Category Archives: Catholicism
I am informed the way is paved for the beatification of JP I.
I am almost relieved, because I was already worried Francis might, between a tango and a selfie, have forgotten the man.
One is reminded of the Asterix cartoons: “it is 2014 and all VII Popes have been at least beatified…
One wonders what will happen when (wishing Benedict a long life, and assuming he would be considered worthy of the honour) the list of “eligible” popes end. Who will be next? Bugnini perhaps? Tyrrell perhaps? Hey, he did a lot of lío, so Francis should like him much? Von Balthasar? What about Rahner? And if Hans Kueng euthanasises himself fast, could one not think of him? Yes, he wants to commit suicide, but remember: if one has good will and seeks the Lord, who are we to judge?
I am so old that I remember when a beatified Pope was a seldom occurrence indeed. Now, an entire generation of Catholics will grow up believing if you are Pope, of course you are going to be beatified. At least if you have become Pope in the New Springtime, when empty churches and anti-Christian legislation elevate the spirit so much.
I bet my pint on Bugnini.
Küng is still very much alive, and may well bury Francis before he disposes of himself. But Bugnini or Rahner or Tyrrell, they do appear safe bets.
I would like to write two lines about the ways I see this man, Jorge Bergoglio, disgracefully elected to guide the Bride of Christ.
The amount of heretical statements, the arrogance, the persecution of a good Catholic order, the enmity with all kind of devout Catholicism, the continuous propaganda against Catholicism, the commingling with perverts and the assorted scandals persuade any sensible thinking Catholic that this is not a decent person, and not worthy of the habit. A good man, he ain't.
There remain, then, only three possibilities:
1. A blithering idiot
2. An evil man, willingly siding with the devil.
3. An opportunistic, faithless, self-serving scoundrel.
Hypothesis 1 seems untenable to me. Whilst it can happen that a perfect idiot makes a brilliant career (former Italian President Pertini comes to mind; a man who in his shameless and senseless populism had many traits in common with Francis, and a whining socialist with an extremely comfortable life like him), I would say that this generally happens when a useful idiot is required. Pertini fulfilled his role beautifully, being a former partisan without the embarrassment of a functioning brain, and being thus apt to be used as “symbolic” but harmless figure. But I doubt this was the case for Bergoglio, because barring extreme luck you don't get at the head of a seminary, and then bishop and archbishop and Cardinal, without being an expert in moving along the corridors of Church powers; not unless you are, perhaps, a very saintly man, which in this case does clearly not apply.
Hypothesis 2 also seems, to me, not very realistic. The way I see things, a truly evil man would go at his work in a smarter way. He would, in other words, be very attentive to present a credible facade, and to make it difficult to see the self-serving and the deception. He would do so, because he knew he has a mission, to which he must sacrifice short-term advantage. I cannot imagine any evil, but thinking man behaving in any other way.
Another element is Francis' cowardice. A truly evil Pope would attack his Enemy in his most orthodox troops: the SSPX. Francis accurately avoids the conflict, and is content with kicking those he can kick without fear of retaliation: the FFI. This is not the thinking of one devoted to evil. This is the thinking of one devoted to himself.
I tend strongly for hypothesis 3, because I see the very careless way with which Bergoglio proceeds in his work of destruction; the perfect lack of interest today for what he has said yesterday; the senseless way in which he embarrasses the Vatican PR machine, forced to expose his own childishness and mediocrity for all who have eyes to see; his ability to say everything and its contrary according to whom he has in front of him; his utter defiance of everything that stays in the way of his own self-aggrandisement, from liturgical rules to sexual moral.
Francis is like a child never able to resist the cake offered to him, even if he knows there will be stomach ache to pay for that. As long as he gets a constant supply of cake and the stomach ache is manageable, he will be fine.
But again, in doing so he reveals his game, and alienates a number of people big enough to, so much is clear, utterly stain his own pontificate after him. The number of people who do not swallow the lie of the humble pope is already far too big to call the policy authentically successful. An evil Pope would be desperate at the ridicule, and would do his outmost to win or confuse the prize souls, the true believers. This one is content with the mediocre: the homosexuals, the adulterers, the infidels, the conformists, and the outright stupid.
For a willingly evil Pope, this one is an outright disaster. But for one who has lost the faith and only thinks in terms of masses applauding him, the strategy is the right one.
Who cares for the Church. Who cares for a judgment he does not think will ever come. Who cares for the approval of the smartest and most respected six or even ten percent. The mob is with him. There's fame in quantity. That's good enough.
Someone might, at this point, make an exercise in reverse thinking: “But you see, Mundabor: Bergoglio's evil genius is proved by his cunning plan to appear a self-absorbed simpleton!”
Hhhmmm. I don't think it works. No evil genius ever consistently behaved like an idiot, though an evil genius may have an interest in looking weak or inoffensive as long as he is not in power. But this one can do pretty much as he pleases, and he can't manage to fool anyone with an alert brain.
Also please think of this: an evil man would go at his work of destruction slowly, carefully, methodically; avoiding the obvious conflict with Catholicism as he slowly gnaws at it; confusing the most alert minds with a very careful steering of the Barque towards rocks very far in the distance whilst he gives numerous and solid examples of true orthodoxy. He would not, methink, behave like a drunken sailor all the time, and happily relying on the mediocrity or stupidity of his own sailors.
This Pope is too bad, too obvious, too self-absorbed, too vulgar, even too stupid to be given the rank of evil genius faking mediocrity. What you see is what you have: a man who sought in the habit a life of economic security in a respected profession, deprived of any class or manners or intellectual refinement; whose theological education can only be described as a joke; and who cannot express a deep thought to save his life, heck, cannot even say three phrases in a row that truly make sense. A deeply boorish, arrogant man, who has discovered that a show of “humility” dupes enough idiots to serve him well in life, and has followed this line of conduct for many decades now. A man whose only love and interest in life is himself, and therefore finds it entirely natural to, say, board a bus or be driven in a Ford Focus, if this promises the much greater personal satisfaction of self-aggrandisement.
Think of him in this way, and you have a photograph of his man that is, in my view, very accurate. This is consistent with the off-the-cuff rubbish he finds so difficult to avoid, the continuous contradictions, the constant desire to please, the utter lack of care for what even his press secretary thinks of him, the utter disinterest for Truth, the defiance of scandal, the doubling of the scandal whenever this promises a clapping audience, the apparent sacrifices – one entire summer in Rome occupying an entire floor of a hotel! The humbleness of that! -, the anti-Catholic rubbish like the offence to the Blessed Virgin, told to the masses just because it sounded good on the day, and all the rest.
The brutal truth is, if you ask me, that a kind of less gifted Cola Di Rienzo, or – far better said – a kind of better educated and better situated Masaniello was made Pope; but a Pope can't be disposed of as easily as the other two. A Pope will stay there and afflict us for as long as the Lord, in His wisdom, decides that we should be punished. Pray God that no further Masaniellos follow this one.
We are talking of evil geniuses here. At times, someone from the mob, with some cunning ability to sniff the wind and to move among deciders, and with a good nose for what people want to hear, can reach positions of preeminence.
Bergoglio is, clearly, ecclesiastical mob. Pope Masaniello, if you like. A boor in white.
But authentically, willfully, evil? A man planning the destruction of the Church, and seeing in it the aim of his Papacy? I don't think so.
I was, like everyone else, glad to read this morning of the arrival in Rome of Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, the woman condemned to die by the usual stupid Islamic tribunal after having apostatised and converted to Christianity.
I was not worried for her destiny, as we all know that once these episodes of persecution reach the headlines it is only a matter of time before some face-saving solution for all parties involved is found. I was, nevertheless, relieved, because you can never know which headline-causing case will be used by the powers that be to, say, show a change of attitude.
The reality is, I think, that in the East you are at high risk of death and persecution and violence only as long as your story does not make it to the West, and you become a face with a name. Once you do (and lucky you) people in the West react to the “individual destiny” story sufficiently strongly to motivate the Western governments to deliver; and they generally do, discreetly and efficiently. But as long as you are one of the many women savagely beaten, or a part of the anonymous, faceless mass of people chased from Mosul, you are in deep trouble and high risk of being insulted, persecuted, forced to flee, raped, or beaten to death.
We all know this is how it works, and we all know the more stupid society becomes, the more it will become so. The proles reading their dirty, semi-pornographic “Metro” or “Evening Standard” newspaper on the underground do not get a concept like “Christians are persecuted on an unprecedented scale”. Not only it is too complicated for their simple minds; most importantly, it does not provide them with the cheap shot of intravenous feel-good fix they need to feel they have some “values”. When, though, the mob sees a face and a name and a story, its dim brain starts to work, and this is exactly the moment the politics start to move.
Matteo Renzi, the Italian Prime Minister, doesn't give a fig for Christianity. He even openly supports sodomy, which makes pretty much every Muslim more Christian than him. But like every smart politician he understands when it's the time to show the face of the protector of the oppressed. The mob likes these gestures, every now and then. Therefore, Renzi enters stage left, and has on his face the smile of a podgy Ivanhoe.
Today, Matteo Renzi got his well-calculated moment of glory, only partially shadowed by the fact that Francis did what he could to steal him the show.
But this is, in the end, only an episode in a huge noise and headline industry that lives of occasional trees, and stubbornly refuses to see the forest.
Everyone knew political necessity dictated that Meriam be (definitely) freed one day. Now that she has, countless others will be beaten, raped, or killed, without the West even noticing. Until the next poor woman manages to make headlines, that is; and Renzi & Co. (Pope always in the first line) run to the rescue in front of the cameras, whilst singing to us the beauties of the “religion of peace”.
It is very, very good that “Meriam”'s (note also here: the first name. The press makes of the individual person your own very friend. “Diana”, people say as if she had known them, or would have ever cared a shit for them if she had) ordeal is going to an end. But it is a drop in the ocean if episodes like this one do not wake up the West to the cruel reality of Islam. A reality which not even the events in Iraq are going to awaken and put in front of the consciousness of the lazy, torpid, fat, atheist, emasculated West. But they will wait for the next episodes the soft-porn train magazines put in front of them, and get another fix of feel-goodism.
The Western mobs crave instant satisfaction and easily digestible feel-good feelings. Their elected rulers know it, and throw them a headline-rich morsel every now and then to show the mob how very much they care.
After which, the persecution of Christians will continue unabated.
And now excuse me, I must prepare a blog post greeting my Muslim readers, and congratulating them for the start of Ramadan. This, though, only after I receive “Meriam” in front of the press.
It will be a hoot.
In the terrible situation the Christians in Iraq and elsewhere are living, it is of great consolation to know their prelates seem to be authentic shepherds.
Rorate Caeli has an appeal from the Chaldean Patriarch, whose beauty and Christian spirit is such that I think it fit – albeit the text will soon be everywhere in the Catholic blogosphere – to copy it here in its entirety.
Pray every day for the poor persecuted Christians in Iraq and elsewhere.
If we had a decent Pope, the appeals to end the suffering of the Christians would be frequent, passionate, and harsh.
But we have an indecent Pope, who talks of persecuted Christians very much in general, and never ever points the finger to those who persecute them.
Which is why most Western government allow themselves to ignore the events: there’s no political price to pay.
Again: pray for the poor persecuted Christians.
I’ll start my speech by the Word of Christ as His Word is the source of strength and salvation of us, the poor of this lost world: “There is no need to be afraid, little flock” (Luke 12:32).
Our present pain is associated with our Christianity and with the mystery of our Passover (i.e., Easter). Our suffering if joined to the suffering of our Savior Jesus, “Man of Sorrows”, will turn out to be a blessing and salvation to us and to others. And the current challenges are faced with more faith, hope and prayer and solidarity and wisdom. Be brave in front of what you are facing, do not be afraid, you have deep roots in Iraq, do not give up for frustration and despair, confident that “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52) and evil does not last! You are the small mustard seed, the Lord will not let you fall. He is with you today, tomorrow and after tomorrow and forever.
We are your shepherds, and with our full responsibility towards you we will stay with you to the end, will not leave you, whatever the sacrifices. I repeat, do not be afraid; stay strong as you are with your faith and your hope and love. We thank God for your safety, as no matter what, your life has no price.
God’s blessing be upon you.
Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako
[Chaldean Catholic Church]
July 20, 2014
The amount of questionable or outright heretical statements of the Unholy Father has reached such dimensions that it discourages amateur bloggers like your truly from creating a section dedicated to the collecting of Francis’ heretical statements, divided by category, for the benefit of those who want to learn Catholicism the right way and avoid the pitfalls of this pontificate.
It is, therefore, always very useful when a blogger posts a little collection of flowers – or rather, carnivore and poisonous plants – from the treasure trove – or rather, landfill – of Francis’ more or less official statements.
He also points out to the impossibility that everyone – even his close friends – conspires in giving the wrong account on the Pope’s mindset and intentions, without being ever rebuked or corrected by the man himself.
The result is, as Mr Skojec very pointedly says, that “there is simply not a shred of evidence that Pope Francis wants to disabuse people of the notion that he both believes and said these things”.
I add to this that even more than this is happening: Francis’ hammering on “these things” is so insistent, so obvious, and so shameless that, on the contrary, he is launching the very clear message that the faithful are not allowed to have any doubt about what he thinks, even if he will not formally state it. I cannot explain otherwise the barrage of interviews and other statements – some of first, some of second, some of third hand – that always follows the … lack of correction concerning the latest scandal.
Francis gives heretical interview (off-the cuff comment, etc.) number one. Father Lombardi says to the press he doesn’t really mean it, and does not mean to be a heretic. There is no word of Francis to disavow the heretical interpretation of what he has said. After a short time, another interview or statement follows, with exactly the same content. Father Lombardi says you should not read too much into what the Pope says. The process starts again.
In the end, the whole planet understands. Only the Pollyannas don’t.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
Matthew 10: 34-36.
In my peregrinations amongst the Novus Ordo parishes of this once Christian Country I have, fortunately, never ever been confronted with a homily (or other kind of sermon) delivered at mass by a layman. I imagine it must have happened somewhere in the past, but in my optimism I think in this country at least it must have been isolated episodes; promoted or tolerated by priests who were certainly at odd with Catholicism; possibly with a mistress on the side, or homosexuals, or pedophiles.
I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to read that in this XXI Century, and after two papacies (JP II and Benedict XVI) with some effort to restore some sanity (some and some are the operative words here), this ridiculous practice was going on in the Diocese of Rochester, in the United States (we have a Rochester here too, of historical and Dickensian memory, which I think gave its name to all the other ones). Both the text and the comments are very rich of insights.
What was more surprising? That the abuses had gone on for 40 years? That the old bishop tolerated the practice for 25 years? That the old bishop tolerated the other farce of mass absolution? That the new bishop was installed in January and needed six months to act, and said he looked at it on a case to case basis as if to say he was really, really careful not to hurt anyone? That the same man felt the need to point out his action was prompted by complaints of parishioners; without which he would, it is implied, have done perfectly nothing? That the new bishop has now released “guidelines” to explain that water is wet?
Well, everything was surprising, and again nothing was. We live in a world in which a bishop must tread extremely carefully to end horrible liturgical abuses, and feels he can only do so without any fear of an earthquake if he “listens”, “examines on a case by case basis”, and issues “guidelines”. A world in which we must be grateful for every bishop who, with a very subdued voice, tries to explain to his priests and parishioners that if they really pay attention and read carefully, they will discover they might do it somewhat better.
Predictably, this little act of cleaning of a small part of what must be, in that particular diocese, a sea of excrements reaches the press, and they punctually echo the “feelings” of some old hag who goes on record with saying that not seeing a female playing priest from the pulpit “challenges her faith”; which, whatever faith it may be, certainly isn’t Christianity.
When I read such horror stories I begin to think that even the most horrible revolutionaries here in England must feel orthodox because hey, they do not have “lay preachers” at Mass.
I wonder how not only the bishop, but at least two Popes (JP II and Benedict XVI) could go to sleep at night knowing such abuses were taking place, as it seems impossible to me that a diocese near New York could go on many years with such abuses without the news reaching the highest echelons in Rome. Notice I mention here only the former Popes, as I have no doubt the present one really doesn’t give a fig for anything but himself.
I also wonder how many souls got lost, or how many of them left the Church or stopped attending, due to the obscene circus with which they were confronted at Mass.
We need bishops who not only act, but act by saying things as they are rather than dancing on the eggshells of political correctness. Bishop Matano should have at the very least condemned the practice as a liturgical abuse, rather than pretending these are good intentioned people who must have missed something whilst reading the instruction manual.As it is, he has – for the moment – put a remedy on this from a position of weakness, and this attitude will limit his ability to act further (imagine what a cesspool such a diocese must be) as it encourages disobedience. I can’t see such exercises as helping much in the long term. It will end up to centimetres work, when we need metres.
We will never go anywhere if even the most obvious measures are made in a spirit of appeasement and fear of turmoil. We will never go anywhere as long as things aren;t called with their proper names: liturgical abuse, disobedience, enmity with Catholicism.
Let Catholicism divide the people. It’s there for that.
Read on Rorate Bishop Galantino’s passive-aggressive interview, in which he says he was oh so hurt at how “aggressive” some Catholics were (“people who say they pray they rosary”, the cretin goes on to say) , and then proceeds to take the usual emergency exit of the whiny secular bishop: it was not my fault, it’s the press’ fault.
Now, what is that I find so disgusting in this man’s behaviour?
1. The interview could have been corrected immediately. Actually, even before the uproar, which always take some time to develop. Little coward did nothing. As always, the first headlines were those of the world, praising him for his approach truly worth of Francis. He did nothing. He discovers now, around one month after the fact and after having been ridiculed the world over, that the interview does not reflect his thinking.
2. It is typical of the coward – and also, by the way, of the effeminate man – to react with a whiny, passive-aggressive attitude. He calls the reaction to his interview “an aggression which, in reality, hurt me a bit”. The bishop may rest assured: if he had been made the victim of the same aggression an unborn baby receives in those clinic in front of which the “expressionless people” pray, he would be a bit more “hurt” than from some headlines in newspapers and blogs. He should thank the Lord that he is – unworthily – a bishop, and cannot have his ass kicked all the way to the next train station among the, ahem, very expressive laughter of the present, as he would undoubtedly deserve if he were, say, a priest. Instead, Bishop Girlie goes on record with saying to us how hurt he is from a couple of headlines. Go figure.
3. The bishop now pretends to have said exactly the contrary of what he has said. Astonishingly hypocritical. Not a word of apology, then, for furthering a massacre by which more than 100,000 babies every here are not “hurt a bit”, but murdered in his own Country.
No. He simply tries – in pure Francis style – to have his very words of yesterday forgotten today. Very aptly, Marco Tosatti makes him notice that enough is enough. Verba volant, scripta manent.
Let us reflect, though, why all this happens.
It all happens because going to the newspapers with revolutionary, fully unCatholic or positively antiCatholic slogans has now become the favourite summer fashion, and every little nincompoop like Galantino feels he has something to earn – in notoriety, which all these people crave, and in brownie points with the Unholy Father – by showing himself oh so progressive.
It is Francis who caused all this. It is Francis who keeps giving the bad example. It is Francis who is every bit a hypocrite as this Galantino; ultimately, it is Francis who has to answer for the climate of stupidity and demolition that is now everywhere.
I am glad to see that resistance to the madness is now gradually becoming more spread, but I am under no illusion that the vast majority of the oxen will continue to be led by the nose by Francis and his little minions, like this despicable little caricature of a bishop. Which is why Francis will, for the time being, continue to sow confusion and revolt (Lio, I think he calls it); and why there will be no shortage of little faggots trying to get their moment of popularity, though throwing the toys out of the pram whenever they discover the reaction is not entirely what they had hoped for.
Francis says 2% of the priests are pedophiles. His “guesstimate” is vastly exaggerated, but it probably reflects the quality of the people he has around him.
The percentage of faggots must be astonishing.
The sad news reached me yesterday via “Harvesting the Fruits” that Tony Palmer, the wannabe bishop friend of the Pope, has died in a motorbike accident during the weekend. Palmer is the one who was at lunch with Francis when the man, who if you ask me was rather tipsy, had the idea of making the infamous “brother bishop” video.
Just two reflections here, because time is a tyrant.
1. Pope Francis does not seem to bring much luck. He calls the heathen to pray for peace in the Vatican gardens, and the two camps opposing each other in Palestine start massacring each other (actually, Hamas only tries; but that’s par with how stupid they are) within just a few weeks. He calls a perfectly not ordained proddie “brother bishop” and the latter dies in a motorbike accident. We must not be superstitious, but it does not seem to me that God is exactly smiling on this Pope’s endeavours.
2. Poor Palmer might have saved his soul. We cannot know for certain that he is damned. He might have repented. He might have been seriously thinking of conversion in the weeks preceding the accident. Perhaps he had, just before the accident, resolved to convert. Perhaps he had realised the errors of his ways. We do not know the state of his soul when he died, and we can only hope and pray (yes, we pray for deceased Proddies; and wish them all the best with all our hearts) that he saved his soul in the end. Nothing is impossible to God, and I have always been taught that just before death the effort of Heaven is strongest. Despair is not the answer. We pray for all the deceased because we know this massive effort did take place.
What we also know, though, is that the man was a public heretic, and that it seems very strange to start invoking “invincible ignorance” for a man who must have had a rather precise knowledge of what the teaching of the Church is, and what extra ecclesiam nulla salus means. A man, also, who was in a way “nearer” to the Church than most Protestants, and there was nothing in him of that “whore of Babylon”-mentality which might lead one to think invincible ignorance was possibly at play. We must, therefore, drily acknowledge that this possibility of salvation is linked not to his public activity – which, the Church says, would clearly suffice to damn him, whatever Francis may think in each of his various stages of sobriety – but to a combination of circumstances in his internal forum: either the clearly improbable invincible ignorance, or an internal motus of the soul toward the Church before he died. This may appear difficult to us but, as already said, for the Lord nothing is impossible.
Does this mean that we must now run to proclaim that Mr (Mister; Herr; Monsieur; Signor) Palmer is probably saved, or even (heavens!) in Paradise, because he was “such a good chap”, and “a friend of Pope Francis”?
Of course not. This would be heretical. The thinking that
“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ”
is condemned in the syllabus of errors, emphatically meaning that good hope is not to be entertained. Why? Because Mr (Mister; Herr; Monsieur; Signor) Palmer was, at the moment of death, outwardly not in the true Church of Christ. So it is, again very drily said, obviously more probable that he is in hell than in purgatory; which is what happens if one dies a Protestant (how some people think invincible ignorance or repentance may send a heretic straight to heaven is beyond me…).
That’s how it is. That’s how important it is to belong to the Only Church. That’s how vital it is that we – with due prudence, but without undue cowardice – make this very simple fact known to the people we love, to those in our circle of family and acquaintance who are, objectively speaking, in clear danger of damnation.
How, then, completely ignoring the issue will contribute to the salvation of one, like Francis, who seems to do his best to positively dissuade people from conversion, I leave to your own reflection.
This morning, those of you who have attended a NO Mass have listened (or will listen) to the parable of the wheat and the tares.
As I was intently listening (the priest had an extremely loud and theatrical voice, full of zeal and passion; a very effective Gospel reader) I could not avoid making the following two reflections:
1. The reading is, in the present situation, very consoling. It is clear that we must face the abundant tares currently present within the Church, and accept that the field will be a mess until the harvest is imminent. The enemy has planted so much tares within the Church that countless Bishops, Cardinals, even the present Pope clearly belong to the tares rather than to the wheat. The tares are so abundant that they cannot be estirpated without seriously damaging the wheat harvest. More crucially, God will not get rid of the darnel before His appointed time. The Galantinos and the Veras, the Maradiagas and the Kaspers, and even the Bergoglios are the tares sowed by the Enemy to ruin the harvest. Like the tares, they are everywhere in the field. Some of them will, hopefully, repent. It is very realistic to think that most of them will not. The latter will, in due time, be gathered and burnt.
Let us say it once again: God will not cleanse the field for us before His appointed time. We must live with the damn tares. This is God’s will and God’s plan. Thinking of impending end of the world are, with great probability, nothing more than a pious hope born of the refusal to accept that the field has always had an awful lot of tares. The world was always meant to have a lot of tares, and the Church has never be deprived of them. Unfortunately, in this age the seeding of them has been particularly effective, and the darnel is now everywhere. It’s a very messy field. But in essentials, it is how the field has always been.
2. I doubt Bergoglio reads the Gospel other than to try to extract some of the stupid, populist, socialist, childish, or simply unintelligible nonsense he regales us so often with. I know he very probably does not believe in God, does not think he will stand in front of his Judge, and does not care a straw about doing his job as a Pope is expected to do. But I do wonder: if Francis were – perhaps after drinking a grappa too much – to make an effort to read the Gospel seriously and try to understand what it really means, how could he not be shocked at the parable?
It is clear to everyone with a brain to Dalai Bergoglio damnation is a very remote possibility; an event from which he clearly excludes all those who are “in good faith” and “seek the Lord”; actually, an event from which he is happy to exclude even those who do not believe in the Lord, at all (which makes sense, and squares perfectly with the extremely strong suspicion he does not believe in the Lord himself). In Bergoglio’s world, hell must be something reserved to “Pelagians” (that is: devout Catholics), “judgmental gossipers” (meant are again: devout Catholics), mafia bosses, and … well, no one else, really. There is, in fact, no need to even convert anyone to Catholicism, because Christ has already done the job for pretty much everyone.
In Francis’ field, the tares are very sparse, and mainly made of devout Catholics.
How would, then, this probably tipsy Bergoglio react, if he were to really pay attention to what the parable says? How would he explain the obviously huge quantity of the tares? How could he deny that the tares are so abundant that they cannot be uprooted without destroying the entire harvest?
Now: the usual Bergoglio would probably tell you that Jesus was just being cunning, and was deceiving his disciples so that they do not no bad things like, say, going back to Judaism (no, wait! This can’t be! Buddy Skorka is Jewish and perfectly fine where he is! please pick another example, will you?…). But tipsy Bergoglio, who for a moment forgets his own rubbish thinking and tries to really understand what Jesus says with the parable, must be simply terrified.
No worry, though. The event is not very probable.
We all know when Bergoglio is tipsy he is more likely to grab the next smartphone around and send a “video-selfie” to a so-called “brother bishop”, than to read the Gospel and try to get some use from it.
The debate about the UK euthanasia law has started yesterday, and it is polarising the country almost half as much as a selfie of some obscene slut singer or the new diet of some wannabe celebrity. Still, some people are discussing about it.
In a strange phenomenon, which is at the same time indicative of the confusion of our times, (ir)religious leaders like Lord Carey support the murdering of a suicidal person, whilst left-wing newspapers like the “Guardian” do not.
Why does this happen? Because of a fact that you can notice very easily in the newspaper articles of the last days: the factually complete absence of Christian values in the debate.
And in fact, two heathen factions seem to fight for the ground: those who think that it is good to allow someone who wants to dispose of himself to do it, and those who fear that this would lead to pressure to old vulnerable people to do what they do not want to do. The implicit concession that there shoul dbe some sort of understanding for people who want to commit suicide is clear enough; at the very least there is no vocal debate about the point.
That no one, absolutely no one could ever have any right to kill himself just because he is ill, or suffering; and that this is pretty much the worst sin imaginable (worse than sodomy! Yes, worse than sodomy!) no one seems to remember, much less say out loud.
The debate is entirely secular, and the pros and cons are seen from an entirely secular perspective.
It is also an absurd debate, because it is a debate run from a position of forgetfulness of its very ethical bases.
If there is no God, it makes perfectly no sense to claim that it be bad that vulnerable people may be put under pressure to die. If there is no God, the question whether any person has any right to live when he is not of use to the community is a perfectly sensible one. If there is no God, we are just a very sophisticated termite nest, and there is no objective rule as to how the nest should be run. Actually, if there is no God and we are all destined to be born, live a short life and and die into nothingness, the most practical thing to do is to maximise the survival chances of the termite nest by getting read of all elements of weakness making it either more vulnerable to other nests (or nations), or else decreasing the utility of the strong termites contributing to the strenght of the nest.
But the fact is, there is God: and this God is not only the one who will judge Lord Falconer and his accomplices when the day of their redde rationem comes, but it is also the God who has given us the Christian values on which our societies rest.
A discussion on values in which God is absent, and which therefore forgets the basis and origins of those very values that are being discussed, seems outright absurd to me, and a losing strategy to boot; because make no mistake, unless the root of morality is found in God, the stupid oxes will happily be led by the nose from the masters of the usual slogans of “mercy”, “freedom” and “compassion”. In the emasculated, utterly duty-allergic society in which we live, these emotional calls to “freedom” will always prevail over the embarrassed calls to prudence of those who are against, but can’t really say why.
It is only a matter of “safeguards”? Well, then you’ve lost already.
It is a matter of values? Well, then think what these values are, and why you value them, and why you should protect them.
This euthanasia battle is, I think, already lost; because the troops on the right side have completely forgotten why they are fighting.
The planet is alight with newspaper articles, comments, tweets, Facebook posts and blog articles about the terrible tragedy of Flight MH17 over the Ukraine.
A terrible tragedy, for sure. I am sure you all have prayed for the victims, and may the Lord have mercy of their souls.
(No, they are not going to go to Paradise just because they met an untimely death. No, really…).
Perhaps it would be, though, useful to put such tragedy in its proper place.
1. No sensible man can doubt that the aeroplane has been taken down by mistake. Actually, occasions like this are, if you ask me, very good to tell people who think sensible from the usual conspiracy theorist; of which, there is no doubt, there will be an awful lot around before the sun has risen again. (There are people who think Jews are behind 9/11. The mother of the idiot is always pregnant. But I digress…).
As I was saying, reasonable men will, today, all say that this has been a very tragic mistake. Terrible as the loss of life is, there is still a difference before the involuntary killing and the willed murdering of hundreds of innocent people.
2. 298 dead is around the number of a couple of major Boko Haram actions in some village in, say, Nigeria. Village, alas, not exposed to twitter and Facebook, and in which the Buggers Broadcasting Communism have no great interest. Those people are, though, all intentionally murdered, in cold blood, by people moved by blind religious fanaticism and the purest, most evil blood lust. They seem to be, almost invariably, Muslims. Or you could compare with the numbers of people (not only Christians) massacred by ISIS in Iraq and Syria; or by Islamist fanatics in Libya and Egypt only in the last two years. I assure you, in this perspective, 300 is not an impressive numbers.
It seems to me that the Buggers Broadcasting Communism – and most of the others – not only look at massacres as they would a field of wheat (=wondering what the harvest will be), but clearly prefer those tragedies in which not only the media impact is assured, but some enemies of them (here: Mr Putin) can be accused. There is no clear evidence of Russian involvement, but the BBC et al. are all full of condemnations coming from all over the planet; this morning I have even read a proposal to (further) sanction the Russians if they have provided the weapons to the rebels. Which, ipso facto, makes the West liable to auto-sanctions for almost all the major African conflicts and civil wars of the last 50 years.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Now let me make a thing or two clear: if Putin has given such weapons to the rebels (which I personally doubt, seen the level or expertise, technology and costs involved), he did it so that they can take down military aeroplanes, that is: legitimate military targets; something which, by the way, has been happening regularly in the last weeks with far less sophisticated weaponry (the shoulder-carried “manpads”). The same is, of course, true of the other side, which had announced only days ago a massive deployment of “Gadfly” missiles, and one wonders how well trained their personnel is.
A terrible tragedy, no doubt.
But in the end: a mistake.
Let us not confuse with the countless Christians (and not only Christians) butchered with a very clear criminal intent from Muslim fanatics, in cold blood, whilst the BBC et al entertain us with the evil Putin.
This was in my spam folder (meaning: the author has already showed me he wasn’t born an eagle):
We are not to judge. We are to point out wrongs and sins I am not a saint. As a Catholic Christian, I believe Jesus will judge all. On abortion, I think it is murder.
“We are not to judge” and “abortion is murder” (which means: all those who commit abortion commit a murder, and all those who help them abort are accomplices in a murder) in the same phrase.
We live in an age of astonishing stupidity.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)
a new champion of Pollyannism has appeared on the scene. Or if he was there, I was not aware of him. The blogosphere is a big place, you know.
The “Witness” is a blog with the probably good intention of being a “Witness for the Faith”. In the sense of “good, traditional, Catholic fellowship”. Which is very fine in itself.
It is, I allow myself to say, a tad less good when the witness for the the faith covers, or sanctions, or approves of a behaviour that is the exact contrary of the “good, traditional Catholic fellowship” it claims to support. Because you see: if it ain’t traditional, it can’t be good.
Now: the said blog starts from the last disgraceful interview (I use the word advisedly: if you talk with a journalist for an hour with the intent of having your thoughts published it is a damn interview and the entire world - bar the Pollyannas and Father Lombardi; and I have my strong doubts on the latter – knows it) and comes out with this piece of profound Sunday Machiavellian thinking
What does the Pope get out of this? The answer is in the flurry of reaction to the Scalfari interview. As he watches the curial functionaries running about reacting to this leak he gains some very critical intelligence. The Pope is usually surrounded by a coterie of careerists and sycophants whose job it is to mediate the Pope’s relations with the world at large. Essentially they are to make sure there are no surprises. By carefully gauging the reaction to the Scalfari leaks he can determine which of those he can trust.
This might have been written in a highly sarcastic tone, in the “eye of the Tiber”-style. If it were true, it would be brilliant satire. Unfortunately, I have the impression the author of the words means what he has written. Let’s hope not, of course; but there is not much ground for optimism.
Now, this is a new and brilliant argument.
Following it, one would suggest to the Pope that he should be found in a “gay” sauna, stark nakkid and obviously intoxicated, together with Monsignor Ricca and some of his, well, gay companions; and procced to be photographed whilst singing Argentinian sea-shanties, and dancing the tango with the said “gay” men whilst wearing a red nose.
A great reaction would ensue.
At this point, Francis would (cough) “gain some very critical intelligence”. “By carefully gauging the reaction to the Scalfari leaks he can determine which of those he can trust”.
Lord, give me strenght…
I have already reported about an astonishing piece of extreme Pollyannism, but I wonder whether this one should not take the biscuit.
So: a Pope would confuse one billion plus Catholics every, say, eighteen hours in order to see which ones among the careerists and sycophants around him is to be trusted. He certainly can’t believe those who don’t criticise him are not careerists and sycophants. Actually, common sense says that he should suspect them first. So it can only be about selecting the worst among the bad.
I wonder what some bloggers drink in the morning (kool-aid, is the answer; with Francis flavour). I try to criticise other Catholic bloggers as little as possible, or to do it only when the example that should not be followed is extreme.
This here is beyond extreme.
It is parody.
It is involuntary Monthy Phyton humour of the most Monthy Phyton-esque kind.
Actually, it is a pity Monthy Phyton aren’t around anymore: they would have such a field day with the Pollyannas…
Papolatry is among us. Keep your eyes open and your brains switched on, because the number of the Papolaters isn’t going to decrease anytime soon.
If it smells very badly, it’s brown and comes from a cow I am sorry to burst your bubble, but you are in front of a load of bullshit. Even if the cow is ever so white, and ever so humble.
Trying to call this bullshit something else just doesn’t wash, because the stink is there.
The Bard would probably say this:
Bullshit, by any other name, still stinks as badly.