Category Archives: Catholicism
And it came to pass the football match wanted by Francis to end the atrocities in the Middle East took place. It must have worked, because when I woke up this morning the birds were chirping with unusual energy, and, clearly, Love Was In The Air. Or not, as the case may be.
The Match To End All Wars took, then, place, and the stadium was half-empty.
How can this be, when Francis The Humble Black Shod Peacemaker was behind the initiative?
Where were all the nun-judgmental Catholics so inspired by the “fresh, new approach” of the Unholy Father? The lovers of peace? The Sons Of The Age Of Mercy?
They were, apparently…. everywhere else.
The brutal truth is that the world does not care a straw for Francis, and never was disinterest more deserved. To them, Francis is light entertainment: a short headline on the morning paper, a momentary titillation of their most superficial feelings, a popular “celebrity” among thousands of others. somewhere between Rihanna and Simon Cowell, and in the end with no better standing than them.
The “F” factor is simply not there. What is there is a clown dressed in white, wearing a red nose even when he doesn’t, and riding a wave of popularity that is there only as long as it satisfied the desire of the urban masses to feel excited, and good with themselves. But let this alleged “Francismania” cost the price of a ticket, and all the interest will remain where the plauding masses were yesterday: outside.
Not only is Francis a third-class Pope; he appears well on his way to becoming a third-class “celebrity”, too. As the novelty of the “humble Pope who talks refreshing rubbish” wears out, what remains is a stupid old man who has divested his office of the authority and respect due to it, and now stands there, with a red nose on his face, begging you to look at him as he embraces a wheelchair.
Francis as Great Novelty is getting old fast. Unless he causes graver and graver scandal, even his present antics will soon look like the new normality, causing damage to the Church as they become unable to further the cause of the Destroyer.
At that point it will be probably be wisest to abdicate, playing the new game of Pope Cincinnatus.
“Some people have a formal, public display and then the real life they live behind the scenes,” he continued. “But when we accuse someone else and we are quick to stone him, we must remember that we all have problems and defects. With modern communications so out of control, it is easy to kill someone’s reputation without even investigating about the truth. We should be quieter and less condemning.”
if these very words had been pronounced by the Unholy Father himself, the entire secular world (including the prostitutes, the drunkards, and the homos) would have applauded the Great Man Of Mercy.
If the same Francis had drawn a parallel between Mary Magdalene and any of your “more pricks than years” women who fill the buses and trains of some Western countries, pointing out to her “problematic past before final deliverance” in a world in which, as we all know, God does no more than slap us on the wrist, it would have been a unanymous choir of approval and praise for the refreshing approach of the Bishop of Rome, humbly reminding us of the sinfulness of human condition, bla, bla, & bla.
Alas, the “who are we to judge” meme was, this time, applied to the wrong person: Marcial Maciel.
Consequently, “who am I to judge” was promptly forgotten, and the priest who had produced himself in such a prime feat of Francis-inspired idiocy was silenced and forced to promptly backpedal.
You see, the non-judgmental society is non-judgmental only when the Pope speaks, or when the people thus protected by the Pope have been declared, in some way or other, protected species.
The rule does not apply, though, whenever Francisspeak should be applied to people whom every liberal, whore, drunkard and faggot in the land think he can and should judge.
How is that for a double standard.
And yes, I do think Maciel was a bastard. I do not know if he saved his perverted, lying, thieving ass in the end, and I am not the one to say. But it strikes me as somewhat odd that all these tidal waves of mercy never apply to people who are on the wrong side of the perverted society, even when they are perverts themselves.
Maciel was, there can be no doubt about that, a first-class, certificate-of-autenticity, prize-winning bastard. But he was ordered to lock himself in a monastery, and in his last years had ample opportunity to repent and prepare himself for the terrible day when he would meet his Maker.
Can’t say we can say the same of the countless sinners who live a life of continuous mortal sin, do not care a fag for God – or if they do, think they are fine because they love the Amazonian Forest – and die fully entrenched in their own confusion and error and perfectly persuaded of their own goodness, whilst Pope Francis tells them that God will slap them on the wrist at most, noone is anyone to judge, and proselytism is a solemn nonsense.
Also, please let us reflect about this: we get almost every comparison from the leftists nutcases (this includes Francis): Jesus the dispossessed and/or destitute (wrong); Jesus the social worker (wrong); Jesus the political reformer (wrong); Jesus the illegal immigrant (wrong); Jesus the cunning deceiver (wrong). These instrumentalisations get a pass from the Catholic press and the mainstream “c”atholics, who get all fuzzy at such comparisons as they feel their own goodness growing within them.
But woe to the one who uses the same categories (“who are we to judge”) and the same stupid comparisons (Mary Magdalene and Marcial Maciel) with a person who has fallen out of grace.
The non-judgmental crowd will judge him mercilessly.
The discovery, reported by Eye of the Tiber, of a planet that could host and support the Maryknoll Fathers opens the way for a humane solution to the problem.
Whilst there are technical problems to be solved and the costs would be not indifferent, the advantages in term of quality of life here on earth would be worth the expense. Once the first batch has been sent, many others could follow. Entire South American seminaries could be sent away without any further question. That the Jesuits would be ideal colonisers is also obvious.
The costs would be substantial. But we could still ask Francis, who is very rich and generous, to cover the costs himself.
I grew up in a Catholic Country. I can vividly remember the time when:
1. No one spoke of his “personal relationship” with Jesus.
2. No layman had a “ministry”, and
3. No one was “moved (or “called”) by the Holy Ghost” to do something.
To this day I can’t avoid being shocked atvthe way some Catholic commenters on the forums (or fora) I read around express themselves. It sounds to me as Protestant as that other habit, of quoting bible verses; as if the Devil could not quote the Bible himself, for his own purposes, at pleasure.
Let us see this a bit more in detail.
1. The traditional Catholic way of looking at the relationship with Jesus does certainly not exclude that this relationship be personal in an obvious way. But the Catholic always sees himself as part of the Church, and he puts this simple fact at the centre of his “relationship”. It’s a collective bond as much as it is an individual one.
The traditional Christian (= pre-Protestant) way of praying very often (not always: think of the Angele Dei) in the plural expresses this cooperative endeavour in a very natural way. Even in the “you and I”, the Catholic mixes the community of the faithful. For a Catholic, it’s always “we”.
The “personal relationship”, on the other hand, smells too much of “two-people rule”, which opens a huge door to any kind of, well, Made-to-measure “personal” rules (interestingly enough, you will notice that seriously orthodox people tend to avoid, even in Anglo-Saxon Countries, the “personal relationship” thing). They are, in my experience, also those for whom Jesus is The Awesomely Awesome Buddy. Not surprising, then with a friend it’s very easy to adjust to each other’s shortcoming, and tailor the relationship to preferred, individualised, and highly convenient patterns of behaviour.
2. The one with the “ministry” was also not heard as I was growing. I would, actually, not even know how to properly say it in my language. Again, it’s not that it cannot be said that every faithful has a role to play; but where I come from, “ministry” was a matter for the priest. Of whom there were, by the by, an awful lot, which probably further discouraged such usages even when the verbiage of V II was introduced in Church life. A layman who would spoken to us about his “ministry” would have been looked at as a funny kind of alien, in the best of cases.
3. Lastly, there is this habit – which grates me most in a Catholic – of saying that the Holy Ghost prompted one to do or not do something, etc. I find the phrase, and the mentality that is behind that, appalling to the point of quasi-blasphemy, and arrogant beyond words. If I (I mean: not St Francis or Padre Pio, but yours truly personally) were so presumptuous as to say to you that “the Holy Ghost inspired me to write a blog”, the inevitable consequence would be to claim for myself not only a special status as “favoured weapon of the Lord” but even, unavoidably, a status of quasi-infallibility for everything I write; it being not really thinkable that the Holy Ghost prompts me to write a blog and is then baffled and surprised at the bad quality of what I write, and all the errors with which I confuse the faithful.
The simple truth is that neither I nor anyone else can make such claims. We know that Providence is at work, but it is not for us to claim to be the help for it sent by the Lord Himself. We do our best as our lights allow us, and we hope that when the day of the redde rationem comes there will be some approval in heaven for what we have done on this earth; procuring us, if we are lucky, some brownie points against the multitude of horrible sins we – I, at least – have committed in our life, and for which I am deeply, deeply ashamed.
I must say that I keep reading these statements in blogs and comments. I suspect that many of them come from former Protestants, who have brought with them a forma mentis that is not the traditional Catholic one. Still, in many cases the influence of the V II newspeak, or of the many Prods in one’s circle of friends and acquaintances, must play a role. It is clear by assisting to certain Catholic Masses that everyone is invited to feel like a MiniMe Messiah, and rejoice at his own’s goodness. I wonder…
I am no Messiah. I have no claim of Official Endorsement. I am a wretched sinner, ashamed of his sinfulness. Just so you know…
Therefore, I will not write a blog, and cry Deus le volt.
As far as this little effort is concerned, I hereby declare the Holy Ghost entirely innocent of whatever piece of senseless drivel and unspeakable bollocks I might have been writing in these commenting and blogging years; senseless drivel and unspeakable bollocks which I dare to declare fully non-existent in my activity of both blogger and commenter; but for which blogging and commenting activity I for myself would even even think of claiming some sort of divine placet.
This little blog aims at defending and promoting Catholic orthodoxy. It does so in a highly personal way, the fruit of the traits – good or bad – of its author’s character. As Catholic truth can be learnt by everyone of sound disposition, there is no need – even if there was the desire – to claim special patents of inspiration. If you think this blog does its job well say a prayer, in your charity, for this wretched sinner. If you think it doesn’t I kindly ask you to avoid it, without being obnoxious and time-waster. In both cases, do not think that my pen is led by anything else than my good will and sincere love for Christ and His Church.
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.
“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?
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.
It is difficult to expand on Louie Verrecchio’s blog posts, because the man handles the issue at hand so thoroughly that one has difficulties in making meaningful additional reflections.
In this case, Mr Verrecchio gives us another impressive demonstration of his thoroughness, as he dissects the – once again – heretical statement of Francis concerning the alleged “real” meaning of Jesus calling Peter “Rock”.
I would have laughed if Francis’ ridiculous and fully un-Catholic, or better said anti-Catholic, explanation had come from a Proddie nincompoop like, say, Mr Welby, the pretend “archbishop” of Canterbury. But as this heretical waffle comes from our very own nincompoop in chief, I don’t find it funny at all.
This is the first Pope who claims the position of uniquely cool Pope, whilst even denying his unique position as Pope. It is as if a King would announce his support for the Republicans among the cheers of the mob, neither the one nor the others grasping the absurdity of the situation.
He does not believe in God, is all. Not believing in God, he does not believe in the Church He founded on Peter. The cornerstone is the stone he has discarded. He takes the cornerstone away, and perhaps doesn’t even grasp – because a genius he ain’t – that if one follows his train of thoughts the entire edifice must crumble and his job made, on the spot, redundant.
The man who told us the Church must not reduce Herself to be a glorified NGO wants to reduce her to just that: a Christian NGO among many, and all of them with the same rank and dignity. An NGO led by an awfully humble guy, whom you should consider the best human on earth whilst he berates his office.
He does not believe in God. Therefore, he does believe in His Church. He believes in his own popularity, and will say and do whatever it takes to enhance it. When he’s gone he’s gone, he thinks. Why bother about the Church? Let men applaud him, and humbly inflate his ego whilst it lasts.
An Atheist sellout was made Pope. Congratulations to the Cardinals.
In your mercy, please cut some slack for the Pontiff Emeritus.
We all remember the great weakness, the obvious frailty he showed during and after the time of his abdication. I have written here about why I think the abdication was wise, and as one who attributes at least some of the antics of JP II’s last papacy phase to his disease I hope I will never see a clearly non-functioning Pope at the head of the Church for a long time.
On another post – just reblogged, but also here for ease of future reference – I have dealt with the conspiracy scenario, and explained why I think such a scenario is just plain absurd.
The fact is, though, there: the Pontiff Emeritus thrives.
Good for him, say I. I can’t imagine him such a good actor, and his doctors such a wonder of medicine, that they would transform a sane man in the very frail man we have seen just after his abdication, the forces obviously leaving him very fast. I was not the only one thinking he was not long for this world.
He is thriving, poor chap. It goes to show that the challenges of being a good Pope are big, and they take their toll; up to the point that the Pope thinks: “I will soon reduce myself to a larva, and be the next John Paul II. Nein, Danke!”
Already 83, and just out of just another bypass operation, he saw the end coming. Not the end of his life, probably; rather the end of the active papacy he thought necessary for the Church. If it comes to pass that the man, relieved from his burden, recovers and is now able to stand for more than one hour, can it be his fault?
In my eyes, Benedict was right to abdicate; but he was very wrong in thinking his successor would have walked in his shoes. As the man who appointed around half the Cardinals who elected Pope Joke The Humble he could have done better, actually much better. He was, in this as in many other matters, too much of a gradualist, and the system he wanted to quietly reform is now reforming itself from his papacy, and not even quietly.
In my eyes, the homo scandal ( the famous 300 page report now put under a ton of sand by Francis; who knows if he was mentioned therein…) persuaded him that the great purge he thought had to come needed a stronger man than himself; a gentle man who had never been a fighter in his strongest years, benedict felt he did not have the phtysical or spiritual energy for this battle. Hence, the abdication.
If a man had been elected who was able and willing to continue Benedict’s policy, no one would have noticed that he is well other than to briefly remark how well he looks and what a joy it is to see him in form. Actually, most would praise his sensible timing, his move able to make sure the Church has a stable and orthodox guide for many years to come without the risk of a crippling de facto interregnum as, say, in the years 2000 to 2005.
Alas, it did not happen. But this proves nothing.
We must pay attention to put the abdication of Benedict into doubt; because if we do so, the election of Francis is automatically thrown into the same pot. Sedevacantism – albeit of a moderate sort – is the result.
If Benedict was forced out, I can’t see how Francis can be said to be in. If Francis is legitimately in, Benedict was not forced out. I can’t see any other solution here.
I am very glad to hear about the good wealth of the Pontiff Emeritus. It would be good if he were to attend in a state of comparable good health the funeral of his successor, or the enthronement of his successor’s successor.
He would then, perhaps, wonder about a well-known German saying: totgesagte leben laenger.
Cardinal Brandmueller is on record with saying that the Francis phenomenon is only superficial, because if it were a real spiritual movement the churches would be full.
The Cardinal is, if you ask me, right and wrong.
He is right in that the Francis phenomenon is just another celebrity frenzy, a purely emotional toy for the easy entertainment of the uneducated, superficial or outright stupid masses.
But he is wrong in saying that empty churches deny the thesis in themselves. It is obvious that Francis is not interested in people going to Catholic Churches more than he is interested in them holding their Korans, eating kosher, going to a Protestant service, or merely being good guys.
Therefore, if Francis were able to cause a spiritual movement (which he isn’t), this movement would be seen in practice in a great number of people not going to Church, but rather doing something else and smelling of Francis’ style “ecumenical goodness”; something like helping to restore kosher eating among the Jews, or buying Korans to poor immigrants. The Catholic churches would most certainly not witness any increase in attendance. Not in the least.
Francis is clearly intent in decoupling the Catholic Church from his vision of Truth. In his mind, Truth can be found pretty much everywhere if one is a nice guy or gal, and the Catholic Church is not in any way, shape or form the depositary of it; rather, she is an expression among many of a Truth that embraces pretty much everyone, be they Catholics, schismatics, heretics, infidels, or even atheists.
The church of Francis comprises everyone who considers himself a regular guy; he sees himself as leading merely one branch of this world church, a branch which in the past has, in his deluded mind, culpably tried to suffocate the other expressions of this alleged truth. If his words in Caserta weren’t clear enough, his behaviour of almost every day would suffice to let vigilant minds understand.
Not many vigilant minds around, I am afraid.
The way I know it, Alitalia has stopped long ago to put an aeroplane at the disposal of the Pope for free, and they have started to demand that aeroplane be chartered at market rates instead. The Vatican obliges, and recovers the costs by selling expensive tickets to the journalists travelling with the Pope. This allows the journalists in question to stay at the core of the action, and the Pope even comes to say “hello” and have a chat with the boys and the occasional girl during the flight, obviously “off the record” before madness came to power.
I am, therefore, not scandalised for the star cook or the luxury meal, as by the price of those tickets it would be the height of the stinginess to offer beans and tuna fish from the can, with the accompaniment of freshly sliced onion.
I also understand the Pope will have to travel with a degree of privacy, and will have to be able to sleep in total comfort. After all, he is the Pope.
But then this very Pope who travels with all the privileges due to his rank asks that a small Kia car be put at his disposal for his movements in Korea, ostentatiously displaying a “poverty” he does not live whenever cameras are away.
This Pope lives in a way not appreciably different from the way his predecessors lived. He occupies an entire floor of an hotel, causing costs and inconveniences his predecessors would not dream of causing. He travels first class on his own chartered aeroplane, and I have even read – but it must have been a mistake or misunderstanding – that on his way to Korea he kept the entire first class for him, Billionaire-style. He eats the same gourmet food as the others. He certain did not reside, whilst in Korea, in a Bed & Breakfast.
But then, whenever some cheap theatre for the benefit of the gullible can be had he is all for it. From the cobbler to the newsagent, from the wheelchairs to the invalid children, and from the minivan to the Ford Focus no trick is too cheap for him, no stunt too populist, no rhetoric too over the top.
If Francis wanted to practice what he preaches, he would take the bus from St Peter to Termini station. From there, a direct train line would bring him to Fiumicino airport. Second class, if you please, and harassed by the gipsy beggars like everyone else. Security concerns are, obviously, not an issue for the Pope Of The Poor. Who would want to harm him? He refuses the armoured car, doesn’t he? Let the poor around him be his shield. Let him be one of them, among them. St Francis, poverty, humility, and all that.
Once in Fiumicino, he can queue to his check-in for his second-class flight and, once this is done, wait on one of the endless rows of seats until his plane is called. He can have a walk every now and then. Greet people. Embrace wheelchairs. Read some Kueng. Things like that. Let him queue like everyone else, Argentine passport in hand, and take place in the seat he has booked, himself of course, on His favourite travel site.
I know, the leg space isn’t great; but hey, small Kias aren’t much better, either; and where’s the poverty, if one does not share the hardships of the poor? And look at how easy it is: no aeroplanes to charter, no journalists to host, no gourmet tickets to prepare. The humble Francis can have a sandwich, and a bottle of mineral water; or, if he wants to splurge, there’s always McDonald’s, certainly a familiar venue to small Kia drivers the world over.
Once arrived in Seoul, though, Francis is a guest. I understand, therefore, that the bus might not be appropriate. This is where the small Kia comes in, and fits in the picture.
What have we seen of all this? The Kia only, and that one surrounded by photographers. For the rest, this one here is the Renaissance Prince all right. Apart from the fact that he isn’t, of course, and thinking of him words like “boor” come rather more easily to mind.
This is Francis’ hypocrisy. Not in his living as a Pope, but in his living as a Pope and feigning monastic lifestyle. Not in the big apartment, but in having it in a hotel in a shameless show of pretended humility. Not in the first class travel, or the chartered aeroplane, or the gourmet meal; but in the Kia at the airport, the minivan, the damn Ford Focus, and the old Renault 4 he obviously uses – if he does – when the poor walk.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. But then again this mind-boggling hypocrisy only works, and brings him huge popularity, because of the mind-boggling thickness of those unable to see how cheap Francis’ tricks are.
I never had great confidence in humanity’s smartness at large. Christ was insulted by the same mob who had hailed him only five days before. Most prophets were killed. People now approve of sexual perversion in unthinkable numbers only one generation ago. But one must say that Francis’ papacy has brought in front of us the misery of the human condition, and the utter stupidity of the greater number of sheep, in very vivid colours.
Alessandro Manzoni famously wrote that the masses are like an ox: dumb, and easily led.
One must recognise that literacy hasn’t changed anything in that.