Category Archives: Bad Shepherds
Cardinal Dolan has found another way to make an ass of himself or, seen from his perspective, to gain more points with the powers that be whilst trying to appear orthodox.
The Cardinal's intervention has already caused an uproar during the weekend, so I will not repeat what many other have eloquently written. I will, though, allow myself a couple of considerations about the motives and the forma mentis of this despicable man.
Cardinal Dolan doesn't care two straws for murdered children, or Catholicism come to that. It is clear to him the habit is a way to pursue a career exactly in the same way as he might have pursued a career, say, in marketing or, rather, politics.
In order to advance his career with the best chances of success, the Cardinal needs to do the following:
1. Be perceived as “strong” by those who do not closely follow his action; basically, he needs to be a “tough guy by hearsay”.
2. Be perceived by mainstream politicians of both colours as a safe bet: one who will never give anyone serious trouble and can therefore be helped to rise high, or at least not hindered from doing so.
3. Create an image of “popular guy”: the smiling uncle Cardinal you'd want at your table at Thanksgiving, obviously hoping he doesn't eat all the turkey.
4. Be seen by his fellow Cardinal as a harmless guy they can elect without fear of surprises; one who will produce himself in that kind of popular waffling they love so much without seriously angering anyone. The Cardinals have just elected one of those, by the way; so it works.
Notice how relentlessly the Cardinal pushes his agenda, and how well it is working for him. Observant Catholics do know he is a bad 'un, but why should he care? His public perception is what counts, and his public perception is doing just fine. The last threat of a “holy war” against a, erm, “Catholic in good standing” may be a total contradiction and an extremely stupid thing to say, but this is not how it will go down in the public opinion. For the masses, the perception will be of a tough Cardinal, because they do not think to the point of wondering what all this though talk will in the end lead to, and how can you threat holy wars without having the gut to say Cuomo is an evil man on his way to hell who must be annihilated. Dolan's wars are, evidently, fought by guffawing.
You can therefore see how the outrage among the fringe group of devout and attentive Catholics does not disturb the Cardinal in the least. Pope Francis will not be Pope forever, and with the years he will grow in stature and in weight (erm, cough) among his fellow Cardinals.
Make no mistake. His strategy is working just fine.
The news is very recent that Cardinal O’Brien would have been ordered to leave Britain and retire in a location evidently chosen by them.
The decision isn’t surprising as, rather astonishingly – or perhaps not; you choose – the troubled Cardinal planned to retire not in a monastery, to spend the rest of his life in retirement and prayer as would be natural in a man just disgraced for his sexual perversion, but in a rural cottage in the fairly remote East Lothian (Country? Scotland, of course!), near a “lifelong friend”. Now let us reflect…
an old homosexual; living apparently alone; in an isolated cottage; located in a parish led by an “old friend” of his; in the same country he has disgraced.
Is it surprising the Vatican has now intervened? I don’t think so.
What is surprising, though, is that the “old friend” of the Cardinal plans to challenge the plan himself, and here the echoes of “vicious” (old queens) become too loud to be naively dismissed. This “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal is so incensed at not having his lifelong buddy oh so near to his old friendly bosom, that he plans to challenge the decision all alone because he is the (legal) landlord of the cottage in the question and the Church can’t say to him whom to have as guest in his cottages.
Cue his words: “I am 72 years old”, “I have nothing to lose”. How passive-aggressive. Truly, this one looks like a first class bitch. The “I have nothing to lose” hint is also profoundly disquieting, as priests aren’t disgraced for challenging a Vatican’s decision and this, in itself, wouldn’t be a problem at all. What would be the problem is if it emerged the lifelong friendship of the two was anything less than appropriate. In which case the reference to the 72 years old with “nothing to lose” and preferring to risk loss of face to the loss of his “lifelong friend” does begin to make sense.
We do not live on the moon, Father Creanor, and your undue bitching in things that have nothing to do with you are wildly inappropriate in the best of cases, and extremely suspicious – not to say scandalous – in the worst. We are talking of a Cardinal of whom a lifelong homosexual attraction has just been revealed, causing a great scandal and loss of prestige for the Church in Scotland. How near you would prefer to have your homosexual “lifelong friend” is utterly and completely irrelevant.
The Church doesn’t want the Cardinal to live in an isolated cottage, in Scotland of all places, because it is simply not fitting, and actually scandalous, that he does. To whom the cottage belongs is neither here nor there. The Church can order every clergyman to leave wherever they want him to live, period, and it is for no prospective “landlord friend” to challenge this. The Cardinal can, of course. I very much doubt he will.
This a “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal.
Perhaps it would be good practice to get information about one’s “lifelong friends” before considering one for a red hat. Who knows how many painful mistakes might be thus avoided.
The news reaches us Cardinal O’Malley will boycott the latest anti-Christian initiative of the latest Jesuit-run institution.
One must truly be stunned at the amount of damage this evil bunch of (real or honorary) atheist, satanic, homosexual bastards are doing to the Church.
It seems like the Jesuits want to go to hell en masse, and are bent on nothing but the most relentless war against Christ until the last one of them has kicked the bucket.
Yes, there will be a small number of good ones among them. Very few, I suppose. But let us be honest, when I read of them, 99% of the time is because of the way they attack Jesus and the Church.
I have experienced the Jesuits in Wimbledon. They’ll make your blood freeze, and I suspect they are considered moderates among their fellows.
The Pope is now a Jesuit. It’s fair to say he should be considered twice responsible if he doesn’t act against this brood of vipers.
If any of my readers has any personal acquaintance with a good Jesuit, I implore him to post his experiences here. It will be a small counteract to a public action bent on a true War On Christ.
The proposal are extremely offensive to every sound thinking Catholic because the relevant buildings obviously try very hard not to look like churches, which says a lot about the clergymen who have selected them, and who are obviously trying very hard not to do Catholicism.
This is the more offensive to me, an Italian, coming from a Country where beauty is lost worshipped, and countless beautiful churches are such a great part of the beauty we have everywhere, from the Eternal City to most of the small centres and even villages.
These projects are, therefore, expression of people who are not only enemies of spirituality, but also enemies of beauty, which adds insult to injury.
The northern Church is to be located in Ferrara, whose (huge) historic centre makes of it one of the most beautiful cities in the world, no exaggeration. That people accustomed to such stunning beauty may adapt themselves to worship in an opprobrium like the one depicted is more than I can understand. I'd personally prefer to drive or walk longer, and worship where I feel I am, actually, in church.
People more expert than I am will be able to tell you more exactly what the consequences of this for the soul of the fake Catholics involved will be. I personally cannot avoid seeing in such work not only an insult, but an outright attack to Catholicism.
Whenever I see such buildings, I cannot avoid hoping they might one day become the target of some high-precision Israeli air raid. Though frankly more traditional methods would work fine, either.
Our shepherds work against us; either stupidly trying to get some imagined “approval” from the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons, or willingly try to demolish everything that is specifically Christian, let alone Catholic, in our spiritual tradition.
These buildings are not only eminently ugly, they are eminently wordly.
Like the people who promote them.
Shocking, shocking reading at Father Z's. When Father is late for the start of the Mass (apparently because he has commitments elsewhere, requiring driving) a sister starts the wannabe “Mass” herself, up to and including the Readings. At some point “Father” arrives, and he picks up from the point where madwoman has arrived.
This defies imagination: just because the priest is late, a religious sister thinks she can play priest. This reminds me of children who play Mass, though I am sure when they do the “priest” is played by a boy.
Even more absurd – and I wonder why such abuses would not deserve immediate defrocking – is that Father doesn't have any problem with that. You can almost hear him say “thank you for stepping in, Sister”.
Apparently, this happens regularly. Seriously, if Archbishop Zollitsch reads this he might think of making of this a regular feature of Mass in Germany, but on second thoughts not even Zollitsch would be as stupid as that.
Now why do I tell you all this? Because with the Traditional Mass such a madness would be inconceivable. Of course such a parody isn't a Mass, not even with the rather low standards of quality of the Novus Ordo. But if we are honest with ourselves we must see that the shameless devastation and banalisation of the Mass perpetrated by V II is what makes such a madness thinkable in the first place.
Note that the faithful present never stand up crying: “no, sister! stop! save your soul! We can wait for father to arrive, but if you start now we'll go away!”. Only one has written to Father Z with his doubts. A couple of others are certainly not at ease. Most certainly “feel” Sister is being “nice” and “helpful”. It must be so, otherwise “Father” (as long as he is one; hopefully not for long) would have been inundated with complaints and injunctions to let this stop at once.
I will put this in my little collection called “flowers of V II”; a collection containing the strangest flowers you can imagine; radioactive, or poisoning, or outright ugly.
A poster on the above mentioned blog commented with “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Even for the heretical standards of the Church in Germany, what has happened in the last days leaves one rather surprised.
The Church in Germany has invited 300 “experts” for a “conference”, described as “the first of his kind”, to “discuss possible reforms”. This is breathtaking. These people think and act as if they were the ones who call the shots and decide what happens in the Church; probably (cough) because in the past they were allowed to do so. This conference doesn't discuss of proper internal matters (say: how to reduce administration costs faced with the possible collapse of the Kirchensteuer) but, as expected, wants to be an ecumenical council in miniature, suggesting on Rome's behalf… what is wrong with God's rules.
Turns out they decide there is a lot that is wrong with God's rules. The biggest injustice perpetrated by God against Zollitsch's faithful (that is: faithful to him) sheep appears to be male ordination. Now, Zollitsch's Sturmtruppen understand priesthood in itself should be left to males, but women deacon should not be a taboo, surely? Look, they could even celebrate marriages outside of Mass! what a “liberation”, and a feminist triumph!
Now, Mister Zollitsch, being clearly Episcopalian, is not informed about the unchangeable nature of the sacrament of holy orders; but it surprises me that the others 300 did not know it either; unless of course they are also Episcopalians, which at this point appears more than probable.
Perhaps some good souls will inform this unhappy bunch that in the Catholic Church taboos are there so that people do not even discuss them. This is, in fact, what the word taboo means. As a consequence, to say that a Catholic taboo isn't a taboo anymore is the same as to say that one isn't a Catholic anymore; or, in the specific case, that it is not a taboo anymore to reflect in which way cats would be allowed to bark.
Now, let be clear on this: the German Episcopalian Bishops will never get their women deacon, unless they make a formal schism and become Episcopalians in name too, in which case they will not be deacons, either. What this conference allows them to do, is to continue to prostitute themselves to their Kirchensteuer-paying sugar daddys, asking them for continued support to the clergy's bank accounts against the German clergy's continued brown-nosing. Purest whoredom, you see, though it is fair to say every street whore is morally far less reprehensible than someone who, like Archbishop Zollitsch, tries to prostitute the sacraments to the interest of his own group.
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch is almost 75. One day, he will meet His Maker. Unless he repents, I would be terrified of dying with his hand of cards.
This week, that lack of tangible love is being felt by Nicholas Coppola, a gay Catholic living in Long Island, New York who was incredibly active in his parish. After marrying his husband legally, he was informed that he could no longer serve as a lector, visitation minister, food pantry volunteer, capital campaign board member or catechist. He is allowed to enter the church, but his involvement, which was significant, has been curtailed. This is all because someone sent an anonymous letter to the bishop, who then directed the parish to remove him.
This astonishing piece of faggoty ranting appeared on the Washington Post, who have dedicated a piece to explain to us that Cardinal Dolan does not “love” what they call “the LGBT people” (it means faggots, lesbians, and other perverts).
The astonished reader learns from this that there are in the diocese of New York people who must necessarily be self-confessing sodomites, and are allowed to have a “significant” involvement as (it is inferred) lector, visitation minister, food pantry volunteer, capital campaign board member and/or catechist.
More astonishingly still, it appears this unbelievable… gal even dared to stage a mickey mouse “marriage”, and still nothing happened. In order for this walking scandal to be removed from his “involvement” it was necessary that some good Catholic wrote to the Cardinal saying “wake up, nincompoops”, and then something finally happened.
The Washington Post shows, as it is to be expected from such a perverted rag, that they have no clue whatsoever about what Catholicism stays for. But this does not mean the Cardinal isn't to be blamed, either.
With his woolly words about how he “loves” the “gays” and his trying to explain that the Church “gotta listen to people”, this cartoon Cardinal has put himself into a corner. He doesn't satisfy honest Catholics, because Catholicism requires the Truth to be said whole, and the dangers of hell for perverts to be expressed loud and clear; and he doesn't satisfy perverts, because by all his oily talk he is just not in a position to deliver what they want, that is: the “celebration” of their perversion.
Therefore, the Cartoon Cardinal will continue to be despised by Catholics for his betrayal of Catholic values and his refusal to properly teach the Faith, and he will continue to be despised by perverts as he is rightly seen by them as a boot-licking hypocrite.
Unfortunately, the Cartoon Cardinal will also continue to be seen from the worldwide clergy as the type of “pastoral” archbishop they think the world need, thus placing him in a very good position – unless sanity prevails, for which there isn't much hope at the moment – to be one day our next Pontiff, Pope Mickey Mouse I.
Therefore, do not expect that he stops his policy anytime soon.
The German heretical church is truly on a roll. Not that they had ever much fear of the German Pope, but they seem most comfortable without a Pope, at all.
The last one of these disgraceful muppets now making an ass of himself is the notorious Cardinal Kasper, who with the typical levity of the German clergy proposes women deacon.
Note that the Cardinal does not want to lose his job, and therefore makes a couple of distinguo.
The “deaconesses” wouldn’t receive holy orders, only a blessing. So, they are deaconesses, but they don’t have holy orders. Clearly, either the difference would be totally lost on 99.99 of the faithful, or the cry would rise about the “discrimination” of the “deacons”, who are deacons but can’t receive holy orders “just because they are women”.
Total stupidity, and willed confusion. “Let us give the progressives what they want by calling it that way”, the Cardinal thinks.
How genial. Must be Vatican II.
One can apply the same (assumed) logic of the Cardinal and propose, ahem, “women priest” à la Kasper. These would, though, not have holy orders, only a blessing. So we would have the deacons who have orders and those who haven’t, and the priest who have orders and those who haven’t. Wonderful, and so conducive to a right understanding of the role of the priesthood and the significance of holy orders.
Think of it: this man will soon fly to Rome to elect the new Pope. In theory, he could even be elected (for five days. Damn!) .
I’ll stop here, because you wouldn’t want to read what I might write.
Cardinal Kasper is an appointment of Blessed Pope John Paul II.
The most remarkable trait of V II prelates seems to be that very few of them manage to know Catholic teaching with the same level of expertise of, say, a thirteen-year-old boy circa 1953.
The last one to make an ass of himself is Cardinal O’Brien.
His words according to the above mentioned “Homograph”:
”In my time there was no choice and you didn’t really consider it too much, it was part of being a priest. When I was a young boy, the priest didn’t get married and that was it.
“I would be very happy if others had the opportunity of considering whether or not they could or should get married.
“It is a free world and I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and
raise a family of their own.”
Yours truly, who was never married and – sinner as he is, of course – never found it so difficult to cope with celibacy (particularly after seeing some of those who are married; but that’s another matter entirely…), is rather stunned at these affirmations for the following reasons:
1) Last time I looked, it was de fide that a priest cannot marry. One can become priest when he is already married (look at the Anglican converts: for the Church they are no priests, and therefore they can become priests whilst being previously married) but no one can marry after he has become a priest. One of us two is wrong, then, and I think it’s the one with the funny hat…
2) ”It is a free world”. What on earth does this mean. Freedom isn’t anarchy or licence; celibacy isn’t more or less difficult under Cameron than under Mussolini; I do not know of many contemporary priests forced to take orders in a dictatorship and now finding it difficult to cope with celibacy because there is freedom.
3) “In my time there was no choice”. Well neither there is now, actually.
4) “You didn’t really consider it too much”. What? The man took a solemn vow of celibacy and now he tells us that was something one just didn’t think about? And then they say today’s youth is irresponsible? Who made this man Cardinal? (Answer: John Paul II…).
5) “companion etc”. Look, I though that a priest was married to the Church? That the celibacy is what allow himself to be completely dedicated to his life of service without having extremely time-consuming (and emotionally exacting) distractions like, erm, “a woman to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own”? That this dedication and self-sacrifice is exactly was makes the priest respected in his community, and trusted to care for Christ and for his sheep above all else? Am I wrong?
6) “found it difficult to cope with celibacy aas they lived out their priesthood”. Oh for heaven’s sake. Are we talking of men or children? You make choices like a man, you carry on with your life and the choices you have made like a man. Can a soldier say “I am tired of Afghanistan”?
7) “I would be very happy etc..”. Dear Cardinal, the opportunity is already there. Either one wants to become a priest, and then he cannot marry. Or he wants to marry, and then he cannot become a priest. A priest can never, could never, will never “have the opportunity of considering”. Once a celibate priest, always a celibate priest and no, the “free world” is nothing to do with it.
In this very matter, it is refreshing to read that a couple of very good priest bloggers have become rather impatient with the Cardinal’s remark. I understand them very well, then the Cardinal lets all celibate priests look like people who didn’t really think about it, have no clear idea why they are celibate, and should well reflect a bit whether to have the “opportunity to consider” wouldn’t be a fine thing indeed.
For one, Father Ray Blake has a rather explicit post on the matter. Among the commentators, EF Pastor Emeritus – another excellent priest and blogger – is no less explicit. Third is Father Hunwicke, a convert from the Anglicans (and therefore, crucially, not a priest when he married), who says it very beautifully with the words: “Wherever did the Cardinal, whom I greatly respect, get the idea that priests like me are allowed to make up our own mind about getting married?”
Interesting question, actually.
Wherever? If you ask me, from the madness called Vatican II, that wanting to “renew” everything ends up wanting to demolish, sooner or later, everything. That’s where.
Lately heard at a Catholic Novus Ordo Mass.
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do;
therefore I ask blessed Mary Ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
And no, I am not kidding.
I have renounced to write yesterday about the latest antics of that heretical troop we insist in calling German Catholic Clergy, because my doctor would not have approved; but the life of a blogger is such that he cannot escape the adrenaline and the anger (because he reads the news aggregators, and therefore all the heretical filth lands on his computer screen at some point), and will have to report on the very worst of what is happening around us.
Today is one of those days, and it is another day when the culpable inaction of the present Pontiff comes to light in its entirety.
The German bishops, united in counsel and heresy, have now decided a raped woman can receive the so-called “morning after pill”. The poor
men are confused or, more probably, disingenuous, and they still think or say they think that, for some reason we don’t know, an embryo isn’t an embryo until they say it is, and therefore the destruction of said embryo isn’t abortion until they please to call it so. En passant, they forget the Church is against contraception, too; but they are way past these minutiae, aren’t they now…
This is grave enough. This would also, of course, call for a prompt intervention of the Pope. Actually, it is fair to say the first duty of every Pope should be to prevent these situations to arise, and to correct the mistakes and punish those responsible when they do. As widely expected, we have seen nothing of the sort, once again reinforcing the impression that this papacy is a replay of Pope Paul VI’s one, plus Summorum Pontificum.
Alas, worse has happened since. Not only has the Vatican simply not acted – which was largely to be expected – but the present head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Carrasco, even agrees with them.
In doing so, Bishop Carrasco goes not only against logic, common sense and basic Catholicism, but he even openly contradicts a formal paper of his own organisation on this matter, published in 2000.
The text of this instructive document is published in its entirety at the end of this message for future reference, and because it is very sound reading.
Bishop Carrasco is obviously Pope Benedict’s choice for the job, exactly as Archbishop Paglia and Archbishop Mueller are. It is difficult to find another modern Pope so catastrophically wrong in his appointments, and it is even more difficult to find a justification for his inaction after his appointees, for whose action he will have to answer one day, conduct attack attacks to fundamental tenets of the Catholic church undisturbed. This, obviously, in addition to the attacks already daily moved to Catholic truth from the German clergy, from bishops and Cardinals he either appointed or allowed to remain in place unpunished and even undisturbed.
The sad reality, that I do not read often around the Internet but I think should be said, is that this Pope is the son of the same rotten Vatican II climate which produced the Muellers and The Meisners, the Lehmanns and the Zoellitschs, and the Woelkis of the world. You can take Pope Benedict out of Germany, but you can’t take Germany out of Pope Benedict. The proof of this is in front of our very eyes, with the offensive of the German clergy becoming now outright shameless, in the knowledge nothing will happen in Rome, where a Pope is still in charge, and therefore still responsible.
We can be accessory to other people’s sin by silence, which means that a terrible responsibility rests on the shoulders on this Pope; a responsibility that cannot be excused with an impairing disease, and therefore cannot be excused at all; then last time I looked, weakness in front of the enemy wasn’t a virtue.
I do not agree with those who mourn the end of this papacy. If you ask me, this papacy can’t end too soon. We need a strong Pope, which even the presently reigning Pontiff had at least to good sense to acknowledge.
We might, of course, end up with what they call a “Benedict clone” (God forbid!), and if things go really wrong we could even end up with a worse one (God forbid even more!). But I never thought that one should be satisfied or appeased with leaders being mediocre, just because they could be worse.
The German clergy has polluted the Church in the last fifty years. It is time this influence is stopped.
Please Lord, please give us a strong, orthodox Pope.
As is commonly known, the so-called morning-after pill recently went on sale in Italian pharmacies. It is a well-known chemical product (of the hormonal type) which has frequently – even in the past week – been presented by many in the field and by the mass media as a mere contraceptive or, more precisely, as an “emergency contraceptive”, which can be used within a short time after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, should one wish to prevent the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy. The inevitable critical reactions of those who have raised serious doubts about how this product works, namely, that its action is not merely “contraceptive” but “abortifacient”, have received the very hasty reply that such concerns appear unfounded, since the morning-after pill has an “anti-implantation” effect, thus implicitly suggesting a clear distinction between abortion and interception (preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum, i.e., the embryo, in the uterine wall).
Clearly, Archbishop Mueller wasn’t informed of the Holy Father’s plans.
He managed to anger both the Archbishop of Lima and the SSPX (he loves that) in just a few days.
The first with a letter with which he inelegantly walks over the Archbishop of Lima in the matter of the non-Catholic, non-Pontifical University of Lima (non-Catholic; where Mueller went every year; get that?).
The second is with the confirmation that some days ago an ultimatum was sent to the SSPX: either you accept to eat the yogurt within the 22 February, or we will try to do what we have tried to do these last 25 years: split you.
Isn’t it ironic that whilst Mueller was bullying left and right, the Holy Father was, Latin-German dictionary in hand, perfecting the message that would make Archbishop Mueller the lamest duck to walk along the Vatican corridors in a long time?
The Archbishop was really taken by surprise: would you send such letters if you knew just hours afterwards people would read them and laugh? Why would Cipriani be worried, when he can simply sit and wait for the man to pack his bags? And how credible must Vatican promises appear to SSPX priests – allegedly so easy to win over, or so does the Archbishop thinks – when the one who makes the promises doesn’t even know he’ll be an “unemployed man walking” in just a few hours’ time? How could anyone not see that now the cards will be reshuffled, and there is no saying whatever what kind of Pope will get out of the Conclave?
Archbishop Mueller’s inning at the CDF will almost certainly prove very short.
But one can’t say it wasn’t, in a rather tragic way, amusing.
This is one of those days in which every right-thinking Catholic is confronted with the sickness not only of the Western societies, but of the Church of Christ Herself. I wouldn’t call it a case of open heresy, seeing the oily and slimy way these post V II Church officials always have of expressing themselves, but rather another particularly tragic instance of how said Church officials bend themselves forward to try to appease the civil society out there, all the while trying not to appear as openly heretical.
The Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said the church is not against giving “unmarried couples” some form of protection. The first hypocrisy is in the formulation “unmarried couples”, which may, or may not, include sodomites. You must know in many countries, like Italy, heterosexual cohabiting people have no right to any payment (for the children, for example), because such payments presuppose (and rightly so) a proper family rather than concubinage. Therefore, the discussion is always “mixed” as when people talk of “recognising” they mostly talk of co-habiting heterosexual couples.
The Archbishop now happily mixes the cards, by putting heterosexual couples and homosexual wannabe couples on the same plane when he says some forms of “cohabitation” (which ones, Archbishop? Professional sharers? People who have sex? People who practice sodomy? People who cohabit with their dog?) “do not constitute a family” and “their number is growing” (of course it is, Archbishop, if you keep being such a tool! You’ll soon have “cohabitations” with incest, or bestiality, or multiples wives if you and yours continue to sleep!).
Therefore, says our Archbishop, there should be measures to “make their lives easier”, which prompts three questions: why? Why? Why?
When has the Church been preoccupied that sodomites have it easier to live a sodomite lifestyle? When has the Church been worried that heterosexual couples living more uxorio may not feel gently invited to marry? Since when is the Church worried with making the life of sinners easier in their sin, rather than holier without them?
This is, again, a purest exercise in Vatican II cowardice and hypocrisy.
Then there is the other whining about countries where “homosexuality is illegal”. I do not know of many countries in which it is illegal to simply be a pervert, but I think the Cardinal, who should know these things, was talking of sodomy laws.
Sodomy laws are then, we are given to understand, very bad. Awful governments like those in the Papal States had such laws, and awful people like Padre Pio never asked for their abolition. It is sad to see great Saints and Popes of the past do not comply with the Archbishop’s rather strange moral standards, but being the times so astonishingly stupid I doubt many will notice.
Archbishop Paglia is one of those men who make more damage than an army of shrieking homosexualists, because with his cowardice and desire of appeasement he confuses sincere Catholics and makes a strong impression he doesn’t believe in the values he is allegedly defending.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Sodomarriage is either an abomination, or it isn’t. If it is, no help whatsoever can be demanded so that these people can have an “easier life” with these abominations. If it isn’t, then Christianity was wrong from the start, the Church has been conning us these to thousand years and Archbishop Paglia should start a new career as circus clown .
We live in times when even the corridors of the Vatican at full of people who spend their days wondering how they can sabotage Christian values but maintain an appearance of orthodoxy. They do it not only with he pet causes of the last decades (war, death penalty, the attitude towards social issues), but even pandering to the desire of he people in matter of sexual perversion.
This time the Archbishop was even asked a second time what he meant. Vatican II prelates are such nincompoops they make entire speeches and at the end they must be asked what they meant by it. The Holy Father merrily promotes them where they can do maximum damage, confuse the faithful, and make of themselves and the Church a laughing stock.
May God have mercy of this bunch of appeasing amateurs.
Cardinal Meisner is just another example of everything that is wrong with the Church in Germany. The local bishops and cardinals do everything they can to persuade their sheep they feel prisoners of an antiquated moral system they would like to “modernise” and harmonise with the wishes of said sheep.
How can it be a surprise that pro-life movement is so weak in Germany, if cardinals discuss on the supposedly legitimate ways to avoid that a baby be conceived. How can it be a surprise that common Catholics are so confused in matters of sexual morality, if another cardinal (Woelki, in this case) expresses himself in favour of sodomy within a “committed relationship”. The Gestapo was extremely committed too, therefore according to the cardinal its members must have been good chaps and their commitment worthy of protection?
The German prelates have largely demolished sound Catholicism in Germany, and through the work of their representatives during Vatican II they have largely contributed to the sabotage of Catholicism in the rest of the West, too. They are, today, mainly worried with the possibility of their extremely badly instructed sheep refusing to pay the “church tax” en mass; therefore, they try to pander to the wishes of their clients like, I must say it, a prostitute does.
And these prostitutes are rather active: the article linked to states that
The German bishops’ conference will take up the question of emergency contraception for rape victims at a regular meeting later this month.
Expect more heresy, at most thinly veiled by subtle distinguo, provided the German prelates really do care for distinguo at this point.
Still, their efforts are ultimately self-defeating. There is no reason why a badly instructed, or more or less indifferent German should continue to pay the Kirchensteuer to a man like Cardinal Meisner. What does Meisner say, that a journalist wouldn’t be able to say as well? Why should the average German Catholic – who does not understand anything of Catholicism in the first place – continue to pay an organisation that minimises the importance of being Catholic? Why should they make an extra effort for people beset with exactly the same ideology as everyone else out there?
With their pandering to every wish of their clients, the German clergy is only postponing its demise.
They have made themselves useless. They will be recognised, and treated, as such.
In a rather brutal communique’ of the (huge) archdiocese of Los Angeles (Socialist Republic of California, USA), Archbishop Gomez has announced that Cardinal Mahony and an auxiliary bishop (Curry) have now been relieved of every duty concerning the Diocese (Mahony) and from his responsibility for his part of the Archdiocese (Curry). I do not know about the other bishop, but Mahony’s duties within the Archdiocese cannot have been numerous, or of any real importance. Possibly one dinner here and one lunch there, with the occasional buffet thrown in. Therefore, one cannot avoid thinking this last measure is simply due to either something big about to happen or to the frustration of his successor at the mess Mahony has left behind him.
If memory serves, Mahony’s idiocy already cost Californian Catholics several hundred million dollars in compensations, though if one understands the way the press presented the matter this should prevent further money going down the drain.
Again, one can’t escape the impression that further developments are going to be announced, and the Archdiocese wants to start a preventative cleaning to avoid accusations from the usual corners; or maybe Archbishop Gomez is simply fed up with the continuous references to the Archdiocese’s past, and understandably wants to separate the Cardinal’s responsibilities from his own tenure.
Something tells me, though, that this is not the last we hear from our disgraceful -and now disgraced – Cardinal.
I have written some days ago about the very efficient way in which the Jesuits are getting rid of themselves.
From an extremely interesting post appeared on Rorate Caeli it now appears that at least in Spain the disease is spread, with pretty much the same virulence, in many other Novus Ordo orders, some of them very traditional. The numbers do not even seem better among the Dominicans, widely considered to be on the slow way to a recovery on a global scale, but clearly with a lot of work to do in Spain. In other Western countries the figures might be somewhat different, but it is fair to assume the music is pretty much the same.
One sees the mess and wonders how these people can be so blind, or so stupid, or both, to not understand they are dying because they are infected with a deadly virus called Second Vatican Council. Surely, at this point even the dimmest intellects must have made two and two?
My personal opinion is that the problem has been clearly recognised, but there is a refusal to act because every action in that direction would endanger the power structures currently in place. Consensus among those who are in is important for those who are in as it affords a quiet life and in some cases possibilities of advancement, and who cares if there are no new entries and the order is slowly dying; many of them have probably lost the faith anyway, and therefore they do not care whether their order survives, provided they can get a comfortable life as long as they live. When the Grim Reaper gradually arrives, they will simply adequate the structures to the swindling numbers, and go on merrily with their inane waffle about social justice and peace, the gods of idiots and atheists the world over.
What does the Vatican do to counter this? Absolutely nothing, of course, and they do so because they have the exactly same problem: a Curia drenched in Vatican II cannot admit Vatican II is the disease, and will therefore not push for a general return to pre-Vatican II rules in all religious orders. Besides being very uncomfortable to religious in many cases accustomed to a rather lax observance of even the lax rules they have, such a U-turn would signal to the entire Catholic world that the Vatican hierarchy got it spectacularly wrong in the last 50 years.
This cannot happen. Therefore all those traditional orders, often rich in tradition and glory, will be allowed to either die or reduce themselves to small groups of survivors.
Like every other revolution, Vatican II is devouring its own children; which, as in every other revolution, serves them right.
I have always thought religious orders make provisions for their member’s retirement.
It appears this might not be so. On the one hand, dying orders like the Jesuits and the Franciscans surely must swim in real estate, as the swindling number of members leaves their structures unused and ready for the market; on the other hand, it appears in many cases no direct retirement capital provisions have been made, with the result that the cash-flow issues might become acute in the next years.
Perhaps I should be “charitable” here and call for the generous support of the old nincompoops from the part of the pewsitter, grateful for 50 years of mindless and shameless devastation to the point of helping those who have destroyed vocations to have a comfortable retirement for themselves. But you see, I am not sure it would be the right thing to do.
When those who have almost destroyed Catholicism discover that their idiocy is now falling directly on their heads, this can only have salutary effects for their own soul. After the attempt to pump money out of the masses they have so “joyously” instructed fails miserably, they might well ask themselves why this is so; and when even the remaining, small but growing minority of real Catholics tell them they have made their bed and should now lie in it, because the faithful’s own money will rather go to finance the brutal expansion of the likes of the SSPX, this might also be a real eye-opener for the poor chaps. At that point, they might discover poverty in a rather literal sense, and will feel nearer to the oppressed… Perhaps they will even discover some real humility, the one for example that does not lead one to think God was wrong for the last 2000 years, and needed them to establish a new religion based on stupidity and common places.
Most importantly, the experience might show them what goes around comes around, and if you destroy Catholicism to satisfy your own vanity and desire of a comfortable, conflict-free life you might discover what you have left of Catholicism is not enough to provide you with more than the bare necessities…
Sadly, it is easy to predict this is mot going to happen. The cash flow needs will be provided for, I am very much afraid to say, by the sale of the huge assets, and the poor asses will comfortably sail towards a fat retirement and, in many cases, an unrepentant death after all the devastation they have caused.
This might well be the last fat harvest the devil obtains from the Vatican II generation(s), before a new breed of real Catholics, steeled by the antics of the said V II asses, takes over.
Do not be worried, then, for the material welfare of this disgraceful generation of miserable friars. Be afraid for their spiritual one instead.
I chanced upon two very different “visions” of hell in two days, and thought I would give them to you without comment.
It goes without saying that to me one is completely right, and the other tragically wrong.
But do not listen to me.
A) Father Barron on Hell
Who do you think is right?
Please listen and read twice. You’ll notice a lot of details coming to light in both cases…
In the simple world in which I live, a person is only worthy of respect if he can walk the walk besides talking the talk.
Talking is fairly easy and -unless one is a pathologic eunuch like too many English bishops – the one or other word will certainly find its way to the press – or to the pulpit – without causing too many danger for the peaceful life of its author.
But what happens when a bishop discovers that one pf his own priests openly and publicly sabotages the Christian message he wants to send to his sheep? Will this bishop be brave enough to walk the walk, after he was able to talk the talk?
In Baltimore, a priest had the insolence to read at Mass his bishop’s letter concerning so- called “gay marriages” (which aren’t “gay”, let alone “marriages”), and immediately afterwards vocally oppose the very Christian message he had just read.
Now, this is where the men are separated from the boys: if Bishop Lori tolerates such a scandal is his own diocese without severely punishing – best of all, defrocking – Fr Lawrence, the pro-homo priest, he will show he is just another boy unable to let the facta follow the verba .
It cannot be, it seriously cannot be that a bishop allows one of his own homo-priests to make a mockery of Catholicism without consequences. Who does Fr Lawrence think he is, a Presbyterian?
And as we are by the matter, is this Fr Lawrence straight in the first place? Does he have a mistress by any chance? You know, when priests become so “alternative” it is often because they have some strange personal reason of their own…
Man or boy? The next weeks will tell what kind of prelate Bishop Lori is. Certainly, not only his own personal reputation, but the prestige and public perception of the priesthood will be damaged if such things are allowed to happen without exemplary consequences.
On the newly launched website of the new building for the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Seminary, you can see the future of Catholicism in the Western world.
Whilst the Vatican II church waffles itself into irrelevance and almost extinction, the sane parts of the Church not only resist, but grow and prosper. See the video below
to see what is happening.
It is difficult, very difficult not to see that traditional Catholicism is prospering and growing, whilst the (numerically still vaster) NuChurch is dying fast, sinking into irrelevance in the process.
The site and video explain to you nothing less than the future of Catholicism: solid, determined, serious. No laughing clowns in sight, no “daring” architectures, no waffle whatever.
Rorate Caeli not only has the video, but in a truly dramatic contrast has another blog post about the slow but perceptible decline of the Church in France. Besides the sobering statistical figures, the blog post has a rather telling photo of a huge (and, if you ask me, horrible, Le Corbusier or no Le Corbusier; see photo below) Dominican seminary now housing a dozen of seminarians.
For the dozen seminarians, the sense of decay must be palpable every hour of the day.
This is how the drunkenness of Vatican II is dying: leaving a lot of (mostly ugly) concrete in empty buildings, after deserting the Western world now under a massive attack from the forces of evil; forces of evil which the church continues to cajole and try to be friends with.
The two photos shown give a very clear idea of what the future of these two opposed vision of the Church will be, and which one of the two (the traditional, of the V II one) will survive.
The bill for the madness of the past is being presented very fast, and with the almost complete extinction of those organisations which have embraced the “spirit of Vatican II”-Zeitgeist (Jesuits and Franciscans come to mind; an awful lot of scrounging nuns; and who knows how many other minor orders) more and more bills will become due in the next decade or two.
In the meantime, serious Catholicism will continue to grow, until in one generation or two it will control the field again because of the literal, physical death of the opposing camp. A much reduced Catholicism it might be, but probably a much more effective one; than the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of priests and religious we have now aren’t doing much for Catholicism other than muddle the waters, encourage sodomy or support same-sex couples, desecrate the mass, abet heresy, being openly simoniacal and hobnob with the enemy.
In their blindness, they remind me of Erich Honecker, the deluded DDR Comrade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DDR whilst the building was squeaking in a way impossible not to notice.
Honecker’s regime did not live to see the 50th anniversary.
Whatever the challenges of the future, we can be very confident the V II madness will not live to see the 100th.
There is in Italian a rather imaginative expression, “strofinarsi alle gonne del Potere”, or “to rub oneself to the Power’s rocks”, which describes the behaviour of those who seek proximity with the powerful in order to gain personal advantages of any sort.
I must think of this expression rather often, as this is exactly the behaviour I see in countless prelates of the Church.
It would be wrong to believe that such behaviour is moved by the desire to obtain truly tangible material advantages: I do mot think Archbishop Nichols prefers to dine out rather than using the services ( I imagine) of his own cook, nor do I think they find the luxury hotels or sumptuous banquets particularly worth eating (ok, in Cardinal Dolan’s case the doubt might be justified; but I digress…). I even exclude that the search for favours for relatives and dear ones will play a major role.
In my opinion, two factors are here heavily at play: loss of faith and vanity.
An archbishop, say, who believes in the Christian God would never even THINK of abetting sodomy under any guise whatever, as in “we are oh so nuanced” (Nichols) or “it’s a commitment so it can’t be so bad” (Woelki & Co.). No, one who is able to say such things has lost his faith a long time ago, perhaps converting to some strange dalai-lamaesk wannabe cult of sort, more likely having lost faith in the supernatural altogether.
Only at this point can, I think, vanity set in, perverting the innate and in a way unavoidable sense of self-esteem and desire of recognition in an utter prostitution to the worldly gods of popularity and mass approval. Everyone has an ego of course, and in some of us this ego will have a rather strong character; but it is when the gratification of the ego comes before everything else – for example the sense of obligation to the habit, even if one has lost the faith – that things become really serious.
When, therefore, loss of faith and vanity meet, the above mentioned episodes happen; or, on an almost equally worrying scale, one insists in being photographed together will the very powerful and very evil, merrily laughing as if the said evil and powerful were not staging the Holocaust every day and even threatening the very freedom of Catholics.
But this does not seem to really matter. What matters is that the one or the other (Brit or German or American; fat or thin; Archbishop or Cardinal) is seen to be at the very top, and very much in “tune” with the “times”.
May God forgive them.
Unless they repent, I don’t bet my pint He will.
This comes courtesy of Rorate Caeli, and one must say these Episcopalians have most certainly lost their senses…
Thank God they aren’t Catholics. Considering what is happening to holy and orthodox people like the SSPX priests, they would have the Vatican steamroller driving over them in no time…
OK… forget that…
Let’s try again….
A beautiful Mass in the Spirit of VII in Brazil…. Extremely solemn Novena….
Don’t get me wrong, I think the tune is fantastic, fantastic! But I wonder whether it might be… perhaps… not totally appropriate?
To stay in tune with the youth without losing sight of our beautiful liturgical tradition, I would suggest a couple of spirited Brazilian tunes which would, with their reverence and solemnity, give a solid contribution to the great flourish of the “spirit” which we now see happening all over the world after the historic event of Vatican II. The second video in particular has what in my eyes are great suggestions for a more relevant liturgy, while the first is, alas, too much male-centred.
Either way, they would make great suggestions for relevant, inclusive post V-II liturgical music, I am sure…
Cardinal Martini died in a Jesuit retirement home. He was 85 years old, a life thrown away in the most tragic and dangerous of ways.
We do not know – and will probably never know – whether in the end he repented; we can, therefore, only hope for the sake of his immortal soul - and for the sake of his certainly somewhat tired guardian angel – that he managed to avoid hell in the end. Doubts are, if you ask me, perfectly justified.
The idea that this man was said to be one of the papabili – albeit this was very probably the fruit of liberal wishful thinking, rather than a concrete possibility – is a very good description of the actual state of crisis within the Church.
I hope you will make the effort with me – to me at least it is an effort, but I think a salutary one – and join me in a prayer for his immortal soul. Still, I think we must also openly say that the death of such an enemy of Catholicism can only be seen as good news. Martini’s last subversive book is a very recent work, only some months old; this was, therefore, not a chap who would just be happy with being forgotten and disappearing in silence. No, he had to contribute to the damnation of souls to the very end. A true Jesuit of the modern kind.
It is to be hoped many others of his companions will follow him – hopefully to purgatory, otherwise to hell – sooner rather than later.
I am not a friend of mourning of circumstance, and have always believed when a pig dies what you have in front of you is a dead pig, death not being something ennobling one in any conceivable way. Of course, in this case there was an immortal soul at stake but you get my drift, and I certainly wish the man had died before at least being able to publish his last effort to damn himself and countless others.
It is well-known the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer had been condemned to pay a pension to a woman he had inadvertently caused to fall (if memory serves) from the stairs, getting a permanent injury from the fall. When the woman died, the always rather dry Schopenhauer wrote in his account book the Latin words “Obit Anus, Abit Onus”: the old person has died, the burden is lifted.
Fitting words, I think, to comment the recent news.
Archbishop Mueller has a couple of problems: the first one is that he cannot avoid giving more or less arrogant interviews (well, ok: more); the second is that he has been invited from the SSPX to say how he reconciles his strange idea of a non-virginity which is a virginity, but hasn’t done it; instead, he thinks he can put the controversies over his own embarrassing ignorance of the basics of Catholicism (or worse) by just saying “I believe in that in which I am supposed to believe, therefore you must be wrong”.
On the first problem, it is clear the Archbishop should go back to school with very rigid SSPX teachers; that he knows it very well; and that it hurts. Once again, he reacted angrily to the (perfectly legitimate, and still unanswered) questions openly posed to him from the SSPX by saying that those who disagree with him either aren’t very intelligent, or haven’t read him, or couldn’t understand him. Congratulations, with such arguments he would have great success with a group of drunken friends at the pub.
Simply put, either the SSPX is populated by cretins, or Archbishop Mueller is a 1a cretin himself. Reach your own conclusions.
On the second problem, I notice that the Archbishop still hasn’t answered (at least as far as the Blessed Virgin is concerned; on other matters things seems clearer) to the criticism levelled against him. To say “I am orthodox” is rather easy; to say whether you think you were wrong in what you stated and why is quite another.
I could tell you whatever crap gets through my mind, and then react to every criticism saying “yours are provocations, and not even intelligent ones at that. I am right and orthodox, you just don’t read or can’t understand me”. Would you let it pass? Thought not…
Why, then, is the Archbishop allowed to (factually) deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and get away with it by just saying “I believe in the dogma?” I could tell you – if I were a theologian burning to say something new and revolutionary to further my career – that the dogma really means, say, that the Blessed Virgin liked baby blue in preference to sage green. When I, then, say that I believe in the dogma I do not do anything else than to repeat that I believe in what I have already stated I believe. Similarly, Mueller has already said that to him “virginity” does not really mean… virginity. Therefore, when he says that he believes in Mary Ever Virgin he has retracted absolutely nothing, because he must first persuade us that he got what virginity is.
The rest of the interview is the usual rather embarrassing blabla: I really didn’t want to become de facto Number Three; I mean, not really really, but the Holy Father told me I could not refuse (the Pope allowed Monsignor Wagner to refuse, though. I wonder why?); I will talk with the mad nuns because the only ones I consider cretins unable to read are the SSPX priests; I do believe in my heresies concerning Protestants and I will not back pedal about them; but I really, really have to back pedal about transubstantiation, otherwise I am in serious trouble; and so on.
The man is a walking embarrassment for the Church: a man dangerously prone to choler (he can’t avoid insulting the SSPX even in his interviews; just imagine what he must be in private), theologically shamed by every properly instructed ten years old boy circa 1910, and so much in love with himself he reminds one of Usain Bolt, without the achievements or the talent.
May God forgive the man who put him in such an important place because he has edited his own books.
From today’s (Novus Ordo) first reading, Jeremiah 23:1-6
“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” says the Lord.
“You have scattered the flock, driven them away, and you have not attended them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the Lord”
hhhmmm… let us see…
The vast part of the Catholic world could not recite the ten commandments. They have no idea what a rosary is, or a work of mercy; their knowledge of prayers probably stops at Hail Mary and Lord’s prayer. In their vast majority, they do not even know mass attendance is a duty. They consider, in great numbers, contraception pretty much OK. They aren’t very shocked at abortion. They have a vague idea of what sacraments are, and why they are there. Most do not believe in transubstantiation. In their vast number, they have never been explained anything of this: not about their sunday mass obligation, not about their need for confession. Transubstantiation has never been hammered to them more than, say, the sins crying to heaven for vengeance. if asked, they would find it very difficult to tell you what is that characterises a Catholic as opposed to other Christians. They know nothing about the meaning of basic words like “charity”, or “faith”. If they have heard of theological virtues, it must have been because of some fantasy book, or video game .
There are masses not even a Pentecostal would consider decent, with the long-haired priest singing like an idiot to the tune of electric guitars. Or with lasers. Or with the priest dancing like an Hindu. Or with some other stupid form of show meant to make you understand how modern, cool, and utterly innovative the priest is. Masses celebrated even in Cathedrals, with the obvious approval of the local (bad) shepherd.
There are priests and bishops trying every day to undermine Catholic teaching,and Cardinals either helping them, or doing nothing whilst the former massacre our Catholic identity.
There is a Pope writing books whilst Rome burns; unwilling to stop the subversive prelates, and appointing scores of them to episcopal dignity time and again, where they will savage everything Catholic for decades to come; promoting them to highest positions, when they happen to be his own friends; clearly more interested in his legacy as a theologian than as a Pope, and seemingly uninterested in the countless souls going lost in the present climate; but very attentive that the SSPX should recognise the righteousness of V II, that is: of his life work as a theologian and Pope.
In the meantime, Catholicism becomes more and more a religion by hearsay. A growing number of Catholics do not baptise their children, and the grandparents can’t find the gut to say anything even when they care. But the priest smiles and tells them to rejoice in the Lord, so everything must be fine. Joy is everywhere in nuChurch, whence fire and brimstone have all but disappeared. Catholicism tries to joyfully extinguish himself away (hint: it won’t happen) whilst old people sing horrible songs and rejoice about their unbaptised grandchildren, who are under the all-joyful protection of the Spirit, surely?
I could go on, and everyone of you could add to this list.
I wonder whether Jeremiah’ passage might relate to the present times?
Oh, apologies, I had forgotten once again…
How can this be so, if all the wonderful achievements of the past 50 years were a joyous creation of the “Spirit?”
How very un-Catholic of me to even think so…
Still, there is also something else I Know…
“Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall be any missing, says the Lord.”
One day, the fold will be driven back and this senseless massacre of everything Catholic will cease. One day, the Church will re-emerge from the present crisis, from this state of drunkenness and mad search for popularity and friendship with the world, and will surge once again upon the ruins of Western moral civilisation. One day, the present cowardly dwarfs of the Church will make place to real Princes, able and willing to fight once again for unpopular truths.
One day, common sense will be recovered, and “Virgin” will mean “Virgin” again.
I doubt many of us will see that day. But I know it will come, and if we die first it is the more important that we remain alert and vigilant all our life, so that the bad shepherds do not enchant us with their easy modernist gospel, or even induce us to consider halfway acceptable that a priestly ass should sing with electric guitars in a church, and his bishop allow him to do so, and his pope not do anything about it.