to you? You might even be one who counts his rosaries!
“Dialogue” with you? God forbid! You aren’t even a homo!
You really couldn’t make it up.
It truly reminds one of a Stalinist regime of (cough) “mercy”.
There is a Sixties’ pop song in Italy, “Non e’ Francesca”, which every Italian knows and could sing. Including, probably, newborn babies, already dead people, and people with advanced Alzheimer’s Disease. The song is cruelly beautiful and its enduring popularity, now arrived at the fourth generation, is utterly deserved.
“You are mistaken”, says the singing voice (the late, but not forgotten, Lucio Battisti), “she whom you have seen is not Francesca”; and he does not want to believe that the wife he believes so true is, in fact, undoubtedly betraying him.
Why do I tell you this? Because I love my country, and the best of even its pop culture, and the wonderful sense of humanity we carry with us, shortcomings and all; and Lucio Battisti, and this particular song, is as much a part of Italy as the Colosseum, or the balcony of Palazzo Venezia.
But there is also another reason: this very song is the obvious “insider joke” (for Italians) of Antonio Socci’s book, of imminent publication, and pre-selling already very well on Amazon: “Non e’ Francesco”. His own newspaper has very recently made the surprise announcement.
In it, Socci apparently states that you are mistaken: he whom you think the Pope is not Francesco, but Benedetto.
I have already written about the Rapunzel-like fantasies of the proponents of such outlandish theories, and I will not repeat them here.
I only ask this: when Pope Benedict dies who is, pray, supposed to be the Pope? Francis is no Pope – they say – and his election invalid. If Francis should die or resign, the election of his successor would also be invalid, because effected through a number of Cardinals appointed by a non-Pope. Nor could any other rule, bar the Second Coming, offer an unquestioned, valid way of election, as every alternative method would cause division and controversy on an absolutely atrocious scale. Mind, here, that for Socci five votes instead of four in the same day suffice to invalid an election (how he can be sure of the five is another matter), so it follows that every other rule would be a far bigger deviation, and totally arbitrary, and I can’t see how a validly elected Pope can come out of it.
So: is not the consequence of Socci’s thinking a Sedevacantism in instalments? How would the proposer of the theory recover from it?
And as we are there: are we really sure the number of votes in past conclaves was always the prescribed one? Not one more, not one less? What is, therefore, if a Pope was elected in such a procedurally vitiated way? Shall he be a valid Pope merely because there was no Emeritus around? What about his own appointments? Was the successor validly elected? How so, particularly in case of a long pontificate of the “Francesco” of the day?
And let us think further: Francis dies or resigns. What then? Is Benedict Pope? How so? Will he say “I have caved in to blackmail, therefore I should be reinstated”? Seriously? Shall he be re-elected? By whom? By Cardinals appointed by non-Pope Francis?
Or, Francis dies, and Benedict says “stop dreaming, Jungs!” (He has, by the way, he has! Socci was listening to Battisti, so he missed that…). What then, skipper? Unless the Cardinals elect Benedict again and he says “I accept, but I was always Pope anyway” and proceeds to appoint as Cardinals the new ones (or deprive them of their red hat) I can’t see how this will work.
Socci has, no doubt, an answer to all this. We will have to wait for the book. I merely doubt it will be a credible one. But we shall see.
Up to then, and if you ask me, and remaining by the song pun, Socci should listen to the song again and again and repeat to himself its first three words: “ti stai sbagliando”.
You are mistaken.
Every now and then, the economic press tries to impress us with some “visionary” entrepreneur who had – or is having, or might have – some brilliant idea with vast consequences for us all.
I would, therefore, like to speak to you about a true Visionary; one of those men who changed the West, and brought it to successes not hoped for just a few years below.
It takes the mind of a visionary to see the spread abuse and criminal behaviour engendered by a clearly degenerated view of chivalry, and conceive the plan to use at least part of this vast potential for violence outside of Europe, where they would do good not only to Christianity, but to themselves.
It take courage to not only dream of, but profoundly believe in an operation whose costs and logistical difficulties made of it the biggest enterprise in many Centuries. It takes a great mind to understand that such an operation is not only feasible, but feasible in a comparatively very short amount of time. It takes, too, a skilled diplomatician, and a man of great personal prestige, to create a vast, multinational “coalition of the willing” and launch them to an enterprise that appeared no more than a beautiful dream only twenty years before. It takes a very smart mind to decipher the signs of the times and decide that yes, with God's help the West has now become the better soldier, and the richer one. And it takes, of course, a man of great faith, because only who is aflame with Christ can transmit his fire into the heart of rich and poor, across many nations.
Pope Blessed Urban II did all this, and more than this. He changed the West for good, and gave the Christian West not only a stunning success for Christ, but one that changed the self-perception of the West forever: a self-assured continent able to bring war to the land of his arch-enemy and obtain sweeping, breathtaking success.
Of all the Crusades, the First was the best, the most successful, the most gloriously, stunningly, unbelievably beautiful (not counting, of course, Peter The Hermit and his bunch of violent bastards, who are rightly considered a separate campaign by serious historians). It was not only the triumph of a Christian army. It was the triumph of a daring, shamelessly self-confident, unashamedly Christian idea. It was an entire Continent that, after centuries of humiliation, rose to its feet, and found itself towering against the enemies of Christ: a scourge to infidels, not only defeated by humiliated in just a few years, in a world in which even international meetings had to planned one year or so in advance just to sort the distances, the security, the logistics, and the funding.
What a wonderful Pope, and what a great man Urban II was. Not for him the “who am I to judge”. Not for him the sissified waffle of “dialogue” and “understanding”. Not for him the rhetoric of peace at all cost, of peace before Christ, of peace for the sake of looking good.
No. Urban took Christianity under his wing, rallied it in a way never seen before, and set it toward an objective whose importance and meaning is difficult, today, for some even to imagine, but that was the Holy Grail of Christian thinking in those blessedly Chridtian times: to be able, again, to travel to Jerusalem, and to be in physical contact with the places that changed the world forever.
Urban achieved all this, and he actually achieved far more than this. The impression he made on the collective imaginary of the West is perfectly evident in the way the very word, “Crusade”, still polarises the minds and catches the imagination, more than 900 years after those events.
Do not bother me with whining complaints about massacres, and hate, and mistakes made. Every war has its share of them, at least every war not fought by armies of Angels. I choose, like every sound thinking man, to look at the whole picture, and not throw away – to stay nearer to our days – the war effort that rid us of Hitler because of Dresden, or Montecassino.
If you want a real visionary, one of those men who truly changed the West, look at this tenacious, faithful, really visionary man.
The always excellent Gloria.TV has another clue (if the embedding does not work, click the link) as to the astonishing events in Paraguay. A bishop accused another bishop of being homosexual.
Look: when there is such a scandal as a homosexual bishop I would not condone, but expect other bishops to condemn loudly the filth within the Church.
Not in the age of mercy, of course. in the age of mercy, a priest has to smell of filth. It makes him nearer to his (filthiest) sheep.
This one of the homosexual bishop can certainly have been used as an excuse. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) will make a scandalous faggot to the head of his papal household, but he will never tolerate an orthodox, Catholic bishop to criticise another homo.
This man is, very probably, beyond repair. We can only hope God rids us of him soon.
Bishop Livieres Plano is a Catholic bishop.
Several articles have appeared in the last days about the persecution of Bishop Livieres.
The Bishop has,thankfully, reacted. His website has published a rebuttal of the accusation in various languages, so complete and extensive it is not suited for a blog post.
Bishop Livieres has also made very clear the accusations moved against him are purely ideological. And it is difficult not to agree with him, considering that it is now clear that no personal misconduct is involved. Methinks, after the experiences with Father Manelli some of Francis' executioners has thought better to choose a different path this time. The problem with that is that the character assassination becomes far more difficult.
What is, then, Bishop Livieres accused of?
He is accused of being Catholic.
In Francis' Stalinian world, if you uphold Catholic values you are a threat to the unity of circus Bergoglio. If your seminary has more Seminarians than the rest of Paraguay together, you are clearly sowing discord. If your very behaviour and success shows that your colleagues are a bunch of incompetent morons without faith or dignity you are certainly showing you can't get along with them.
Bishop Livieres does not fit within the nuChurch of Mercy. He is Catholic, which is an accusation that it not easy to move to Francis.
Bishop Livieres, an Argentinian like TMAHICH, will therefore have to leave the head of his diocese. He reminds me strongly of Athanasius, in the same way as Francis would let Liberius look like an amateur in comparison to him.
Angelqueen has a petition in favour of the good Bishop: web search them “vote to support the good bishop Livieres” and you will find.
The petition will not save his post, of course. But it will do something for the salvation of those who subscribe.
As to Francis, the Bishop said it very well: he will have to answer to heaven for his decision.
I am pretty sure TMAHICH thinks he will never have to answer to anyone.
But he will. Oh, but he will.
Thousands of brave Chinese are, as I write this, standing up against the Chinese Communist Party rule in China; a rule which, if edulcorated over there compared to the praxis of the mainland, is still too much of an oppression, and so bad that very many put their future, perhaps their lives, at risk to change the way things work.
I see them as the media outlets let the images of their courage go around the world.
And I wonder how many Cardinals are having the courage to take a stance that would require a small part of that nerve; a courage which would not put them at loss of losing life or limb, or liberty; though the loss of power and privileges would be very probable, at least for the time being.
We can make some parallels between the two situations, because every sound Cardinal must, if he looks at the man in the mirror, know that Francis is doing more damage to the Church that any Communist dictatorship ever could. It is a foolish idea to eradicate Catholicism through political oppression. It is far more damaging – though in the end equally foolish – to try to let Her wither from the inside.
I hope many sound Cardinals will look at the images in the next days, and draw the same parallels.
A rather stupid, but very cunning, Che Guevara is running the Church.
It's time for the Cardinals to stage their own Hong Kong reaction.
Bishop Conry has given an interview to a semi-porn rag for gossiping housewives called “Daily Mail”. Visit the site at your peril.
The interview allows us to give a long, hard look at your typical “spirit of V II” priest.
Caution: strong smell of brimstone.
First, the photo; reproduced above, and obviously published with his and his mistress consent, or acceptance: a priest and his mistress walk about. He is in plain clothes, though he is obviously still a priest; she wears a cross and what the wife of an Anglican bishop would consider a not entirely appropriate skirt; but hey, this is one who sleeps with bishops, so appropriateness isn’t really a concern.
They are, apparently, carrying groceries. You couldn’t make this up.
Then, the text (I do not have the stomach to watch at the video):
“It has been difficult keeping the secret,’ he told the Mail. ‘In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop. But I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’ “
“Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause).”
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
From the Blog The Divine Life, an interesting post about that tragic word, “late-term abortion”.
Besides being very instructive about the scale of ruthlessness the “liberated” Western society has brought on us, it makes clear the intrinsic hypocrisy of the entire so-called “pro-choice” edifice.
An abortion is either a murder, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there should be no reason whatsoever why those who don’t consider abortion killing shouldn’t practice it any time before birth or – come to that and with the same thinking – actually during birth too. If it is, then it shouldn’t be practiced and it should be banned altogether, period.
This idea that an abortion would be morally acceptable for, say, 20 weeks but would then become morally questionable starting from day X is a logical and ethical absurdity. Also hypocritical is the behaviour of those institutions which practice abortions only in certain…
View original 123 more words
Vintage Mundabor Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.
The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.
Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.
In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and…
View original 218 more words