Category Archives: Catholicism
Of the many questionable quirks of our Not-So-Holy Bishop of Rome, there are two that grate me again and again. Therefore, today I will write a blog post about both of them for the sake of my liver.
To Francis, nothing is what it is. Everything is, actually, something else. This is never this, it is always that. To love means to play the guitar; to pray means to have a walk, and the like.
You can find these absurd statements everywhere in his off-the-cuff blabbering exercises. The last example is taken from here: “fasting” is “giving someone a caress”. Er, well, no. Fasting is fasting. If on a certain day there is an obligation to fast, giving 20,000 caresses to all the inhabitants of the favela will not cause anyone to comply with the obligation to fast. Why? Because fasting is fasting, and caressing is caressing.
This is different, but akin to, another way Francis has to confuse Catholics: Francispeak ©.
This kind of confusion may seem harmless, but it isn’t. If this is always that and that is actually that other, there are no clear obligations to do anything anymore. If “loving” is “reaching out” every adulterer is loving; if “praying” is “doing good” every atheist is prayerful; if “fasting” is “caressing” every sodomite is fasting, and so on. Again, these kind of outlandish comparisons where everything is something else are everywhere, and whilst the examples of the day might be due to coincidence, the confusion this engenders isn’t. This is, I think, worse than what Amerio called circiterisms. This is deliberate dismounting of concepts, so that the values they represent may be dismantled or at least discounted. The one just mentioned, for example, clearly discounts the act of fasting, intended as fasting. Because hey, if you fast but aren’t “charitable” (which Francis himself never is; but this is because to him “charity” means “subservience to the values of the world”) you are only a hypocrite.
2. Hating the “regular guys”.
It is evident that Francis hates regular people, who have rules and follow them, with all his strenght. At regular, but extremely short intervals he warns us against those people who “follow the rules”, and always ends up calling them “hypocrites” in one way or other. To him, the person who follows the rules just out of love for the Lord, fear of the same or even innate goodness does not exist. Such a character never appears in his examples. It’s always the “hypocrites”. They pray but they pray by rote. They follow the rules but they don’t believe in God. They appear good but they are Pelagians, & Co. On the other hand, homosexual priests are very highly regarded by him. To them, the “who am I to judge” rule applies.
Last example is in a phrase like this: “These hypocritical people are good people, they do whatever they are told to. They seem good!”
It’s always like that with this man. If you follow the rules, he will suspect you of hypocrisy. What does this say of the way he follows the rules, I will leave to your sound judgment.
And it’s not once, or twice. It’s again and again and again. Confusion about the most elementary concepts obviously leads to confusion about the most elementary rules; which is par for the course for one who does not like people who adhere to them.
Read the linked article, and see what kind of twisted thinking the man has: “share your bread with the hungry, this is the kind of fasting that the Lord wants!”
No! No! No! The kind of fasting that the Lord wants is the fast! the fast! What’s so difficult in that?
Confusion, and hate for the rules. Clearly two of the items on Francis’ agenda.
The new interview to the Corriere della Sera is far less stupid than the old one to Repubblica. But this does not mean that it is deprived of disquieting statements; both in what it says and in what it chooses not to say. Statements, mind, which would have been less disquieting if said from a different Pope, but appear in a different light as they have been pronounced by this one.
As I write, I have side by side the Italian text of the Corriere and an English translation from Zenit. I have noticed no particular blunders, but I am not always satisfied with the translation (my bad, no doubt), so I have tweaked it very slightly here and there.
Below, the points on which I would like to comment. Underlined words are mine.
La tenerezza e la misericordia sono l’essenza del suo messaggio pastorale…
«E del Vangelo. È il centro del Vangelo. Altrimenti non si capisce Gesù Cristo, la tenerezza del Padre che lo manda ad ascoltarci, a guarirci, a salvarci».
Tenderness and mercy are the essence of your pastoral message…
“And of the Gospel. They are the heart of the Gospel. Otherwise, one doesn’t understand Jesus Christ, or the tenderness of the Father who sends Him to listen to us, to cure us, to save us”.
I wonder what one understands of Jesus Christ if one does not know that he will well be damned if he refuses to accept Him and His Church. You read Francis and you think he is reminding you that “Jesus saves” as he would remind you that dinner will be served at 8 pm.
Ma è stato compreso questo messaggio? Lei ha detto che la francescomania non durerà a lungo. C’è qualcosa nella sua immagine pubblica che non le piace?
«Mi piace stare tra la gente, insieme a chi soffre, andare nelle parrocchie. Non mi piacciono le interpretazioni ideologiche, una certa mitologia di papa Francesco. Quando si dice per esempio che esce di notte dal Vaticano per andare a dar da mangiare ai barboni in via Ottaviano. Non mi è mai venuto in mente. Sigmund Freud diceva, se non sbaglio, che in ogni idealizzazione c’è un’aggressione. Dipingere il Papa come una sorta di superman, una specie di star, mi pare offensivo. Il Papa è un uomo che ride, piange, dorme tranquillo e ha amici come tutti. Una persona normale».
But was this message understood? You said that the “Francis mania” wouldn’t last long. Is there something of your public image that you don’t like?
“I like to be among the people, with those who suffer, and to go to the parishes. I don’t like ideological interpretations, a certain mythology of Pope Francis. When it is said, for instance, that I go out from the Vatican at night to feed beggars on Via Ottaviano – I never even thought of it. Sigmund Freud said, if I’m not mistaken, that in all idealization there is an aggression. To paint the Pope as if he is a sort of Superman, a sort of star, I find offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps peacefully and has friends like everyone else. He is a normal person”.
Not many messages of indignation when he received the journalist of Rolling Stone who then gave him the cover; or when a fag magazine did the same; or when Time made him “man/woman/transgender being of the year”. Or when an abortionist organisation thanked him in public.
No. he only has a problem when people think he goes out at night among the beggars. Thank God he doesn’t. At least that.
Le sono dispiaciute quelle accuse di marxismo, soprattutto americane, dopo la pubblicazione dell’Evangelii Gaudium?
«Per nulla. Non ho mai condiviso l’ideologia marxista, perché non è vera, ma ho conosciuto tante brave persone che professavano il marxismo».
Were you annoyed that they accused you of being Marxist, especially in the United States, after the publication of “Evangelii Gaudium”?
Were you annoyed that they accused you of being Marxist, especially in the United States, after the publication of “Evangelii Gaudium”?
“Not at all. I never shared the Marxist ideology because it’s false, but I knew many good persons who professed Marxism.”
Substitute “marxist” for Nazist, and see how it looks: “Not at all. I never shared the Nazist ideology because it’s false, but I knew many good persons who professed Nazism”.
If it sounds creepy and stupid, it’s because the original answer is.
Gli scandali che hanno turbato la vita della Chiesa sono fortunatamente alle spalle. Le è stato rivolto, sul delicato tema degli abusi sui minori, un appello pubblicato dal Foglio e firmato tra gli altri dai filosofi Besançon e Scruton perché lei faccia sentire alta la sua voce contro i fanatismi e la cattiva coscienza del mondo secolarizzato che rispetta poco l’infanzia.
The scandals that perturbed the life of the Church fortunately are now in the past. On the delicate topic of the abuse of minors, philosophers Besancon and Scruton among others, asked you to raise your voice against fanaticism and the bad faith of the secularized world that doesn’t respect childhood much.
Damn journalists. The petition of Il Foglio was in order for Francis to make his voice heard against the attacks on the Church from the UN and other secular organisations. The Corriere conveniently ignores this. Congratulations.
Francis’ answer is the usual fluff, not worthy of a comment.
Lei ha indicato nella globalizzazione, soprattutto finanziaria, alcuni dei mali che aggrediscono l’umanità. Ma la globalizzazione ha strappato dall’indigenza milioni di persone. Ha dato speranza, un sentimento raro da non confondere con l’ottimismo.
«È vero, la globalizzazione ha salvato dalla povertà molte persone, ma ne ha condannate tante altre a morire di fame, perché con questo sistema economico diventa selettiva. La globalizzazione a cui pensa la Chiesa assomiglia non a una sfera, nella quale ogni punto è equidistante dal centro e in cui quindi si perde la peculiarità dei popoli, ma a un poliedro, con le sue diverse facce, per cui ogni popolo conserva la propria cultura, lingua, religione, identità. L’attuale globalizzazione “sferica” economica , e soprattutto finanziaria, produce un pensiero unico, un pensiero debole. Al centro non vi è più la persona umana, solo il denaro».
You identify in globalization, especially financial, some of the evils that humanity suffers. However, globalization brought millions of people out of poverty. It brought hope, a rare sentiment that must not be confused with optimism.
Holy Father: It’s true, globalization saved many people from misery, but it condemned many others to die of hunger, because with this economic system it becomes selective. The globalization that the Church thinks of does not look like a sphere in which every point is equidistant from the center and in which, therefore, the particularity of peoples is lost. It is, rather, a polyhedron, with its different facets, in which each nation keeps its own culture, language, religion, identity. The present “spherical” economic globalization, especially the financial, produces one thought, a weak thought. And the human person is no longer at its center but only money.
I am trying very hard to remember when I have read something as stupid as “globalisation condemned many people to die of hunger”. No idea. Must have been something concerning global warming, though. The rest of the statement exposes the appalling ignorance of this man in terms of economics, a discipline he must have learnt from trannies in the favela. And I am no friend of globalisation, either.
A mezzo secolo dall’Humanae Vitae di Paolo VI, la Chiesa può riprendere il tema del controllo delle nascite? Il cardinale Martini, suo confratello, riteneva che fosse ormai venuto il momento.
«Tutto dipende da come viene interpretata l’Humanae Vitae. Lo stesso Paolo VI, alla fine, raccomandava ai confessori molta misericordia, attenzione alle situazioni concrete. Ma la sua genialità fu profetica, ebbe il coraggio di schierarsi contro la maggioranza, di difendere la disciplina morale, di esercitare un freno culturale, di opporsi al neo-malthusianesimo presente e futuro. La questione non è quella di cambiare la dottrina, ma di andare in profondità e far sì che la pastorale tenga conto delle situazioni e di ciò che per le persone è possibile fare. Anche di questo si parlerà nel cammino del Sinodo».
Half a century after Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” can the Church take up again the topic of birth control? Your confrere, Cardinal [Carlo Maria] Martini [the late Archbishop of Milan] believed it was now time.
“It all depends on how the text of “Humanae Vitae”is interpreted. Paul VI himself, towards the end, recommended to confessors much mercy and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism. The object is not to change the doctrine, but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do. This will also be discussed on the path to the Synod”.
These are extremely disquieting words. Francis is saying that you don’t need to do what Martini advocated through a new encyclical, you merely need to read the existing one in a “pastoral” way! “Going into the issue in depth” seems to be the way this disgraceful man will try to sabotage every aspect of Catholicism that stays in the way of his V II on steroids.
Molti Paesi regolano le unioni civili. È una strada che la Chiesa può comprendere? Ma fino a che punto?
«Il matrimonio è fra un uomo e una donna. Gli Stati laici vogliono giustificare le unioni civili per regolare diverse situazioni di convivenza, spinti dall’esigenza di regolare aspetti economici fra le persone, come ad esempio assicurare l’assistenza sanitaria. Si tratta di patti di convivenza di varia natura, di cui non saprei elencare le diverse forme. Bisogna vedere i diversi casi e valutarli nella loro varietà».
Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
“Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity”.
Loaded question. “But” implies that the Church “can understand”, which is poppycock. But this is not the worst.
The worst is that we have a Pope that does not know jack about Christian morality. Faced with people who give scandal and live in mortal sin, he says we must look at the economic aspects of their living in sin instead of saying they must not live in sin. To him, it’s important that people go to hell with adequate medical insurance cover. He wants to look at this case by case, you know. It should not be said the Pope agrees with concubines not getting the economic aspects of their lives properly regulated. Has he no idea why these rules are there in the first place?
Come verrà promosso il ruolo della donna nella Chiesa?
«Anche qui la casistica non aiuta. È vero che la donna può e deve essere più presente nei luoghi di decisione della Chiesa. Ma questa io la chiamerei una promozione di tipo funzionale. Solo così non si fa tanta strada. Bisogna piuttosto pensare che la Chiesa ha l’articolo femminile “la”: è femminile dalle origini. Il grande teologo Urs von Balthasar lavorò molto su questo tema: il principio mariano guida la Chiesa accanto a quello petrino. La Vergine Maria è più importante di qualsiasi vescovo e di qualsiasi apostolo. L’approfondimento teologale è in corso. Il cardinale Rylko, con il Consiglio dei Laici, sta lavorando in questa direzione con molte donne esperte di varie materie».
How will the role of women be promoted within the Church?
“Casuistry doesn’t help in this case either. It’s true that women can and must be more present in decision-making posts of the Church. But I would call this a promotion of a functional type. And with that alone, one doesn’t advance much. Rather, we must think that the Church has the feminine article, “la”: it is feminine by origin. Theologian Urs von Balthasar worked a lot on this topic: the Marian principle guides the Church by the hand of the Petrine principle. The Virgin is more important than any Bishop and any of the Apostles. The theological reflection is already underway. Cardinal [Stanislaw] Rylko [president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity], together with the Council of the Laity, is working in this direction with many expert women”.
Another loaded question. Why would the “role of women” need to be promoted? Was the Blessed Virgin “underpromoted”? Did St Theresa of Avila ask that women be “more present in decision making-posts of the Church”? Francis says some smart things in the answer (cue the reference to the Blessed Virgin), but for the rest takes refuge in the usual fluffy rhetoric.
In cauda venenum: the very worst of this interview is possibly not in what the Not-So-Holy Father said, but in what he did not say. I read some days ago he purposely chose to avoid the issue of so-called same-sex relationships.
Heavens! One is Pope, decides to give an interview and says “but please let us not talk about the issues that will make me unpopular!”.
This man is fully bent on destroying as much as he can of traditional Catholicism, whilst avoiding everything that can damage his own reputation in what he will not be able to destroy.
“If it can be demolished, let’s do it in a “pastoral” way. If it can’t, please let’s avoid the issue”. This is Francis’ platform in one line.
Lord, have mercy.
The recent utterances of Francis The Destroyer are, if you ask me, potentially far more dangerous than the translation blunder about the “ascetic” priests. And this time, it cannot be a problem of translation.
There is in Francis’ observation an insisted reference to a “new time”, the “time of mercy”. The man truly thinks that times go on in blocks. We had the time of, say, justice, where the church cared about the rules. Now we are in the time of mercy; a time which will obviously require new rules and a new attitude, otherwise it would not make any sense to say that we are in a “new time” anyway.
This is first class, quality-certified, prize-winning New Age bollocks. And it profoundly undermines and seeks to destroy – like all talk of “new times” – Christianity.
If we live in new times of mercy, we must deduct that we are stuck with the Jesus of the old times. If we live in a new time, there’s no way of saying what should be preserved – and what, necessarily, discarded – of the rules given to us in, and for, the “old times”.
I have never seen anyone talking of “new times” without linking to it the aspiration to, or the demand of, profound changes. It is not clear to me why Francis, of all people, should not entertain such ideas.
And this is exactly what he is doing. As more and more Catholics understand this Pope is genuinely subversive, he must gradually explain to them why this is so. Enter the “new time”, conveniently used every time the doctrine flies out of the window. And notice that he tries to hide behind his finger and say that the “new age” actually started with JP II; an alleged fact the planet never noticed, and of which it must now be informed by Francis.
Now don’t get me wrong: it is always easy to pick one word here and one phrase there of some past Pope and say “look, he said it already!” Protestants do it all the time with the Bible! But as always, you must understand what the agenda behind the words is, and there can be no doubt Francis’ agenda is to pump V II with “mercy” steroids like it’s a Russian athlete in the Eighties, until Justice is all but invisible, and Goodness made a mockery of.
I can hear the Pollyannas already, getting all excited about the “new papacy” for the “new times”.
At “Patheos” they will be screaming like little girlies.
I might be wrong, but I think this “mercy” thing – including hostage-taking of soon-to-be-canonised JP II – will be used to justify an awful lot of heresies in the years to come.
The “new time” is coming. Fasten your seat belts, and pray the Lords he gives us back the old times soon.
I receive, and cannot avoid posting, this piece of unspeakable excrement.
This is clearly NOT a parish priest of the Only Church; rather, one of the idiots of bogus splinter groups thinking it’s fine to dress as Catholic priests. The smell of brimstone comes up to here.
That the man is a faggot he says himself, but you understand it as soon as he speaks in front of the camera.
Now your truly asks: what kind of diabolical delusion, of stupidity beyond words, can lead these hacks to even think of implying that there are priests of the Only Church who do such things?
The bastards obviously protect themselves by stating the official name of the bogus congregation with its own bogus “ordination”, but there can be no doubt they want you to believe this is a Catholic priest.
They keep one step away from a lawsuit, but I am rather sure most viewers will not get the subtleties.
Heavens, if some Satanist were to say “I am a priest of the Catholic Church of XYZ”, would they make a report on him “celebrating” black masses, with the anchor saying “generally Catholic priests do not celebrate black masses, but look at this one!” ?.
Faggots. All of them. Even the heteros.
Difficult times are in store for Catholics. Besides the already questionable canonisation of JP II, the even more questionable “miracle” attributed to Paul VI, and still called “miracle”, opens even more disquieting questions about what is happening with the canonisations, and how a Catholic is to react to such news.
To me, the question is very simple: either canonisations are infallible, or they aren't.
It is my understanding that canonisations are infallible. That is, that God will not allow canonisations of people who are not in Paradise. If you read attentively the relevant entry in the Catholic encyclopedia, you will see that this opinion is so dominant as to allow us to consider it what the Church has generally believed: not because it is a self-evident truth, but because it appears a rather logical consequence of the cult of the Saints, and it is not given to see – to me at least – how the first can be crushed without very gravely damaging the second. I do not need to tell you that with a decree of canonisation the Pope orders (not allows) to believe that such and such is in heaven.
This is, mind, not dependent on the actual ways or procedures which led to the proclamation of someone as a saint. The highly structured process we know today – and which remained structurally unchanged until JPII raped it with the abolition of the advocatus diaboli – was not followed until many centuries after the first martyrs; and whilst we know in the earlier times martyrs had a kind of monopoly on the canonisations, I can't imagine we can get certainty of rigorous procedures for several centuries of Church history. Again, the Catholic encyclopedia has interesting words about the confessors and the gradual evolution of the process.
What shall we do, then: divide the saints into those with the “quality seal” of a rigorous procedure, and the others? Does everything come down to picking a “safe bet?” Is a martyr a “safer bet” than a confessor? As far as I know, many are the Saints who were acclaimed such by the Christians in Rome. Were they all martyrs? Are we so sure? And what about those believed saints in force of strong conviction of the Catholic world?
Does not the entire concept of the culto dei Santi repose on the concept of infallibility? Who of you, on buying a book about the Saints, questions the legitimacy of some of them? “Hhhmmmm… Saint such and such. Canonised in 931. A period of great Church corruption. Hhhmmm… No, I don't really trust this one”.
I am at a loss to understand how it can work this way. If the Church tells me that Saint Quisque is in Heaven, and She orders me to believe it, either she says it infallibly or the statement makes no sense, because there is no way to verify the entrance of the saint in Heaven with the measure of Church doctrine. When Francis tells me this or that rubbish about, say, the Blessed Virgin, I can check whether it is conform to tradition or not. When he tells me that Paul VI is in heaven, I must believe that God does not allow him to cheat me on that.
And in fact, it seems to me that to be a “doubter” implies the belief in a rather timid God, who would allow a Pope to cheat us in such a way that we cannot see that he is cheating, whilst allowing him to order us that we believe him without proof, and merely on faith.
Or you can say it in this way: no one can, without committing a mortal sin, allow himself an authoritative statement that, say, Paul VI is not in heaven. If, therefore, we cannot demonstrate that he is not, we must believe that God did not deceive us when He allowed the Church to believe for 2,000 years that a Pope can tell us that someone is.
I have more confidence in God's work than to doubt a canonisation, unsavoury or seemingly absurd as it may seem. I think that God stays behind the deal He has given us, and will crush Francis like a mosquito, or otherwise impede the canonisations, if JP II and John XXIII are not in heaven on the day appointed. This is what our forefathers have always believed, and this is what I will continue to believe, in the confidence that what was held sacred by all generations before me applies to this wretched generation, too.
“Ah, but this time is different!”, some will say.
Look: a lot of times were “different” already. Nihil sub sole novi. We have gone, in the history of the Church, through astonishingly corrupt times, and with Popes to match; but still, our forefathers trusted God not to allow a Pope to cheat them in such matters; not ever, irrespective of the deficiencies of the Pope, the canonisation process, or the mistakes made in life by the canonised person. Nor do we divide the Popes in Popes of First, Second and Third Class concerning canonisations.
Will I, then, erect myself as judge of another's acceptance in Heaven, when God does not give me a way to make a judgment, nay, he explicitly forbids me to make it? Will I die with such a sin of presumption on my conscience when I know, absolutely know, that this is just the thing concerning which it is part of the Divine Plan that I should not be allowed to judge for myself?
How can I know what tests Paul VI had to pass? How do I know with what virulence he was attacked? How do I know he did not get a valid plenary indulgence, dying – after all his mistakes – perfectly contrite for them, absolved of everything, and with nothing more to pay? How can I know that, if he did go to purgatory, he is still there?
“But Mundabor! He had no heroic virtue! He was an appeaser to his last breath!” It might well be so; it was very probably so; but whilst heroic virtue is a frequent appearance by canonised saints, it is not a requirement. The canonisation decree does not require you to believe in one's heroic virtue, merely that he is in heaven.
I am, as you might or might not have noticed, unhesitatingly critical of the Bishop of Rome when I think he is way out of line. I do it whenever I can see – through the comparison of his own behaviour and statement with objectively recognisable Church doctrine, basic decency, or common sense – that he is behaving in strident contrast to what is required of him. I do so persuaded that as God gives us a clearly recognisable set of rules, He also puts on us the duty to verify their observance, and to make us heard if this is not the case. If God has allowed you to see, you have no right to make yourself blind.
If, however, it is not given to me to verify that what the Pope states is in accordance with God's rules, but the rules of the Church tell me I have to believe it anyway and God will take care the Pope does not mess around, then I will do the only thing I am able to do, and the only thing that is left to do: submit, believe, and obey.
How can God allow that there be officially canonised bogus Saints? Would this not be an offence to all the true ones, a mockery of their sainthood, and a bomb put under the devotion of the Church Militant? How can this be squared with what your grand-grandmother has always believed, and believed because this is what the Church has constantly taught? What kind of Traditionalism is that?
Now, I am absolutely sure in the next weeks and months all kind of theories will emerge. Minority positions held once upon a time by the one or the other. Strange theories about the Church not really saying what everyone has always believed the Church was saying. Outlandish snippets of Saints of the past taken out of context.
I promise you, I will read whatever comes from worthy sources – like the SSPX, of course – with great attention; but frankly, the obstacle as we write the 5 March 2014 seems insurmountable to me, because against it is the huge wall of an infallibility I cannot but see as generally believed these last 2,000 years.
When it is not given to understand, then, I think, is the moment to obey. I cannot understand everything, but – sinner as I am – I will strive to obey in everything I can. Christ will not ask me, on that fateful day, if I was the smartest of the bunch, or had not come to the conclusion that the Church He found was wrong in what I can't prove wrong. I hope He will, at least in this matter, be satisfied enough that having been given no instruments to understand which is which, I have trusted what He said I have to believe in the matter.
Terrible times are awaiting us. We have apparently arrived to the mockery of the miracle – just to be logical: the “cure” of a feared malformation, or disease, is no cure at all -. But even a miracle is no necessary component of God calling one to heaven; and it is merely a procedural – and again: not obligatory – step of the current or even the old canonisation process. Let the proclamations of “miracles” become as stupid as they want. God will not be fooled by them.
I will therefore believe – until sensible evidence to the contrary – in the infallibility of canonisations.
If Francis is playing fast and loose with God even on this, I trust God will rid us of the canonisation, and possibly of the Pope himself; because whilst God will allow him to say he slaps people on the wrist at the most – which every Christian can see is rubbish – God will not allow him to make a mockery of Sainthood.
Put your trust in the Lord. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Another translation blunder, this time on Vatican Insider.
Francis is talking of asettico, not ascetico.
This is a common expressions in Italian to say “with no obvious faults, but no real substance and merit”.
The translation of Vatican Insider states “ascetic” priests “do not help the Church”, making a mess of things.
Interestingly enough, my self-correction software makes the same mistake, transforming “aseptic” into “ascetic”.
These damn self-correction thingies will start wars one day. I can't even switch off mine. It's really a nuisance.
Every translator knows the difference between the two words. This is a glitch helped by the self-correction software, methinks. I am sure it will be corrected soon.
By the by, the article is disquieting in other ways. But this is for a separate post.
Predictably, the Francis effect is unfolding.
Not only there is an army of Catholics openly at variance with the Church, but in the new Age of Stupidity this army more and more gets to believe that Francis and his successors will move things in their direction. The perception clearly generated is that Francis will demolish all he can demolish himself, and pave the way for further demolitions after him.
The wrecking ball humbly devastating Catholicism is, predictably, also showing its destructive effect on the sacraments. Five percent say they now go to confession more often, twenty two percent less. Is it surprising? With a Pope treating all sacraments like something that does nothing else than improving your day – remember: he cannot imagine God doing more than slapping one on the wrist; salvation is open even to atheists; Muslims should cling to their own religion; Jews have their own reserved lane to Jesus – how can one be surprised that the sacraments are neglected?
I suspect the five percent going to confession more often do it rather as a reaction to Francis than because they like him. Those who like him have no reason to do anything than feel pleased with themselves: no judging anymore, no fear of the Lord. Converting others no Catholicism? No, no, no!
Sit back and relax: the Humble Pope will tell you everything you need to hear.
One year later, the damage made by the Age of Stupidity cannot be ignored. The demolition is not even subtle. It's brutally explicit, vulgar, unashamed of its own irreligiousness, shouted from the rooftops.
Please, Lord, free us from this scourge.
After the recent experiences, I will wait that I have the time to read, re-read and read again the papal interview to the Corriere. It will not be today, and possibly not tomorrow. Saturday at the latest.
This time the interview was recorded; it possibly seeming strange that Francis is ready to record his spontaneous post-lunch ecumaniacal rubbish on the first smartphone around, but does not want his interviews with professional journalists to be recorded.
Some preliminary considerations of a general nature can be done now.
Legal sanctions are not there because our forefathers were stupid. They are there because our forefathers had values, and ordered their legal system in accordance to them.
Illegitimate children used to have no legal rights to a part of the inheritance, because it was considered obvious that the defence of family values demanded that the legitimate children be afforded a protection that could not be automatically extended to illegitimate ones. Of course they could still inherit a large portion of the estate. But they had no right to an automatic entitlement, and no right to the part of the estate to which the wife and legitimate children were automatically entitled.
The same principles applied, and in part still apply in countries like Italy, to other aspects of everyday life. Of course the concubine has no rights to the estate. She is the concubine, not the wife. There's a huge difference, and this difference cannot be downplayed without downplaying marriage.
I trust a boy of twelve understands this after a moment of reflection. I trust everyone understands that you can't protect certain values, any values, without giving whenever appropriate a different legal treatment to those situations that are outside of the protected ones.
To say “I support marriage” and to advocate that the concubine have the same rights than the wife is, very obviously, undermining marriage. To say “I support the family” and to give illegitimate children the same inheritance rights of the legitimate ones is, very obviously, undermining the family, and so on.
Some people think as if the past generations had been stupid. They weren't stupid. Not only they were smart, but they were also coherent with the values they professed.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say the family must be protected, and undermine it for the sake of inclusiveness; or say you are in favour of marriage, and demand that the concubine get the same privileges and legal status of the wife.
Again, I do not know to what extent this applies to what Francis said, but I have an inkling it might be relevant. This just as a heads up and general reflection. More of it when I have read about the latest utterances of our Not-So-Holy Father.
Aaaahhhh, this is good for the heart.
The European Elections are coming. An excellent way to send a message.
My vote goes to the UKIP. Not that they are exempt from faggotry infiltrations, but it’s better to let them know what pays electorally and what not, and at the same time show the Tories where the votes go when they behave like Eltons.
And punish that faggot.
Punish that faggot.
I have written a blog post about – to put it politely – casogate.
The post contained the following:
I can only imagine two situations here: 1. There is in Spanish a word that sounds like the “c” word Francis has employed, but with an innocuous meaning. In this case, it may well be that someone has a momentary confusion, and says the wrong word utterly unintentionally, and innocently. This would explain the extremely natural way in which the Pope has pronounced the word, as if it were a word he uses commonly.
2. Francis speaks like a builder in those rare times out of the reach of a camera or microphone, and has – like the typical working class male – sexual imagery constantly on his head; which translates in constant foul language; which translates in the absence of fuses of any kind; which causes the event in the video above.
I receive this from an extremely reliable source, who asked for anonymity.
I’m pretty sure your n. 2 is correct. Every single one of [many people] in Argentina always told us that Bergoglio’s language in private used to be the “construction workers” kind… You know, hijodep…, mie…., cara…., maric…., cul…, etc. I bet within Vatican walls that hasn’t changed much in Italian, one of his three native languages (along with the Piedmontese dialect of his father and grandparents, considered here as a language by itself, and the Spanish of his environment.)
This frankly matches with what I immediately thought; because let me tell you again, there are words in Italian you never say by accident. It matches, therefore, with what every Italian would think in a similar situation, if not the Pope but a quisque de populo was involved.
The source is anonymous. It’s up to you what to make of it. I believe it without hesitation, and think we should have our eyes opened as to what is happening here.
I do not know Spanish. I thought perhaps the same word means something else in Spanish (say: “burro” is “butter” in Italian, and I think it’s “donkey” in Spanish). No one posted to say what the c-word means in Spanish.
Every time some prelate does something scandalous, there is no shortage of supposed background scenarios. The FFI isn't being trampled on because they are orthodox, it's because there are “internal divisions” (no one knows exactly in which form) and there is an enquiry concerning “possible abuses” (no one knows which; must be terrible things, anyway…).
The same is happening now with the Fisher More College: there are other things in the background; the college is drifting on a conservative course; the priest wasn't authorised; the priest might have been SSPX, or perhaps not; crypto-lefebvrianism was ripe; perhaps Sedevacantism, too; one doesn't really know; I mean, what do we know…
Let us look at the facts instead. The facts are that Bishop Olson has not written to the College a letter of pastoral direction; warning them, say, from the new sin of “excessive doctrinal security”. No, he has written to them saying, in so many words, “I order you to stop the TLM, for the good of your own soul; but you can celebrate the NO instead, because there's no danger for your soul in that”. The letter was read to those affected, and then (oportet ut scandala eveniant) leaked. These are the facts.
There can always be “something else”. There is always “something else” happening in pretty much everything. But it is astonishing that wherever a prelate is to be justified, utterly irrelevant circumstances of facts become the reason why something wrong was made.
Facts are facts. Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to invade Poland. “There were incidents at the frontier” is a perfectly irrelevant explanation for the invasion, whether the incidents were – hypothetically – there, or not.
Open your eyes. The facts are there, for everyone to see.
The beginning of Lent is a beautiful day to start praying the Rosary.
The SSPX is running a wonderful Rosary Crusade.
All details on my blog post and the original link.
The day after a shameless, open attack to Summorum Pontificum, and the scandal is now everywhere.
The obvious arrogance of a Bishop thinking he has something to say as to whether a priest can or cannot celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass is compounded by the arrogance – truly typical of Francis; his minions learn fast – with which the man clearly implies the TLM is bad for the attendants' soul. I am sure he would prefer a Pinocchio Mass to the Tridentine. At least when I look at the picture.
Bishop Olson is a beautiful example of the type of bishop Francis will give us. The rather stupid grin in the picture above is typical of the modern non-authoritarian bishop; one who will insist in being seen as a harmful uncle, but will not hesitate to bully those who are in the way of his destructive agenda without any sense of shame, and perfectly sure of impunity. A bully, and an enemy of Christ. These V II smiling uncles are all the same.
Will the bishop backpedal in front of the obvious recognition that he is going ultra vires?
Why would he? He is leading the charge of the sans Mozzetta, and unless a phone call from Rome praises him and tells him he was a good boy, but it is now time to reassure the neocons before the next assault, there is no need for him to admit any mistake, or fear any consequence from higher places.
It astonishes me how there are people who do not understand where this is going. Francis might not have the gut to officially abrogate Summorum Pontificum, but by now it should be obvious to a moron that he will not do anything against those bishops wanting to play sheriff on their own diocese, and SP be stuffed. Unless he should, every now and then, see the need to give some birds food to his neocon pigeons, in which case we will have some symbolic gesture that will fill the Pollyannas with delight. “Look, he has visited the tomb of St. Pius X! Must be orthodox, then!”
This is not about Dr King, or internal affairs within the College. The TLM is obviously nothing to do with internal squabbles. It's the Sacrifice of the Mass, not an internal appointment.
No. This is about an entire world. A world that is growing all over the West and is crying to heaven the failure, the arrogance, the irreligiousness, the stupidity, and the unspeakable arrogance of the V II apparatchiks who are ruining the Church whilst smiling like cretins.
Bishop Olson incarnates them perfectly. Not one month in the office, and he is already in an extremely good position to win the 2014 Francis' Helper Of The Year Award. He probably dreams of the cover of Vanity Fair. Hey, the Humble Francis did not have anything against it, either.
Pray for the soul of this confused man. And of the one who made him bishop.
Yours truly believes in robust language. If the Bible has “whore” (perhaps not many translations have it; but the classical ones do), then he will not consider himself too fine for the Bible. Evidently, God inspired the use of robust language, when a robust concept has to be expressed. This blog is a permanent testimony of the blog author's opinion in the matter.
Like any other fairly well educated Italian male – to women other rules apply, because of the natural sweetness and gentleness of their sex – I consider language a tool, with which to express all the multicoloured nuances of life and, alas, of the Italian character. But like every other person, I have “mental fuses” preventing me from pronouncing certain words; words the mind generally recoils from even thinking. Still, on very rare occasions, an overflow of adrenaline will cause all fuses to explode; and then – but only then – certain very vulgar words – not words you find in the Bible, like “whore”, or words you intentionally use as mockery and communication tool, like “faggot”; but a world like the Italian “c” word - may get out of my mouth; a behaviour for which, by the way, anger can be an extenuating circumstance, but no excuse.
Now: in Italian there are many popular ways to express the male genitals. A socially avceptable way in a joking all-male (note: all male) context is, say, uccello (bird). Far more vulgar, but still used by people of lesser sophistication, or who are getting rather emotional, is the word pisello (“pea”; but actually rather “cock”).
But then there is another word, off the chart in the vulgarity scale, and never used in conversation among, say, people who had Latin at school or care for proper language. I know no English equivalent for it, as “prick” does not even begin to give the meaning. This very vulgar word is, to use the previous imagery, protected by numerous fuses, and his use will only be occasioned, in better educated people, by barely controllable busts of rage. It needs a truly massive flow of adrenaline to cause an educated Italian layman to say the “c” word. I cannot imagine a priest ever using it; not even a Don Camillo in the midst of a fisticuff party with a bunch of communists.
Imagine the other “c” word existing in English. The four-lettered one. Could you imagine it ever used by a priest, no matter how angry?
Not so, it must sadly be said, for the male working classes; who, having sex permanently in their mind, use that word liberally. But we are talking here of what we in Italy call linguaggio da muratore, “builders' language”, which is a different animal altogether.
The Italian working classes can be compared, in their vulgar language, to many Brits and Americans, who use the “f” word with great liberality. But in general, and among halfway educated people, the Italian “c” word would be consider graver than the English “f” word, simply for the reason that Italian – like German, or French – is socially much better protected from swearing than English.
And here comes the point: in all my years in Italy I have never, never ever, never ever ever heard such a vulgar word come out of anyone's mouth as a slip of the tongue. The obvious system of mental fuses I have explained above takes care that this does not happen. Not to the one who learnt Latin, of course; but believe me: not to the builder, either. Not to the builder, either.
If, therefore, anyone were to utter such a word as a slip of the tongue – something which, let us say it once again, I have never experienced; never, ever – I could not escape the impression that the person having such “slip” of the tongue has such a dirty mind, and uses vulgar language so liberally in his private conversation, that the fuses are just not there; and when this is the case, it is just a matter of time before the filth one has inside comes out.
Think of the four-lettered English “c” word, and reflect on how often you heard it pronounced as a slip of the tongue. It can't be, can it? Too many fuses protecting your mouth. Simple as that.
Now, I can only imagine two situations here:
1. There is in Spanish a word that sounds like the “c” word Francis has employed, but with an innocuous meaning. In this case, it may well be that someone has a momentary confusion, and says the wrong word utterly unintentionally, and innocently. This would explain the extremely natural way in which the Pope has pronounced the word, as if it were a word he uses commonly.
2. Francis speaks like a builder in those rare times out of the reach of a camera or microphone, and has – like the typical working class male – sexual imagery constantly on his head; which translates in constant foul language; which translates in the absence of fuses of any kind; which causes the event in the video above.
If this was the first time this Pope is disquieting, I would try to shrug the incident away as an embarrassing moment, though a very embarrassing one.
As this, though, comes from the Pope who says all the scandalous things Francis says, I wonder whether God is not sending us a message here: gently helping the Pollyannas to understand they just cannot trust the spontaneous statements of the man.
Let me say it once again: this can be a language mishap, due to Spanish being his first tongue. But barring this, boy, this is a mind I would not want to look into
US Secretary of State Kerry is so stupid that he compares the recent Ugandan measures against sexual perversions to Nazi Germany.
Some facts for Mr Kerry:
1. There was only one Country in Europe or North America that allowed Abortion in the Thirties. It was Nazi Germany. Abortion in its most extreme forms is a flag of the Obama Administration.
2. Sodomy laws were in place all over the West until a few decades ago. Including all the Western countries that defeated Nazism.
Who is the Nazi, then?
On another note, and as you read in the same article, the World Bank has frozen aid money for Uganda after the adoption of the law. Unfortunately for them with no results, at least for now. But make no mistake, the bullying will continue.
Leading the charge are countries like Norway, Danemark and the Netherlands; all of them heavy sponsors of sexual perversion, or euthanasia, or both.
Let us pray countries like Uganda – last time I look, a success story for African standards in the last decades – find the economic and spiritual strength to go on without the bribes of an increasingly nazified West.