Category Archives: Good Shepherds
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
There is much surprise in the blogosphere about the rumours that want Cardinal Burke on its way to a comfortable, but obvious semi-retirement at the head of the Knights of Malta. I must say I am not in the least.
The Cardinal will, I am sure, enjoy the view from the Aventino (you know that hole from which you can see the dome of St. Peter surrounded by an arch made of plants? Well, that’s them; among other things…). Whilst so doing, he will probably reflect that this was the only way it could end seen that he is not a boot-licker like many others – in red, in purple and in black – around him. It had to end that way, because Burke is – if even in the more moderate V I I version – a thorn in the side of NuChurch. Too obsessed with abortion, too attached to Tradition, too much of a Rosary-counter, Burke was clearly a fish out of the water in a world dominated by ecclesiastical prostitutes.
I can only hope his successor will not be an open subversive; which, by the wind that is blowing, is somewhere between a hope and a dream.
In a way, Burke unavoidable departure might give him more freedom of movement. As a member of Francis’ team of “super ministers”, he might have refrained from stronger criticism; as a man now outside of the big game, he could feel free to express himself more freely and become, one day, the focal point of what they call “loyal opposition” and I call merely sanity, and refusal to prostitute oneself to the new times.
It’s a beautiful piece of real estate, that plot on the Aventino. The view is astonishing, and certainly better than from the near Giardino degli Aranci, a favourite of Romans and tourists alike.
It’s a good place to reflect, in one of the wonderful October mornings Rome never fails to give, about the price of loyalty to Christ.
Cardinal Burke is probably not a saint, and clearly he is not the man to tell all the truth, hard and straight, at the cost of real persecution. Yours truly can, in conscience, not tell you that he is sure he would behave differently and would have the strength to openly invite persecution, loss of privilege, and a poor, lost, dreary, uncomfortable parish somewhere in Alaska, or Alabama. But as Cardinals go, Burke is at the moment among the very best; and is, therefore, put aside in favour of the young generation of willing careerist puttanelle; those who are the first to do TMAHICH’s will today, and will be the first to denounce the climate of leftist intimidation tomorrow.
The good ones will be removed one by one and moved where they have less, or no, influence; as already seen in the case of Cardinal Piacenza and – though I am bitterly disappointed in the man – Bagnasco.
Enjoy the October mornings, Your Grace. You may not be a martyr, but you have deserved them.
The news of the shelving sine die of Fulton Sheen's cause for beatification comes at the same time as the announcement that the Obese Cardinal will participate to the gay parade (because, make no mistake, this is what it has become) on St Patrick' day.
Dolan is, from what one can understand, behind the decision. But one really can't understand much because, in pure Francis-FFI-style, not much is said.
The beatification cause was now well advanced, the official approval of the miracle expected in just a few months. This is, I am informed, not a miracle in Paul VI-style, but a real one.
Can you imagine the embarrassment of both Cardinal Dolan and the Unholy Father at the prospect of such a beatification? Would they not, then, have to look for a last-minute excuse to prevent it? And if this is so, why then wait for the last minute, when the miracle is already approved? Far better, then, to stop everything in its tracks now, before things get too embarrassing.
We don't know much about this matter.
But I think we know everything there is to know.
Intercede for us, Venerable Fulton Sheen; that we may be freed very soon from this disgraceful clergy.
The BBC explains to us who was in charge in Rotherham.
What do you notice?
As I post this (the article could be changed) they are almost all whites (you must go to the very bottom to find the first non-White). All of them are linked – by way of party membership of linkage to the power apparatus – to the Left. All of them are claiming ignorance, in perfect Nuremberg trial style.
All of them allowing unspeakable crimes to be committed for years; perhaps not knowing the exact scale of the trouble (how could one, by the sheer numbers and the bureaucracy layers involved), but certainly knowing what was happening on the whole.
White, leftist, cruel, and stupid.
I started noticing it some time ago. At Mass in Rome – undisclosed time and location; wonderful church, but there are thousands of them there only in the Centro Storico, so I have not revealed anything ;) - the homily was entirely, and I mean entirely, devoted to the simple fact that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Which doesn’t mean one who dies a Protestant is ipso facto damned, etc. You know, the whole enchilada.
Whilst the priest refrained from saying that, therefore, Proselitysm is the contrary of solemn nonsense, there can be no doubt the watchful pewsitter perfectly understood the message.
It has happened, in the meantime, on several other occasions. In England, Germany, and Italy. Even in Belgium. Yes, even in Belgium!
It happens now with beautiful regularity, and I start to wonder. Does it happen because the Pope has expressed himself in a heretical way on so many subjects, that it is difficult to listen to a homily and not notice the difference with what Francis says? Or is it because more and more priests – even V II priests, but sound ones – have decided that their duty now consist in guerrilla warfare or, if you prefer, counter-insurgency operations from the pulpit, but without mentioning the main culprit?
I have now lost count of the homilies where some anti-Francis point was made very clearly. It even seems to me – but I might be biased – that the number of anodyne “do not kick the cat”-homilies is decreasing, as a number of priests who were given to such an exercise now feel a duty to say a couple of things straight, implicitly – alas, very seldom openly – making clear who the target of the criticism is.
A silent counteroffensive is, I think, forming. The Pope confuses the faithful, therefore the priest must drive home a point or two. They are no lions, mind. It is very seldom they even mention the man. But this is, if you will, exactly the point. They are saying to the wise: “ignore him; and please understand I cannot say more”.
I do not know to what extent a priest cannot “say more”. But we, the laity, surely can.
Not encumbered with a nasty bishop as our superior, and in no risk of being transferred to some elephant cemetery for being Catholic, we can say it as it is, carrying on and amplifying the message of the priest. And the message is very simple: do not listen to the old man. Stick to sound Catholicism instead.
If anyone of you could briefly report of what happens in his own neck of the wood and whether he also notices the trend I have described, I would be very grateful for two lines in the comment box.
It might be just me. It might be that I read all the bollocks of the man and am therefore more easily led to comparisons between that and a sound homily. Or it can be that the message is being sent increasingly more forcefully to the faithful: don’t listen to Francis, he does not speak for us.
After the shutting down of “Protect the Pope”, I think it might be useful to write some reflections on the matter of obedience.
A Deacon, say, writes a blog saying “I am a deacon in the Diocese of X”. In this case, he is “spending” the name of the diocese and the prestige and sacredness of the Holy Orders he has received (a Deacon is, let us remind ourselves of this, ordained). As a Deacon, he owes obedience to the Bishop. Not a blind one, certainly, and not obedience to every whim of the Bishop. But certainly, when the Bishop instruct him to do something – or not to do something – that is directly related to both his activity as a deacon and the diocese presided by the Bishop, the Deacon in question should, in my eyes, seriously reflect whether he really does not want to comply.
Now, if Deacon Nick had run his blog without spending his title, it would have been, in my eyes, different. If the bishop can't tell the deacon what he has to discuss at the pub with his friends, as “Nick”, he should also not be able to tell him what to discuss on the Internet with his friends, as “Nick”. In this case Deacon Nick could, I think, have legitimately replied that his own freedom of expression, particularly when the expressions are orthodox, is nothing upon which the Bishop has any say. But this is obviously different. This is someone writing in his role of ordained man, incardinated in a diocese, and who owes obedience to a bishop.
I am not a canonist, but I think Deacon Nick could have only done one of the following:
A) inform the bishop he will continue to blog, as this is his private exercise. No mention of deacons anymore, of course, unless perhaps and for some time for the clear statement the blog reflects his private opinions and is nothing to do with the diocese or his ministry as a Deacon. If the bishop wants to drag him in front of an ecclesiastical tribunal, welcome. The blog will report everything as it happens.
B) Go to court against the bishop to obtain the removal of the order (which I suppose was given in writing, and under exercise of the bishop's authority) to stop blogging.
C) obey the bishop's order.
Now: a Deacon of all people should reflect very attentively whether A or B are really wise courses of action. Is a blog so important that it justifies a very public conflict between a deacon and his bishop? Well yes, it might be, if the Deacon thinks the order to stop blogging is a scandal that must be made public, and fought against. But the Deacon can also legitimately decide that he will fight with Padre Pio's (and countless saints besides) weapons: silence, obedience, and prayer. If the Deacon obeys to the Bishop, the latter carries the responsibility of whatever results from his order. Let God, who sees everything, give the Deacon the premium for his obedience, and the Bishop the punishment for his insolence. If it is God's will, not one but ten new blogs will be born out of this outrage, and countless blog readers will be motivated to search the blogosphere for other authentic voices, and grow in faith as a result. We must not make the mistake of thinking this matter lies, so to speak, entirely in one or two persons' hands. Dio vede e provvede. God sees and provides.
Obviously, there are cases in which disobedience is or may be the only sensible way, or the most sensible way: say, when the preservation of the Mass of the Ages is in danger, or – I add – an excellent religious order is being trampled by an unconscionable Pontiff. In these cases we have to do with the Mass, and the Mass is more serious than any blog, and take precedence before the obedience to any Pope.
But honestly, there is no scarcity of orthodox Catholic blogs. Many more will be created. Again, God can give back ten times what was taken away. Obedience should, as a reasoned choice born of faith in Providence, always be respected.
It is, therefore, not fair to say that Deacon Mick is waving the white flag, or in a way “chickening out”. Rather, I think he has decided that he will put his obedience in the hands of the Lord, and He will do with it what He thinks appropriate: rewarding, and punishing, in His own good time.
Blogs like Deacon Nick's, or mine, are but grains of sand in the great scheme of things. The Lord can decide to sacrifice them – and to sacrifice much worthier things than a blog; perhaps through the allowing of an injustice – so that in the end more good may happen.
In these matters, it is always useful to remind ourselves of God's lavish abundance, a way that to our scarcity-accustomed minds may seem wastefulness. Billions of billions of suns, and accessory planets, just to give us a glimpse of His might. Schubert was dead at not even 32. Mozart at 35. Bizet before becoming 37. Mendelssohn at 38. Chopin at 39.
St Theresa of Lisieux, a Doctor of the Church, died at 24.
If God has decided the world could do without St. Therese of Lisieux when she was only 24, methinks we can relax at the thought of the Catholic blogosphere having to live without “Protect the Pope”, or this little effort.
All those who, then, suffer this loss may do worse than wondering whether, perhaps, they might start writing their own blog. At times, unpleasant events bear great fruit. If I had not been banned from “Homo Smoke” I would never, ever have come to the idea of blogging myself. I allow myself to think that it was a wise decision and, I hope, a meritorious one. But you see here how Providence works.
Deacon Nick will, then, be a non-blogging Deacon again, and my thanks to him for his sterling work and for the example of obedience he has now chosen to give. May God reward him and his worthy wife for their effort, time, and pain.
We, the non-deacons, will continue to blog and, perhaps, to blog more numerous and more motivated than before.
God works in mysterious ways.
But most of all, God isn't fooled by Bishop Campbell's religion of niceness.
There are interesting reflections around concerning what to do to have more vocations. Certainly, we must pray. Certainly, we can support the idea of vocations among the young in our environment. But if you ask me, the best way to more vocations is to have better priests.
I still remember very well my formative years, and looking back it is clear to me the office of priest was not considered by anyone as in the least desirable, not even by mistake. The reason for this is that most of the priests we had around us – and in the Italy of those times you had many priests around you, both in your place of residence and at school – had a common and distinctive trait: they looked, sounded, and even smelled, ashamed to be priests.
There was a kind of hierarchy of un-priestliness. There were those who were silently but obviously embarrassed, those who were more ostentatiously “modern” and those who were outright dissenters – the priest who whispered at school that the devil does not exist, in an heroic effort of blasphemy meant to let us understand how very courageous he was, I will never forget -. But all of them seemed to have the same slogan, a kind of “unglorious” one: the least Catholic, the better.
If the priest is ashamed himself of being a priest, who will want to become like him? If the priest is the very epitome of the uncool, pathetic loser, who will want to follow in his steps? And this is, in fact, what they pretty much all were: pathetic losers, ashamed to be priests; lives to be pitied, and an example not to be followed. The priest of those times was a cautionary tale.
This phenomenon created another one: the attempt to gain credibility not by being a true priest, but – in a suicidal, and not very manly move – by being something else: the “modern priest”, the “good friend”, the “nice chap”, the “favourite uncle”. The automatic self-divesting of any form of authority made of them, for all the world to see, unquestioned beta males deprived of true manliness, because manliness is always linked with assertiveness, self-assuredness, and a quiet but still very public show of testosterone.
Every man, but particularly adolescents, smell authority and manliness like the hound smells the fox. Not everyone has the natural assertiveness to be a natural leader, to be one to whom others look up to; but absolutely no one has the desire to be, for all the world to see, the last wolf in the pack. Such a one is not very manly at all, and could actually have problems of graver nature. Which is, I think, the origin and motive of many “vocations” in those years.
And so we have, I think, a faithful picture of perhaps 80% of the Western priesthood up to this day: no manliness, no authority, no “coolness” around them. Boys look at them, and pity them. As they well should, and as I do myself. They are embarrassed to be priests, and try to be as little of a priest as they can. As a consequence, they are embarrassing to be around.
Away goes sin; hell follows soon thereafter; “joy” is everywhere. Some time ago, I listened to a homily of a Cardinal. He sounded like a girl making a motivational talk for old aunts in a holiday resort. By all the authority given by the office, the red robe, and the choreography, he still smelled of girly loser. Who would want to be such a tool? Mind, this here was a Cardinal, helped by the trappings of the office. The girly parish priest truly has no chance with the boys.
A priest must be assertive, manly, unashamedly Catholic, outspoken, and with no hint of sissidom in him. He must be a shepherd, not a dry nurse. The shepherd has a rod, and he uses it. The shepherd leads his flock towards green pastures, he does not ask the sheep “where they want to go today”. The priest must be a natural leader, because a priest has to be a leader if he is to be successful. The priest has to be uncomfortable, harsh when needed, and quietly manly when he is gentle.
These are the priests who produce priests. These are the men who will cause boys to say “I want to become one like him”. These are men whose very demeanour will say to those around them that they are willing to die for their cause; which is as manly as it gets, and will be smelled by the boys around them like the above mentioned hounds smell the above mentioned fox. Not many will follow in his steps. But the admiration will – with God's grace – cause some of them to fo it. You must impress dozen to get one vocation to blossom, because this vocation will be nurtured from the respect or outright admiration surrounding the priest.
Boys will be boys, and their vocation must go with their nature, not against them. They must feel encouraged to use their own faith to channel the natural assertiveness, even aggressiveness, of the male of the species towards the higher goal of saving souls, of being shepherds of souls. This is one of the 1,374 reasons why women are not fit to be priest. Women are nurturers, not shepherds. God save us from a manly woman. There are two sexes for a reason, and this is the same reason why only those of one sex can be priests.
If you ask me, it's as simple as that. In the Seventies the priests were at their most stupid (the “worker priest”, the “social priest”; the Jorge Bergoglio types) and the vocations were at their lowest. As the worst excesses went away, the vocations slowly increased. Strong religious orders continue to create strong vocations to this day – so much so, that the Jorge Bergoglio types must crush them to deflect from their own bitchy incompetence – and the situation slowly, but gradually, improves. In the meantime, the Jorge Bergoglio types cause their seminaries to close. May their ruins be visible from afar, and be a monument to human stupidity.
But we need more of these good priests. The Brompton Oratory is always packed. You listen to them, and you know how a true vocation sounds, and how a real man speaks.
The boys listen, and learn.
Vocations are aplenty. No closures to be feared there.
Hope you have been good on Earth Day and have cut a tree in front of a tree-hugger, just to show the followers of the new religion that no, trees have no human rights; babies in the womb have.
You haven't, you say?
Neither have I.
Too much sweat for a quiet writing nature like myself.
But it would have been worth a video, for sure.
A once successful singer marries a once rather famed TV presenter. Lately, he has reached his fame mainly with a “benefit” initiative that brought him a lot of Bono-like notoriety. His wife is, as said, known on her own.
They have, I think, two children. But husband and children is not exciting enough, and the wife runs away with another, far more famous rock star. The latter is also drug addict, and certainly unstable.
The two – actually, the three – start the usual war for the custody of the children. The wife almost dies of an overdose, but I can't remember if this is before or after the famous rock star commits suicide. Doesn't matter, because the original father manages to take the children anyway. But wait, I think first the mother dies of booze or drugs, too; it could be after losing the children, though, but I am not sure, because these aren't the people who say “let's try to be responsible, we have children”. The children she has – two from the not-so-fanous singer, one from the worldwide famous one – all have names you would give to cats, or rather names that children would give to cats.
The not-so-famous singer then gets the children, and actually adopts child number three, the one of the famous singer who has committed suicide. The famous singer, say his friends, would have rolled in his tomb knowing that his “enemy” got his own child. Could have avoided suicide, you might say. It's not so surprising the only father of this triangle who has not taken his life should get the children, is it now?
Predictably, the children grow up emotionally wrecked. Let us count: two of them had mama and stepfather taking their lives through suicide or excess (note the word, by the way), the third both his natural parents. The percentage of drug addicts at some time or other among the parents is thus never below 50%, with peaks of 100%. You can call this a very “interesting” family background.
The poor children have to cope with the mess, because only the idiots refuse to acknowledge that the sin of the fathers – and the mothers – will be visited upon the sons. At least one also becomes a drug addict; almost dies of an overdose – like her mother – but then recovers. Or says she does. She dies suddenly some days ago, for reason not easy to ascertain, probably simply medical ones because there are no obvious signs of suicide or overdose. She leaves children also named like cats. The sins of the fathers and the mothers have visited the children and, at the same time, grandchildren. You read all the names in the newspapers, and think the articles is about an institution for abandoned cats. No one seems to link the names – and the entirely de-Christianised environment they betray – and the tragedies.
I do. Go on, call me a “holy card face”.
This further tragedy in the family – I almost forgot: at twenty-five the young woman was already at the second marriage; but again the children of drug-addicted, suicides or both together rarely tend to make good marriage material; at least bar a conversion of which there is no trace here, as indicated by the children, all named like cats – leaves more children irrimediably scarred. The father expresses his sorrow, and seems not to have the faintest idea whence all these tragedies come. He seems to live in a planet where bad actions and their consequences are entirely disconnected, and tragedies just happen; mind, the last tragedy might have simply “happened”, but human actions are what caused all the rest.
The public is informed of this Hiroshima-style family, and you don't read anywhere a word of warning; I do not say a warning concerning the obvious truth that the sins of the father – and the mothers – will be visited upon the sons; but not even concerning the immense tragedy of having people taking drugs, quarrelling, committing suicide; leaving behind them people who take drugs, quarrel, and perhaps will, one day, commit suicide.
Not one word of warning. Too “judgmental”, you see. People simply register the facts, and consider them parts of the “lifestyle” of “celebrities”. What hell the life of such people must have been, must still be if they aren't such children that they can't even feel the pain of an adult, the public does not care. This is, most emphatically, not a cautionary tale. An excuse for easy emoting, at most.
It will be weeks before the causes of the death of the young woman will be made known. We can only hope and pray she died of natural causes, and at least, so to speak, halfway in the grace of God.
Looking at it coolly, the chances aren't great.
Let it be a cautionary tale. The sins of the fathers, and all that.
Kathleen Sebelius' destiny appeared, to external observers like yours truly, sealed for a while already. It was evident to any halfway skilled observer that a mess like Obamacare would need for people very high in the chain of command to fall on his sword, so that the Emperor may go on living. The approaching mid-term elections also made it utterly unthinkable to continue for much longer without an Officially Sacrificed Scapegoat. Therefore, the female was clearly a goner. Today, it was announced she was finally ordered to fall on her sword. No, they didn't put it this way. But you and I can see through the usual spinmeisters' crap, that persuades only those who don't need persuading.
I now predict Obamacare will undergo the same fate of Communism: as the real existing one continues to wreak havoc in the lives of countless people, the die-hard fans will insist the problem is merely in the implementation, which could have been better, but clearly not in the product itself. Whose fault it is, that Sebelius did not realise the Obamian Utopia, we will never be told. The locusts, probably. The earthquake. Certainly not the godless madness of the Emperor, who is Divine and therefore above success and failure.
Sebelius' political demise marks the day the Obama administration openly – though still not officially – admits Obamacare is a huge liability, and the situation is now called “red alert”. The attempt starts today to say the mess is not Obama's fault. He was betrayed by people he trusted. Not because he is an idiot, but because he flies too high for the dirt and little miseries of this world, where Christians demand that their religious freedom is respected, companies are fed up with having additional costs burdened of them, simple citizens discover every day the same, and everyone realises whenever Barry tells you you can keep something, you had better start saying farewell to it now.
Obamacare is in shambles. The Biggest Possible Scapegoat has been slaughtered today. All the problems remain. Barry has nowhere to hide, though the army of boot lickers will shield him as they can. I don't think the midterm will be a great joy to him, making him even lamer than he is now, and with the party scrambling for a face saving castration of Obamacare before the 2016 elections care for it themselves. We shall see.
But it's good to see Kathleen meet the same end as her almost identical twin, depicted above.
Every now and then, I try to think how the Cardinals could, in that fateful day of March 2013, have picked an even worse one than Jorge Bergoglio. Martini would have been one if he had been alive, but he had already gone to his Creator – or the other way, as the case may be -. Schoenborn is another candidate, but I think Schienborn is, if every bit a sellout as Francis, more intelligent, better educated and probably more prudent.
With the benefit of hindsight, Maradiaga is also such a one, though it is difficult to see whether he would have been as spirited in leading the madness than he is in following Francis' lead, safe in the knowledge he can take refuge in the shadow of the more senior heretic.
From what one begins to hear Tegle might also be such a one, but such a young Pope was probably never in the card. Tegle is, unfortunately, already a candidate to the Sea, one day. Let's hope he ages well, or does not age at all.
Possibly, the one with the best probability of being worse than Francis – if such a feat would have been achievable, at all – must be Cardinal Ravasi, the red-hatted version of the Italian TV singing “nun on cocaine”. Not because he dances so well – I do not know; Francis does not dance, either, and he lets other people dance the Tango just in front of the sanctuary for his and their more or less pious amusement – but rather because he can stoop to such a low level of tomfoolery that should the Red Nose Pope die, you know the Hip Hop Cardinal would be a good substitute. I doubt he knows as little of Catholicism as Francis, but hey, nobody is “perfect”.
The person of the Pope and the Papacy are separated. Of course they are. The latter is a divinely appointed office, the former is a fallible man elected by fallible men; men who may, or may not, ask for the guidance of the Holy Ghost during a Conclave.
Therefore, logic demands that it be allowed to criticise the fallible man – harshly, if his shortcomings are so extreme as to make it necessary – without this impinging on the sacred institution. On the contrary, the Pope is criticised exactly because of the damage he causes for the sacred institution of the Papacy and, by extension, of the Church.
It is rather disingenuous, and devoid of logic, to say that those who criticise the Pope damage the Papacy. They damage the Pope's credibility as a person – particularly if he has none, as in this case – but they do it to protect the Papacy, and by extension the Church and, ultimately, Her Bridegroom, Christ.
If, therefore, anyone were to say that the Pope cannot be criticised because this damages the Papacy, this would be tantamount as to say that the person of the Pope cannot be criticised if he damages – the current occupier, actually, insults or very obviously misrepresents – God. This borders on Papolatry, and makes no sense at all. Particularly then, when at the same time all the other ranks of the Church are considered fair game for criticism, and harsh criticism whenever necessary; only not the Pope, who does pretty much the same that the others do, but with infinitely more scandal as his every word is far more widely read and listened to.
Furthermore, it is not to be seen why criticism of the Pope would damage the Papacy, but criticism of the Successors of the Apostles or of Princes of the Church would not damage the Church. The Pope isn't a demigod on earth. In fact, the actual occupier of the office insists in seeing himself as a Bishop, and calling himself that way.
Either the Church is damaged by criticism to his prelates even when they are justified, or she isn't. Either it is allowed to criticise the Pope, or it is not allowed to criticise the bishops. Compulsory blindness when the line to the Pope has been crossed has never been the Church's way. Ask St Paul. Or St Peter, come to that. I wonder how many, today, would say to Paul that he can criticise everyone and everything, but he must stop in front of Peter.
It does not make any sense to compare traditionalist Catholics to Luther. The proof of the pudding is, as always, in the… Truth.
Traditionalist Catholics would stand the test of every generation of Catholics of the past. Luther wouldn't, and neither would Francis. You measure a Catholic according to his loyalty to Christ's Truth, not to his blind refusal to criticise the Pope.
Nor can it be said that the Pope is misread, the Cardinals aren't. Kasper is wrong, but Francis who supports him isn't. Homos within the Chutch are wrong, but Francis who shamelessly and publicly defends Ricca isn't. Liturgical wreckovators are wrong, but Bergoglio committing liturgical abuses – yes, it's a liturgical abuse even if one is Pope – isn't. I could go on.
It also does not make any sense to accuse friends of the SSPX to have “left the church”. They haven't, unless one is deranged enough to think that 2,000 years of Catholicism have left the Church. Again, adherence to Truth is what counts. Admirably, the SSPX practices this adherence to Truth in everything, including their obedience to the Pope whenever possible. But like every Catholic generation of the past, they do not let their obedience become blind Papolatry. Ask John XXII, or Pope Liberius, or Pope Honorius, whether this was the thinking of Catholics of the past.
Finally, it is very disappointing that someone who has been criticised in a very charitable way should accuse his opponents of outright malice.
Firstly, it is not clear why the same accusation could not be made to the same person when he criticises, say, Cardinal Dolan. Secondly, it has no basis in logic.
I do not accuse anyone of, say, not criticising the Pope because, say, his sponsors and donors – like, say, the Opus Dei - would stop giving money to him. I understand the thinking could simply be aligned. Similia similibus solvuntur. But I am rather grated when one who takes contributions to defend a certain line – contributions out of which his own livelihood is paid – accuses of ulterior motives many bloggers – and getting more numerous – who criticise the Pope out of sincere love for Christ and His Church; after working hours and sacrificing their own free time; and without any hope of monetary reward for their effort. Gratis et amore Dei.
It is astonishing, and utterly devoid of any logic, that one who is criticised for telling the Truth about anyone but the Pope should move the same accusations to those who do the same as he does, but with more coherence, and following 2,000 years of Church history from St Paul down.
I go as far to say that when such a malicious criticism is levelled, a breach of trust has occurred.
Avoid Michael Voris' channel.
At times I read posts in blogs written by priests that are so good I am very tempted to report them here, and add some words of personal encouragement; but then I refrain from it, because I am afraid that this might, in time, attract the ire of their bishop once some parishioner of them (or not parishioner of them) complains said priest is lauded in “ultra-conservative Catholic blogs” of the (bbbrrr…) “SSPX type”.
I make an exception this time for two reasons: the good priest in question keeps keeping me in his blog column (thus showing a remarkable, rather astonishing candor); and his blog is – from what I can see from the referrals to mine – growing so fast that if the good man has problems with the bishop it will certainly not be because of me, but because of the bigger and bigger audience his blog attracts.
Allow me, then, to show you what a blogger priest can write when he is really, really good. Emphases in red mine.
A Liberal is one who seeks to change Church teaching or pastoral practice in order to accommodate the changing values of the world, such as artificial contraception, cohabitation and homosexual pairings. In reality they exchange the teaching of Christ for the theories of Rogers, Freud, Marx etc. Such a person has fallen into moral heresy, abandoning Gospel morality as taught for 2000 years under the guidance the Holy Spirit.A Conservative is one who is loyal to Rome no matter what. Be they laity or prelates, they are blind ultramontanes; those who change their teaching and pastoral practice because Rome has said so –and without asking whether Rome was entitled to make the change. This form of ultramontanism is most dangerous because it appears loyal, but it is erroneous in that it is loyal only to the Pope of the day and not to the whole history of papal and Conciliar teaching.
A Traditionalist is one who is loyal to the Pope of the day as long as that Pope’s teaching is consistent with that of previous Popes and Councils. There can never be a ‘good Pope’ who changes doctrine or allows doctrine to be sidestepped for pastoral concerns, since doctrinal change is renunciation of previous teaching and a pastoral sidestep creates a lex vivendi which gives impetus to a change in the lex credendi. A Pope who changes doctrine or sidesteps it in practice cannot be a safe, good or loyal Pope, because his task is simply to defend and promote the Deposit of Faith. He may develop it in application to new situations, but he cannot distort it or discard it in order to accommodate new situations.
Another statement is absolutely brilliant, and what we very seldom hear from priests:
Doctrinal change and/or pastoral sidestepping are what liberals expect of Pope Francis, and at the end of the day I cannot see him obliging them. Certainly some of his off-the-cuff remarks have given a hope to liberals and in that sense they are to be regretted, but unless he has the arrogance of assuming that for two thousand years the Church has been wrong; that he alone has correctly perceived the mind and will of God who is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb.13:8) and in whom “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (Jas.1:17), Francis simply cannot oblige liberal desires.
There’s a lot here. I’ll leave this without comment. It’s just too beautiful.
May God richly bless this brave priest, and give him the richest reward when his time comes.