Category Archives: Catholicism
The battle lines are forming. Many whom we thought more or less our friends will betray us (bishop Tobin is the last; no doubt, many will follow). Our lines will be very, very thin compared to those of our enemies. And our enemies will try to impress you with their white, red or purple robes, and will tell you with smiling faces and soothing voices that you see, we have now decided to “be merciful”; which, of course, we never were before.
On the other side are the few who think that what the Church always thought right is right, because it's what… the Church has always believed. Their number is small, and it is going to become smaller in the foreseeable future. They are, truth be told, very polemic and very assertive. They must be, because they are the few besieged in Fort Alamo, whilst their besiegers can smile and relax, looking at their endless cohorts, and play the nice guy whilst they line the cannons against the fort.
“Look at how bitter those people are!”, the besiegers will tell to their plauding soldiers. “So bigoted, so unpleasant, so uncharitable, so… un-merciful!” So, or in similar word, they will cry, and the many public adulterers among their troops will be those who cheer the loudest.
“Compare with us, with our serene and profound theology, approved by the Holy Father himself! Aren't we the nicest bunch! Please applaud us, and remember us in your Will!”
Yes: we are few, and besieged. We hold a little fort of sanity, surrounded by the huge army of “give me an excuse” – “c”atholics, who possibly believe that as long as the numbers are with them, heaven will be too.
There's nowhere in Church teaching that salvation is earned by siding with the bigger side. The road to perdition has always been very wide, and with TMAHICH it is being enlarged and made to a superhighway as we speak. A generation that betrays Christ is a generation that Christ will discard, and not many might be those able to claim sufficient ignorance to at least make it to purgatory. May God have mercy on as many as He thinks fit among the deceived. May He punish the deceivers with all the might of His Justice.
What I see around me is an army of purpled puttanelle offering easy excuses, and cafeteria “c”atholics pretending to accept them; well knowing, all of the former as well as very many of the latter, that this is not what the Church has always taught; that it cannot be that Christ allowed the Church to deceive the faithful these two thousand years; that what they are being offered is the potion of some ecclesiastical Dulcamara, promising them the remission of sin and the obliteration of guilt against continued support.
The battle lines are forming. Fort Alamo on one side, and TMAHICH's immense and growing army on the other. But this Fort Alamo has Christ Himself defending it. It will be battered, gunned, left to hunger and thirst. But it will never be defeated.
Cheer up, then, and do not become despondent at the sight of the immense army around you. We have Christ's promise:
Bishop Tobin is the last in a long series of puttanelle who suddenly start reflecting whether the Church of Christ hasn’t, perhaps, betrayed His message and done everything wrong these 2,000 years. May he repent and obtain forgiveness when he dies; and I hope for Bishop Tobin that, if he dies unrepentant, God is more lenient than I think He will be.
Dr Peters has already written a rebuttal of the many points in which the Bishop piddles out of the WC and leaves a mess all around. I suggest you go there and read his extremely diplomatic, but very clear reply in its entirety.
What I would like to point out today is the utter and complete betrayal of Christ and His Church that is put in place every time a bishop, of all people, tries to explain to us the problems in behaving like the Church has always behaved; a behaviour made the more repulsive when this is made taking as excuse a warped reading of the Gospel. Nor can his apparent contradictions fool anyone about his subversive intent and the fact that this is the usual Modernist/V II style. “Of course we uphold Church teaching, but….”.
The Devil can quote the Gospel for his purposes, and it is not difficult to take it in isolation and let it say whatever we want to; which, by the way, is the reason for thousands of different Protestant congregations, all claiming to follow the same Scripture.
Every child used to know that; which is why they went to Catechism first and to Doctrine later, where they would be given a coherent and organic exposition of the Truth; this, in turn, would allow them to avoid the danger of reading the Gospel and raping it for their own purposes.
Not so in the new world of our purple puttanelle.
They will take a verse or two in isolation – say: Jesus’ condemnation of the extremely rigid formalism of Jewish Sabbath observance; clearly reflected in the understanding of Sunday in all Catholic Countries – and wonder whether, in light of his extraordinary discovery, rules should now make any sense at all. Perhaps should we, then, decide that public adulterers could receive communion? Look, the Jews were wrong! It follows that the Church is wrong too, right?
There is only one word for the Bishop’s behaviour: prostitution. And no, I do not care if there are far worse bishops that Tobin around. Battle lines are been formed here, and no bishop can claim to remain neutral. On the side of Christ, or on the side of Satan. Bishop Tobin has chosen Satan’s, and the fact that he did abundantly shows the extent of the problem.
Ask yourself whether the bishop would have expressed himself in such terms during Benedict’s pontificate, and you will see very clearly the poison in his soul.
This, my friends, is another one looking for Brownie points by TMAHICH.
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
There is much surprise in the blogosphere about the rumours that want Cardinal Burke on its way to a comfortable, but obvious semi-retirement at the head of the Knights of Malta. I must say I am not in the least.
The Cardinal will, I am sure, enjoy the view from the Aventino (you know that hole from which you can see the dome of St. Peter surrounded by an arch made of plants? Well, that’s them; among other things…). Whilst so doing, he will probably reflect that this was the only way it could end seen that he is not a boot-licker like many others – in red, in purple and in black – around him. It had to end that way, because Burke is – if even in the more moderate V I I version – a thorn in the side of NuChurch. Too obsessed with abortion, too attached to Tradition, too much of a Rosary-counter, Burke was clearly a fish out of the water in a world dominated by ecclesiastical prostitutes.
I can only hope his successor will not be an open subversive; which, by the wind that is blowing, is somewhere between a hope and a dream.
In a way, Burke unavoidable departure might give him more freedom of movement. As a member of Francis’ team of “super ministers”, he might have refrained from stronger criticism; as a man now outside of the big game, he could feel free to express himself more freely and become, one day, the focal point of what they call “loyal opposition” and I call merely sanity, and refusal to prostitute oneself to the new times.
It’s a beautiful piece of real estate, that plot on the Aventino. The view is astonishing, and certainly better than from the near Giardino degli Aranci, a favourite of Romans and tourists alike.
It’s a good place to reflect, in one of the wonderful October mornings Rome never fails to give, about the price of loyalty to Christ.
Cardinal Burke is probably not a saint, and clearly he is not the man to tell all the truth, hard and straight, at the cost of real persecution. Yours truly can, in conscience, not tell you that he is sure he would behave differently and would have the strength to openly invite persecution, loss of privilege, and a poor, lost, dreary, uncomfortable parish somewhere in Alaska, or Alabama. But as Cardinals go, Burke is at the moment among the very best; and is, therefore, put aside in favour of the young generation of willing careerist puttanelle; those who are the first to do TMAHICH’s will today, and will be the first to denounce the climate of leftist intimidation tomorrow.
The good ones will be removed one by one and moved where they have less, or no, influence; as already seen in the case of Cardinal Piacenza and – though I am bitterly disappointed in the man – Bagnasco.
Enjoy the October mornings, Your Grace. You may not be a martyr, but you have deserved them.
I hear from various sides the reassuring calls of cardinals, bishops, priests and simple bloggers telling us that doctrine cannot change, and therefore we have nothing to fear from the October Synod.
I would not be so sure of that. I think we have much to fear.
True, doctrine can't change, because Truth cannot. Even if Francis himself would declare from the balcony in St Peter that fornication is not a sin, or that two and two is five, truth would not change in the least.
But this is not the way TMAHICH operates. He is not interested in open conflict with the strong. He does not touch the SSPX, much less 2,000 years of official Church pronouncements. What he does is to sabotage Catholicism in the praxis, in the everyday living of the Church; safe in the knowledge that 95% of Western Catholics don't know much of doctrine, but read the newspapers or receive the echo of the headlines.
Francis will not openly defy doctrine. There is more than one way to skin a cat. He will sabotage, mock, undermine, belittle, and vilify it. He will do so by creating a climate, an environment of change openly practiced but not officially proclaimed.
Take the Argentinian concubine to whom the Unholy Father would have said she can go to communion.
Has Francis officially proclaimed concubinage is no obstacle to receiving? Of course not. Has he reaffirmed Catholic teaching? No, he did not do it either. Has he at least denied he said such words to the woman? No, he hasn't. Has he affirmed he did? No, not at all.
Result? The whole world knows, senses, feels Francis is the chap to say such things. They clearly perceive he would like to say such things; and whether his tongue has slipped in a phone call or not, they know he would speak in this way for all the world to see, if he only could.
This is what everyone, bar the retarded and the inveterate Pollyannas, understands. The climate has been created. The lío is going on full steam. Dissenters, concubines, perverts know that Francis is on their side against Church teaching.
The Synod can begin.
At this synod, not much will be necessary to subvert the praxis, and it will most certainly not be necessary to attack the rules to do so. De jure, the rules will be very solemnly affirmed, for the joy of the Pollyannas happily licking their lollipop and writing on various blogs how gracious it was of Francis to give it to them. De facto, just a few carefully chosen words in official documents, saying but also not saying that the priest can, in case, when the circumstances allow, having regard for the particular situation, after weighing all the pros and cons, deal with the situation with mercy, will be enough. Actually, I now suspect that just the mentioning of this by Francis most devilishly and subversively used word, mercy, once will be enough to cause a real revolutionary outburst in the church in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere.
One phrase, carefully worded, and passed to the news outlets as the unofficial “key to the synod”, and “reflecting the mind of this merciful Pope”. This is all that is needed.
The world will exult, the concubines will feel vindicated, the Church will be vilified, perverts of all sorts will say now it's their turn, sacrilege will spread everywhere in the West not as isolated abuse, but as the new “alternative praxis of mercy”.
The Pollyanna will, very happily, lick at their lollipop.
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History is on record with saying that the Church is not a glorified NGO.
Unsurprisingly by such a circus tool, a glorified NGO seems to be exactly the vision he has of the Church: an organisation in which everything – from his homilies and off-the-cuff blatherings to his foreign travels to his verbous documents and interviews – is meant to trumpet the Church as the Force For Social Advancement, whilst the concept of salvation is dismissed as automatic achievement and, therefore, largely irrelevant as is repentance, conversion, & Co.
This NGO mania is so advanced, that the Church administration should now be reorganised to better serve the purpose. One is truly reminded of those Multinationals' restructuring at the core of which, they assure us, is the desire to be nearer the wishes and thinking – and purses – of the customer.
A “congregation for the Laity” should now be created. We already have, to my knowledge, a pontifical council with that name, but this here is clearly a promotion. Actually, I thought the Church Herself, and her organisation of bishops and priests and deacons, exists for the laity, so that the Congregation is a bit as if the British Government created a “ministry for the government”; but such are the times we live in.
This congregation would occupy itself with poverty, peace, justice and all the issues that sound so well in the ear of the world. It will be, so to speak, the spearhead of Pope Robin Hood. It will fill the void until now existing between papal rhetoric and papal administration.
I have no doubt the head of this new dicastery has been already selected by the Pope; and if he will not be one so utterly, as the Italians say, impresentabile as Maradiaga, it will probably be a slightly more presentable version of that unworthy prelate.
This will be a powerful man; at the centre of the attention, and rather well positioned to take Francis' place when he dies or resigns.
Say hello to “Glorified NGO”, then. In a world in which salvation is a given and giving public scandal is worthy of a Papal pat on the back, the only issues that count will be the exclusively worldly ones.
Let me stress it once again: this is The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church Hystory. He has, in fact, deserved an acronym just for him: TMAHICH.
And it came to pass yours truly was informed – by looking at a poster – of the existence of “memorial gardens”.
I have looked in some search engine what it is, and it soon became clear enough: a memorial garden is a place where people go to remember their loved ones who have left this vale of tears. With some space for them, perhaps a plaque on it, perhaps some ashes. What is, then, the difference with a Cemetery?
I can only imagine one difference: a memorial garden is something absolutely a-religious. In short, something for atheists.
A cemetery, you see, is full of crosses. One is constantly reminded of the great hope of a better life awaiting, one day, those who have departed this world. How annoying must it be to the mind of the atheist, who hates to be reminded that there is a judgment, and one without appeal!
Let him, therefore, do something different, and travel on a Saturday morning – Sunday is, clearly, meant for grocery shopping – in a pleasant garden, where his beloved former partner or parent or relative will be thought of in a soothing, pleasant, utterly relaxing environment. Thus pleasing first, second and last the one who does the thinking.
These atheists are, I am told, exactly those who consider Christians people who believe in fairy tales.
A believer can walk in a cemetery, look at the immensity of the sky above him, at the organised beauty of life unfolding under his eyes, and rationally understand the necessity of the existence of God. What he sees above, and what he knows of the above, is what makes sense of the tombs and monuments around him. A cemetery is not the parody of anything else. It is the real thing, and it truly makes sense.
The atheist is, on the other hand, supposed to be a rational man. Still, not only he refuses to see what every perceptive child understands – that such a huge and hugely organised universe must have a Great Chief In Charge – but he lacks the guts to look at the consequences of his conviction against the faith. He needs some balm for the coldness around him: therefore, he builds for himself a senseless parody of a cemetery, deprived of any logic but his own self delusion.
Look, atheist friend. You believe that your parents are gone. Either they were burned in an oven like they do with waste, or they were put under the earth for worms to go to work at them. In both cases, what they have become is, pretty much, fertiliser. And yes, that's that, folks.
What sense does it make, then, to have a “memorial garden?”. Wouldn't any old nice park do the same? And what use is this revelling on the atrocious reality of the atheist? Fertiliser them, and fertiliser him, at the end of a life that makes no sense at all and is the very epitome of mad, or rather blind, casual injustice. Feelings of filial or parental love which, as the atheist must recognise, are but evolutionary mechanisms the human species, as every other halfway complex animal, evolved to protect itself from an hostile environment. Feeling of sadness for their departure which, as the atheist must recognise, are also but the way The Great Mad Life Machine, which actually – he must recognise it – doesn't even exist, forces him to love others and spend money on them; money which could, otherwise, be spent on gambling, drinking and whoring without the shadow of even an uncomfortable moment.
“This is my business”, says the atheist. “If I enjoy walking around in a memorial garden, what's it to you?”
It is a lot to me, dear peripatetic atheist. It shows that you, who claim the command of logical thinking, are but an emotional child, lost in a big world you cannot even begin to understand, and terrified of it; a world you cannot bear without surrounding yourself with exactly the soothing feelings and pleasant lies of which you say Christians and other believers are the willing, gullible victims. You are looking for pleasant feelings, because you are afraid of the unpleasant truth: that you will die and end up in an oven, or as worm food, and nothing of what you have said or done, alone or in company, for or against Christianity, good or bad, useful or useless, has, or ever could have, any meaning at all. Any meaning, I mean, that does not come from the fantasies of a child, fancying he loves a world which will devour him without a shred of an emotion.
Your mother is ashes now. So is everyone you knew before you discovered you wanted to be the Great Decider yourself, answerable to none but you. And all this does not make any sense, there is no glory or beauty in any of it. Your mother loved and nurtured you out of the pure instinct of making litter until she died, like every other animal. Your love for her is due to the same mechanisms. No one is ever good or right, or even heroic and selfless. Nature has made it all. All your hopes and aspirations, your passions and loves, your oh so humanitarian desires show only one thing: you are duped; you are the slave of your own DNA, used by it for the sake of its own perpetuation as you get discarded and thrown in the compost. This is all you will ever be good for.
Therefore, my dear atheist, abandon this emotional and childish nonsense of the “memorial garden”. It is, in your perspective, as senseless as everything else. Reflect, rather, on your own utter nothingness: an absurd joke of coincidence living among other jokes of coincidence, and living a short existence towards the pure nothing as they search some small comfort, and try to reproduce for reasons they actually can't fathom (which is why they, in fact, contracept massively).
It is better for you to recognise the brutal reality that dominates your thinking: you are the slave of your DNA until the day you die.
At which point, you will be only useful as fertiliser.
It's Tuesday, and the news aggregators report the tsunami of headlines concerning the Unholy Father's latest scandal.
Francis is “inclusive”; he signals a “shift”; he indicates sex outside of marriage is, even, “not a sin”. Things like that. A lot of them.
As always, the planet is now divided in two. The first group are the Pollyannas and the stupid (often the same people) believing that Francis is being “merciful”, without explaining to us why it seems not that the concubines have repented of their real sins, but rather that the Church has repented of her alleged ones. The second are all other, those with a functioning brain and the will to use it, who see what is all too plain and executed completely under the sun: the pickaxing of Catholic teaching in favour of a new sentimental, shallow, and very stupid imitation Christianity in which poverty and social justice are the only real problems, and sin is the preserve of mafia bosses and rosary-counting faithful.
No one can say with a straight face that this umpteenth tsunami of headlines is not exactly what Francis wanted. It is too obvious, and it has happened too many times, to allow any such behaviour. This is a Pope clearly acting with malice aforethought, perfectly aware of what headlines each and every of his antics will generate.
Some people seem to think if they blind themselves and refuse to see the very obvious evidence, this will be counted for them – or at least not against them – when they die.
They are sorely mistaken, because they are being his accomplices and enablers.
I am reliably informed that since the very worthy Father Finigan has left, two novelties have surfaced.
1) The new parish priest (Father Fisher) can celebrate the Traditional Mass, but he won’t.
2) The “Tablet” has made his reappearance.
I do not doubt that many of you miss Father Finigan, and I agree with you such a one is not easy to replace. But there is, in my eyes, a great difference between a substitute without the talent of his predecessor – which is excusable – and one who undermines his work – which isn’t -.
The Tridentine Mass goes out just as, rather symbolically, the “Tablet” gets in. You can, dear parishioner, now avail yourself of a number of excuses as to why what is happening is not bad; or not so bad; or not very bad. You can say to yourself that the new man (Father not-much-of-a-Fisher) does not want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass because he feels he would not be as good as his predecessor. Or you may tell yourself that perhaps he has an unpleasant cough, that would – for the moment at least – suggest it is better to cough exclusively in vernacular. Perhaps you may want to examine the possibility that Father has a lisp, and thinks this stands in the way of a worthy pronounciation of the words, among others, “Dominus”, “Agnus”, “Miserere” and, obviously, “corpus”. The possibilities are endless.
The same applies to the sudden reappearance of the “Tablet”. Perhaps Father Finigan didn’t consider it an obscene rag from and for the enemies of Catholicism, but was simply allergic to that particular paper? Could it be that the “Tablet” has now become orthodox? What if Father Fisher is, in a very cunning and Francis-like move, selling the Tablet again in order for his parishioners to understand how bad it is? Or perhaps his bishop has threatened him with horrible persecution – like, say, beating him with a feather – if he does not sell the magazine?
The last line of defence might, as so often, be: “but he is so nice”. Nice people, so this reasoning goes, can’t be bad priests. Everyone knows that. Father is nice; therefore, everything must be OK, eh? no?
Or, my dear parishioners, you can decide that you will not swallow any strange story; that you will look at reality straight in the eyes; and that these changes so soon after the new man’s arrival can only mean one thing: Father Finigan’s parishioners are going to be slowly, but surely subject to a parish reeducation camp, that will only be considered concluded when the “Tablet” sells well, dissent is fashionable and so lío, and Francis is the best Pope e-v-a-h!
What to do, my dear parishioners?
Look long and hard for a TLM solution suitable to you. If you can afford to travel some distance, consider it. Do not exclude any possibility. There are two SSPX possibilities in London only, of which Wimbledon should be feasible for many. You may want to consider it even if you were a NO parishioner. One day, you might remember how you decided to attend the TLM when… it went away, and may the Lord reward you richly!
You may, in all cases, not have any suitable Tridentine alternative and realise now you have lost the one you loved. I feel with you for your loss. But TLM or no TLM, I suggest that you do this: make the choice, today, that you are not going to attend in a parish that offers the “Tablet” for sale. Not once. Starting from this very moment.
Nothing good can come, in the long term, from a priest who not only tolerates, but reintroduces the “Tablet” after his worthy predecessor removed it. Nor can you lull yourself in the hope that by “staying” and “fighting your battle”, the parish climate will change. How many “Tablet”-like priests do you know who have been converted by his own parishioners? How probable is it that he will change his ways? How probable that the parishioners will slowly change theirs?
My advice to you, my dear parishioners, is that you immediately stop attending in Blackfen, with no ifs and no buts; that you look, and keep looking, for TLM options in the months and years to come, availing yourself of that possibility as soon as you reasonably can; that you draw a line in the sand, and decide that the time of nice and smiling priests siding with the world has come to an end, and you will not attend anymore in a parish that sells the Tablet, for the good of your own soul and of the souls of those entrusted to you.
Take courage, my dear parishioners. Don’t cling to a past now gone. Father Finigan is now rather far away, and the “Tablet” is smiling at you from the shelf instead.
Is this parish, the same but now another, the place where you want to attend? Is this the priest you want to entrust with the task of guiding you towards salvation?
The TLM is out. The “Tablet” is in. Or I could put it in another way: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. You have the truth of this in front of you. It is being, in fact, being rubbed under your nose as I write this.
One life, and after that the judgment. Do not entrust people who offer to you the “Tablet” to read the task of guiding you on your way to Purgatory. From their magazines you will know them. Do not be deceived by the gradualism with which he will go at his work: orthodox homilies perhaps, and here and there a hint of former times. This is one who sells you the Tablet, and can celebrate the Tridentine Mass but won’t.
Let Father answer for it when he dies.
As to you, I suggest that you keep your distance from both the magazine and the priests who sell it.
I do not think the couples married by the Unholy Father are the first who have behind them a rather turbulent past; I do not know, either, how a conservative priest (say, a SSPX priest: just to be sure there is no “mercy” bollocks) would react when a couple of concubines were to tell him they want to marry in the church.
For example:would he require that they live separately whilst they undergo marriage preparation? How long would the preparation have to be? And Co.
These questions are not for me to answer: ask your friendly, sound priest. Marriage is a complicated field.
What I do know is that most certainly a Pope should not even dare to think to marry such concubines himself, for the simple reason that by doing so he would send a clear message that it is more or less okey-dokey for people to live in sin and scandal. Hey, we can marry at any time; the Pope himself might marry us, nowadays!
And this is, I think, exactly the message the Unholy Father wants to send: in the age of mercy we aren't so strict, eh? What's a bit of scandal among merciful friends, no? If one fornicates and lives in scandal and undermines marriage and “seeks the Lord” (whatever that means) who am I to judge?
The result of this – I do not know whether stupid, atheist or satanic – attitude is that more couples will now feel authorised to live in sin before marrying, feeling that the Pope himself dismisses this little peccadillo with a smile and a wink. The pressure will be particularly strong among less observant Catholics, those who do not have a clear idea of the gravity of the fact and will now have an inducement to downplay it. They will feel encouraged by Francis to go down the same path, which is certainly grave matter, and put themselves at risk of damnation.
This is how, in this as in so many other matters, “mercy” becomes its exact contrary: complicity with Satan.
One of the women married on Sunday recognised half of this truth. She thought she would never be married by the Pope, because she isn't a good Catholic. Yes, of course she isn't; and yes, of course she doesn't deserve it. But the woman then proceeds to blind herself from the other eye, stating, in a perfect non sequitur, that it is so wonderful that the Pope marries her anyway. “I thought I was bad, but the Pope marries bad people; therefore it is not the Pope who encourages being bad, but it is I who am good and the Pope who is oh so wonderful”.
This kind of illogical thinking will be, starting from today, the thinking of many. It will be very easy for them to choose the broad and inviting path of sin, when the Pope himself shows the way.
Nor can the very stupid argument be made – yes, I have read that too – that as we are all sinners there's nothing to be so excited about. That we are all sinners is exactly the problem, and a Pope is certainly not there to encourage us on this path. Actually, I though his job was exactly the contrary: to help us lead lives as deprived of sin as we can manage, with fear of the Lord and love for his commandments. How stupid of me.
On Sunday, the Unholy Father has put another bomb under the chair of Matrimony, teaching his sheep to not take seriously the commandments of the Church, and undermining marriage as he downplays concubinage.
Beware of the wolves. Particularly when they say to you they are merciful.
No more than a couple of weeks ago, Francis had told us that war can be legitimate when resisting unjust aggression. He was wrong, of course – war can be perfectly legitimate exactly in case of aggression: the Crusades come to mind – but hey, even with his tunnel vision at least he could see a part of the truth.
All is forgotten now.
War is “madness”, he said visiting the Redipuglia memorial: a wonderful, monumental work built by Fascism to honour those who died in WWI. War is born of greed. War is irrational. War is the fruit of (how can you be wrong on this?) “intolerance”, and “lust for power”.
Screw you, you who died to the hundreds of thousands to defend and honour your Fatherland. Screw you, you who thought a life laid to the feet of the Fatherland is a life well spent. Screw you, you widows and orphans of fallen soldiers: you have been duped and betrayed by your own husbands, by your very fathers!
Screw you, you brave soldiers. Francis truly doesn't care a straw for your sacrifice. And he tells you so in the very monumental structure built to honour you, and to remember your sacrifice!
You can't be heroes, because in Francis' world a war can never produce a hero. You are either hapless victims, or violent bastards. He will accommodate you by the half-idiots without any problem, though. He is so merciful, you know.
Let me stop here, because my blood pressure is now beyond blogging level.
May God remember the sacrifice of those who gave their life for the Fatherland. It is sweet and honourable to die for the Fatherland. Those who do deserve to be cherished in the memory of their own people; their sacrifice honoured, and taken as example.
Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori.
I have more than the impression than to die a Pope Francis will be extremely bitter, and utterly indecorous.
Dear Father, do you want to be as popular as Francis, the red-nosed Mercy Guy? Do you want to be considered a person of profound and merciful thinking every time you open your mouth? Would you like to become a Bishop?
Learn to use Francis’ Banality Generator. You will have to switch your brains off and forget every notion of dignity, I know. But after a while, everything will come very natural; particularly if you’re a Jesuit.
Learn these easy steps, and success will be assured.
1) Make an absurd statement. Say: “Christianity is not navel-gazing”. Not that anyone ever thought it, but it will make you look good whilst you are saying, in fact, something of astonishing banality.
2) Make the contrary example, no matter how banal. Say: to be Christian is to love others. Again, every child knows it, but when you say it it must sound special. To this aim, try to use pseudo-modern V II waffle: “get out of oneself”. It will make you look a refined thinker.
3) Expand on the bloody obvious,like: love isn’t selfish, love is generous. Again, put it in V II terms: love “does not turn in itself”. See above for the effect you are looking for.
4) Mention Jesus. Every episode from the Gospel will do. Ideally, there’s one in the Mass of the day.
5) Whatever the episode, make of Jesus the guarantor for what you are about to say. Jesus was this, not that. Jesus said this, not that other. Jesus was non-judgmental, anti-rich, pro-poor. Jesus was a revolutionary. Jesus was an environmentalist. Everything goes.
6) Once you have Jesus as your certificate of authenticity, unload the bomb: say, “do not gossip” if you are angry at criticising you, “do not judge” if you are angry at journalist, but “he who gets the Holy Ghost can judge” if you have no argument with the theologians telling you how wrong you are. You see, at this point the main torpedo of the day has been launched: but you have looked so good and Jesus-like all the time.
7) Waffle about poverty. Poverty is always good. You can mix and match with social justice, though, or with the vulnerable. Women are always fine. But poverty must always be in the mix. Old people are poor, because they’re old. Young people are poor, because they’re young. People on a wheelchair are poor, because they’re in a wheelchair. You get the drift. Never a homily without poverty. Trust me on that, it works wonders.
8) Waffle some more. People will call you “approachable”, and it will allow you to indulge in that most delicious hobby of yours: listening to yourself.
9) Wrap it up by encouraging others to be more like Christ. Say it with a very persuaded voice. They won’t notice you sell Him every day.
Follow these nine steps and your popularity will suddenly increase. Everyone will say how nice you are; particularly non-Catholics. Your congregation will slowly dwindle, but those who remain will impress the bishop, and praise you all the time. You will show to everybody who is anybody that you are eminently suitable for a big promotion; a clergyman of sound mind, who understands the implications of the Modern Times.
In time, the rewards are sure to come. Are we, or are we not, in the Age of Mercy?
In typical PC fashion, the US Catholic League has announced it will not take part to next year's “Gay Paddy Parade”.
Did they do that in protest at the abomination of admitting openly scandalous perverts to the parade? ' course not! Perish the thought! It should not be said they are in any way Christian, that is: “homophobic”! They actually have declared to even “support” their admission!
No. They announced their withdrawal because… a pro-life group was not allowed to take part to the parade under its own banner.
Let us examine the dynamics at play here. It seems increasingly more frequent that issues of sodomy are avoided. Why is that? Because the numbers are turning against us, at least for now and at least in the general perception; a perception, in turn, amplified exactly by the behaviour of these soi-disant Christians.
The fight against abortion, on the other hand, is gaining momentum, and there can be little doubt that it will continue to attract support in the next years.
Therefore, the marketing choice is easily made: no opposition to institutionalised sodomy, and self-promotion with the popular issue.
The Catholic League is not fighting for Catholicism. It is merely pursuing its self-promotion in the way most profitable to them. They have chosen to be Catholic only when it's convenient, and to kow-tow to popular fashion whenever a Catholic stance would make them unpopular.
Screw yourself again, Mr Donohue.
We do not buy your opportunism.
I continue to not understand the confusion and disorientation of many Catholics – even readers of this blog – when confronted with the horrible deeds of Pope Francis. It is as if they realised that they have a horrible Pope, and found the fact unprecedented and very difficult to cope with.
The crude reality is that Catholicism has already seen it all. A Pope openly siding with heresy, to the point of excommunicating Athanasius and forbidding the Creed in Church? Check. A Pope declared a heretic by no less than an ecumenical council? Check. A Pope openly espousing obviously and gravely heretical ideas? Check. A Pope announcing that he is minded to make of his heretical ideas a dogma of the Church? Check. Popes who were fornicators, thieves, gluttons, corrupts, or curruptors? Check, check, check, check, and check.
We must realise that the protection given by the Holy Ghost to the Church is of limited nature, and is meant to safeguard nothing more than the core of her activity, without which she would not be able to fulfill her function. It is to the clergy and the laity to provide for many vocations of sound quality and a diffused expectation of sound clergymen, in order for the Church to grow and prosper. But there is no guarantee of growth, of prosperity, even of continued existence in your particular country or even continent.
Whilst the comparison has the limits of all comparisons, you can make a parallel between a Pope and a history professor. History has an awful lot of incontrovertible historical facts. Facts can't be changed, or interpreted away. If a professor starts teaching that Abraham Lincoln was born in Ghana, and Jesus in Rome, does it mean that he is not a professor? No, he is still one. He will, bar further episodes, for the moment still have the same job, with the same title, the same job description, and the same wage. But his pupils will understand that he is a horrible professor; one who, in fact, is unworthy of the job and should never have been allowed to teach in a primary school, much less a university.
Does the teaching of the stupid, ignorant, arrogant professor change the facts? Of course not. Can you say “either his statements are right, or he is not a professor”? No. Can you deny the acts that he puts in place in his quality as professor? No.
What you have there is an ugly professor, nothing more and nothing less.
Now, the Holy Ghost merely guarantees that a Pope will not proclaim a heretical dogma, something a professor can't do even with an orthodox one. Every rubbish a teacher can produce, a Pope can, too; but he will, of course, not be able to change truth; no more than a professor could change historical facts, or mathematical rules, or laws of physics.
Truths are things. They are, in fact, far more solid than them, because they will be there when the entire universe has been dissolved in a spark. Can Popes make universes? No? Well, then….
Then there is the other question: what's the big difference between saying that we have a rubbish Pope, and saying that we have no Pope? The difference is simply immeasurable.
Bad Popes are as much a part of the fabric of the world as bad people. Popes are people. Some Popes will be bad, or very bad. Unpleasant, but physiological. Like having to walk near a field in the time of dunging.
Sedevacantism, on the other hand, is a way to the abyss. If the Pope is no Pope, his Cardinals aren't Cardinals. Therefore, his successor is also an impostor. And at this point there is no way to say how – bar having Angels coming down from Heaven – the legitimate office of legitimate popes and cardinals can be restored. It is every bit like shooting yourself in the head because you have a severe headache, and thinking that God, in His mercy, will restore your brains to full functionality punctually by tea time, when the headache has gone.
The implications of Sedevacantism, the wheels that the thinking would set in motion if thought to the end – which most Sedes accurately avoid – are absolutely immense. They are tantamount to destroying the visible Church out of love for the visible Church. It is Dr Strangelove's approach to the crisis in the Church.
And as we are there, allow me two words on the Western Schism.
There never were two Popes, or three. There always was only one, and Rome always knew and said who he was. There can never be two Popes, or three, in charge. This is why Benedict is merely a Pope Emeritus, one who used to have the office of the Pope; but now only keeps the title, without the function, like every professor emeritus does. It's also not so that at some point all those popes resigned, paving the way for the end of the schism. Only one Pope has resigned. The others were not Popes, period.
It's not complicated, or confusing, in the least. The confusion only begins when the faithful start to attribute some kind of almost magical power, or alternatively an almost magical divine protection, to the Pope; making of him a man who can't ever be heretical, not even a material heretic, without their own understanding of the Papacy crumbling.
Of course a Pope can be a material heretic. History teaches this as an incontrovertible fact, that is not for me or you to accept or refuse, but merely to acknowledge in its hard reality of crude historic event.
Learn to cope with the events, and Catholic teaching will make wonderful sense exactly concerning papal infallibility and the Indefectibility of the Church. Take refuge in a fantasy world where no Pope ever behaves theologically badly, and you are on your way to Dr Strangelove's solution.
For the second time in a matter of weeks, the combox of a blog belonging to the egregious commercial enterprise for those of all faiths and none has been closed; and for the second time, the closure was obviously occasioned by the number of Catholics reminding the blog author of what Catholicism is, and making him – or her – look rather stupid in the process.
Mind, these commenters still are the rose water Catholics, those who are generally fine with the rose water approach to these turbulent times. Still, even among those Catholic feelings are often still developed enough, that when the blog author tries to sell the adulterous and homosexual lie as Jesus' Very Truth the reaction is nuclear.
Of course, these are not the first blogs to shut the combox. But in all other cases I know, the reason was an authentic enthusiasm of the commenters, who flocked to take part to the battle; and then became too many, say, or at times too heated. Comment moderation takes an awful lot of time.
This here is different. These here are comboxes closed in order to prevent their very own authors from being utterly exposed as – I am being gentle here – weathervane Catholics.
Close the combox, then. Keep writing for the mainstream of either non-Catholics or very vincibly ignorant Catholics desirous to read what pleases them. It makes commercial sense. For an angry commenter on the combox making clear what a bad Catholic the author is there will always be ten, thirty or fifty ready to delude themselves that dissent is an acceptable position, or truth changes according to the Pope of the day, or the Church will change her doctrinal positions if they are but patient enough.
Fake Catholics readers need fake Catholic bloggers; and as the readers are by far the greater number there is no doubt the fake blogs will continue to prosper, catering to the “emotional needs” of adulterers, abortionists and sexual perverts.
That's were the numbers are. That's what makes certain commercial blog operations prosper. That's what the ignorant, self-deluded “mainstream” wants to hear. That's how you sell the lies of the world as the Truth of Christ.
The recipe is simple: flattery and lie. Tell your, say, perverted readers Jesus would march with the perverts.
They will never stop supporting your lifestyle.