The day after a shameless, open attack to Summorum Pontificum, and the scandal is now everywhere.
The obvious arrogance of a Bishop thinking he has something to say as to whether a priest can or cannot celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass is compounded by the arrogance – truly typical of Francis; his minions learn fast – with which the man clearly implies the TLM is bad for the attendants' soul. I am sure he would prefer a Pinocchio Mass to the Tridentine. At least when I look at the picture.
Bishop Olson is a beautiful example of the type of bishop Francis will give us. The rather stupid grin in the picture above is typical of the modern non-authoritarian bishop; one who will insist in being seen as a harmful uncle, but will not hesitate to bully those who are in the way of his destructive agenda without any sense of shame, and perfectly sure of impunity. A bully, and an enemy of Christ. These V II smiling uncles are all the same.
Will the bishop backpedal in front of the obvious recognition that he is going ultra vires?
Why would he? He is leading the charge of the sans Mozzetta, and unless a phone call from Rome praises him and tells him he was a good boy, but it is now time to reassure the neocons before the next assault, there is no need for him to admit any mistake, or fear any consequence from higher places.
It astonishes me how there are people who do not understand where this is going. Francis might not have the gut to officially abrogate Summorum Pontificum, but by now it should be obvious to a moron that he will not do anything against those bishops wanting to play sheriff on their own diocese, and SP be stuffed. Unless he should, every now and then, see the need to give some birds food to his neocon pigeons, in which case we will have some symbolic gesture that will fill the Pollyannas with delight. “Look, he has visited the tomb of St. Pius X! Must be orthodox, then!”
This is not about Dr King, or internal affairs within the College. The TLM is obviously nothing to do with internal squabbles. It's the Sacrifice of the Mass, not an internal appointment.
No. This is about an entire world. A world that is growing all over the West and is crying to heaven the failure, the arrogance, the irreligiousness, the stupidity, and the unspeakable arrogance of the V II apparatchiks who are ruining the Church whilst smiling like cretins.
Bishop Olson incarnates them perfectly. Not one month in the office, and he is already in an extremely good position to win the 2014 Francis' Helper Of The Year Award. He probably dreams of the cover of Vanity Fair. Hey, the Humble Francis did not have anything against it, either.
Pray for the soul of this confused man. And of the one who made him bishop.
Yours truly believes in robust language. If the Bible has “whore” (perhaps not many translations have it; but the classical ones do), then he will not consider himself too fine for the Bible. Evidently, God inspired the use of robust language, when a robust concept has to be expressed. This blog is a permanent testimony of the blog author's opinion in the matter.
Like any other fairly well educated Italian male – to women other rules apply, because of the natural sweetness and gentleness of their sex – I consider language a tool, with which to express all the multicoloured nuances of life and, alas, of the Italian character. But like every other person, I have “mental fuses” preventing me from pronouncing certain words; words the mind generally recoils from even thinking. Still, on very rare occasions, an overflow of adrenaline will cause all fuses to explode; and then – but only then – certain very vulgar words – not words you find in the Bible, like “whore”, or words you intentionally use as mockery and communication tool, like “faggot”; but a world like the Italian “c” word - may get out of my mouth; a behaviour for which, by the way, anger can be an extenuating circumstance, but no excuse.
Now: in Italian there are many popular ways to express the male genitals. A socially avceptable way in a joking all-male (note: all male) context is, say, uccello (bird). Far more vulgar, but still used by people of lesser sophistication, or who are getting rather emotional, is the word pisello (“pea”; but actually rather “cock”).
But then there is another word, off the chart in the vulgarity scale, and never used in conversation among, say, people who had Latin at school or care for proper language. I know no English equivalent for it, as “prick” does not even begin to give the meaning. This very vulgar word is, to use the previous imagery, protected by numerous fuses, and his use will only be occasioned, in better educated people, by barely controllable busts of rage. It needs a truly massive flow of adrenaline to cause an educated Italian layman to say the “c” word. I cannot imagine a priest ever using it; not even a Don Camillo in the midst of a fisticuff party with a bunch of communists.
Imagine the other “c” word existing in English. The four-lettered one. Could you imagine it ever used by a priest, no matter how angry?
Not so, it must sadly be said, for the male working classes; who, having sex permanently in their mind, use that word liberally. But we are talking here of what we in Italy call linguaggio da muratore, “builders' language”, which is a different animal altogether.
The Italian working classes can be compared, in their vulgar language, to many Brits and Americans, who use the “f” word with great liberality. But in general, and among halfway educated people, the Italian “c” word would be consider graver than the English “f” word, simply for the reason that Italian – like German, or French – is socially much better protected from swearing than English.
And here comes the point: in all my years in Italy I have never, never ever, never ever ever heard such a vulgar word come out of anyone's mouth as a slip of the tongue. The obvious system of mental fuses I have explained above takes care that this does not happen. Not to the one who learnt Latin, of course; but believe me: not to the builder, either. Not to the builder, either.
If, therefore, anyone were to utter such a word as a slip of the tongue – something which, let us say it once again, I have never experienced; never, ever – I could not escape the impression that the person having such “slip” of the tongue has such a dirty mind, and uses vulgar language so liberally in his private conversation, that the fuses are just not there; and when this is the case, it is just a matter of time before the filth one has inside comes out.
Think of the four-lettered English “c” word, and reflect on how often you heard it pronounced as a slip of the tongue. It can't be, can it? Too many fuses protecting your mouth. Simple as that.
Now, I can only imagine two situations here:
1. There is in Spanish a word that sounds like the “c” word Francis has employed, but with an innocuous meaning. In this case, it may well be that someone has a momentary confusion, and says the wrong word utterly unintentionally, and innocently. This would explain the extremely natural way in which the Pope has pronounced the word, as if it were a word he uses commonly.
2. Francis speaks like a builder in those rare times out of the reach of a camera or microphone, and has – like the typical working class male – sexual imagery constantly on his head; which translates in constant foul language; which translates in the absence of fuses of any kind; which causes the event in the video above.
If this was the first time this Pope is disquieting, I would try to shrug the incident away as an embarrassing moment, though a very embarrassing one.
As this, though, comes from the Pope who says all the scandalous things Francis says, I wonder whether God is not sending us a message here: gently helping the Pollyannas to understand they just cannot trust the spontaneous statements of the man.
Let me say it once again: this can be a language mishap, due to Spanish being his first tongue. But barring this, boy, this is a mind I would not want to look into
US Secretary of State Kerry is so stupid that he compares the recent Ugandan measures against sexual perversions to Nazi Germany.
Some facts for Mr Kerry:
1. There was only one Country in Europe or North America that allowed Abortion in the Thirties. It was Nazi Germany. Abortion in its most extreme forms is a flag of the Obama Administration.
2. Sodomy laws were in place all over the West until a few decades ago. Including all the Western countries that defeated Nazism.
Who is the Nazi, then?
On another note, and as you read in the same article, the World Bank has frozen aid money for Uganda after the adoption of the law. Unfortunately for them with no results, at least for now. But make no mistake, the bullying will continue.
Leading the charge are countries like Norway, Danemark and the Netherlands; all of them heavy sponsors of sexual perversion, or euthanasia, or both.
Let us pray countries like Uganda – last time I look, a success story for African standards in the last decades – find the economic and spiritual strength to go on without the bribes of an increasingly nazified West.
Concerning Cardinal Kasper’s fifth column work, more or less asking that we “tolerate” what we cannot “accept”, the rather baffled Father Z asks: “what else do we tolerate though not accept?”
I have an answer there.
In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. I was always told, and have always taken for granted, that this is because the Church could not allow or in any way consent to the existence of brothels, but considered not fitting to crack down on them. This is the reason why in the Roma papalina prostitution was rife; be it because of the presence of an army of priest, not all of them very chaste, be it because of the position of Rome as an extremely important destination for pilgrimages, then largely the preserve of men, with the consequences anyone who is not a finishing school girl can easily imagine.
Therefore, in order to avoid the huge pressure to which girls would have been subjected in case of crackdown on brothels, the Papal States chose to tolerate brothels. Not “authorise”, mind; simply renouncing to a massive crackdown on a factual situation out there; a situation to which the Church lent no assistance or support whatever, forbidding the visit of brothels and constantly reminding of the consequences of sin on one’s soul.
This is the only example of “toleration” I know. I notice here that when brothels were outlawed in Italy in 1957, this was out of the initiative of a feminist Socialist female senator, enthusiastically followed by her own party and the Communists. Neither during Fascism nor during the dominance of the Democrazia Cristiana in the De Gasperi era did the governments of the day move to crack down on brothels: tolleranza was considered the best choice, and actually since Fascism also a strict regulation (for medical reasons, mainly) followed.
Now, what Cardinal Kasper suggests is that the Church does the same with the public adulterers. This is tantamount as to suggest that the Church should bring prostitutes in the houses of men, in order to offer a “pastoral solution” to men’s testosterone problems, and reacting to the million of men vociferously asking for p***y as a matter of elementary justice.
The Church tolerates, instead, that there are concubines today, just as she tolerated that there were prostitutes yesterday. The Church tolerates concubines in that she does not move towards the crackdown of the deplorable phenomenon, and does not demand for legislation making of it a criminal offence. But this is completely different from actively proceeding to sacrilege, and asking the priest to commit himself a sacrilege. If you can do that, you can as well make of the priest a pimp, and ask him to run a “pastoral” brothel for his flock.
Cardinal Kaspar, whose mind frame is rather the one of the prostitute than of the priest, doesn’t get the difference. To him, a client is a client, and as long as the client pays the Kirchensteuer, he will do whatever it takes to please him.
He will then call it “pastoral concern”; a “concern”, mind, very strong in those countries where the Kirchensteuer provides an enormous income, as can be seen from the illustration on this blog post.
Pastoral concern? I call it prostitution. Whenever a German prelate talks of being “pastoral”, follow the money.
If you have not done it already, please click on Rorate, who are following on this mess with admirable energy.
The facts are there, and I will not repeat the facts. I will, though, add some questions and answers of my own.
Why is bishop Olson doing this?
Because he can, is the simple answer. The man is certainly conscious of the fact that he has no right to stop the Tridentine. But why should he care? He knows he is acting on the “spirit” of this wonderful Pontificate. By putting himself at the head of the movement, bishop Olson earns brownie points by His Humbleness. However this matter ends, he will be one of the winners.
Lio is hip. Francis will be grateful.
What does this mean?
It means that it is open season on Summorum Pontificum. One year on, it is time to aim higher. At the latest after Benedict's death, the oppression might well become serious. This is just the second skirmish, following the example of the Humble Leader with the FFI. Francis does not need to intervene. He will look as SP is trampled. Sending videos to “brother bishops”, probably.
What will happen now?
Traditionalists will be in an uproar. Neo-cons will suggest, as always, silence and cowardice. “Do not test the Pontiff's patience!” – they will say – “Remember: Summorum Pontificum could be abrogated! Do not be divisive and allow the TLM to be massacred one church at a time! Otherwise, it will be your fault if you lose everything!”.
At that point, it will be for Francis to act. I doubt he will act as long as Benedict is alive. I even doubt he will abrogate SP as long as the SSPX is alive. But he might test the water, and see how this piece of lio goes. He will probably allow a diffused mobbing of the friends of the TLM. He might, though, gently invite the bishop to relent on this occasion, but noting how horribly divisive the TLM is. He looks god. Traditionalists look bad. Idiots praise his moderation. Then, the next round follows.
How shall we react?
We shall not listen to the Grima Wormtongues demanding that we accept to be crushed, in order not to be crushed. We must be vocal, and angry. We must cry to Heaven the scandal not only of this bishop, but of this pontificate.
Do not be cowed into silence. If you have a blog, please link to Rorate and follow the matter. Write to whomever you will be invited to write, sign the petitions that will undoubtedly come. Do not for one second believe that silence or acquiescence is an acceptable answer. The wolves will ask you to be a lamb. Be a tiger instead.
What happened to Poland?
Poland was invaded. It would have been invaded anyway, even if it had not sought the protection of Britain and – for what was worth, and if memory serves – France. If you believe that acquiescence would have saved Poland, you are just the man Grima is targeting.
This is the situation we are in. The demolition troops are in charge.
It's Pinocchio time.
I know it seems absurd, but apparently there are people around who think they aren't Sedevacantists because they think Benedict is the Pope. What they are, is Sedevacantists In Waiting.
Let us leave aside the absurdity of saying that Benedict is Pope when he himself says it is absurd to think so. Let us imagine Benedict has been, say, hypnotised to say so. Or they have threatened to kill his cat. Or something like that.
If Benedict is Pope and Francis isn't, the latter's appointment are invalid. Not only those of the bishops, but those of the Cardinals, too. Therefore, the next conclave will take place with a number of invalidly appointed Cardinals, and I am unable to see how from such a conclave a legitimate Pope might be elected.
Then, at some point Benedict will die, and the Benedictsedists will have to recognise that the Sea is vacant. Then, at some point, Francis will die or resign too, and the now Benedictsedevacantist will have to recognise that his successor is a bogus Pope elected by bogus Cardinals in an invalid conclave. Then at some point – actually rather fast now – all the Cardinals appointed by JP II and Benedict XVI would be above eighty and as such, according to the rule of those same Popes, would lose the right to elect a Pope. Therefore, there would be no Cardinals who can elect a Pope, no mechanism to elect new ones, and no authority that could give validity to whatever new method to elect a Pope.
We would, therefore, be in a situation of utter impasse, for which no solution can be found within Church rules that would allow to get out of it.
Mind, Popes were not always elected by Cardinals. But they were always elected in recognisable harmony with the will of their predecessors. Who could, now, say with any authority what this will is, and therefore which rules shall apply? Shall those Bishops elect the Pope, who have accepted to serve under illegitimate Popes? Who will decide Francis' bishops are to be excluded? How many pre-Francis bishops will remain in a decade or two? Shall we make a poll among pre-Francis priests, instead? Those who have deemed Francis and his successor Popes, you mean? How long until they are gone, too? Shall we elect the new Pope in a worldwide election, then? Paper poll? Internet? Who will organise it? Shall women be allowed to vote? How about those baptised by Francis' non-priests?
No, this is all absurd. So absurd in fact, that one wonders how the Benedictsedists can utter such outlandish ideas without looking three inches beyond their own nose.
Benedict has resigned. He is not the reigning Pope anymore. Volens nolens, Francis is Pope. An atrocious one, I'll give you that; but the Pope elected from largely atrocious Cardinals, selected among largely atrocious Bishops, selected among largely atrocious clergy, produced from largely atrocious seminars, ruined from a largely atrocious Council.
You can turn it and twist it as much as you like, but in the end Francis is the undeniable product of the visible Church. His legitimacy is universally recognised through all the layers of that organisation we and all our ancestors have called “the Church”. There is no way we can call a fantasy parallel reality into existence, that would declare the real reality a scam and bogus organisation. There is no way any of us can decide, whilst in a sober state, that a fake Church now commands the loyalty of all those seen the world over as Catholic Bishops, Priests, Cardinals, Popes, Deacons, and Seminarians; an entire planet showing the Cross on top of fake churches, with no Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, and no valid Masses being celebrated. All this, in favour of a fantasy Church whose last Pope, Benedict, died saying he has validly resigned, and Francis is Pope.
Stop dreaming. Start thinking.
Benedictsedism is sedevacantism in waiting, and in the present situation it is just as absurd as the mainstream Sedevacantism.
This post is going to be harsh.
I mean, not pussycat harsh. Mundabor harsh. Keep reading at your peril. Complaints will not be published.
Where I grew up, divorce was a heavy social stain. It was already so in bigger cities; but far more so in littler ones.
The reasoning was, and is, very simple because in the end, life is a simple thing: marriage is a cooperation for life, for which two people decide to stake the only card they have. It is also the most important decision of their lives. Therefore, if the marriage fails they have – irrespective of the individual circumstances – both failed in the most important thing of their lives. It’s as simple as that.
I can’t tell you the times I have heard this music in my family, and I can tell you my family was not dominated by churchgoing Catholics – though cultural Catholics, yes.
The man, or woman, you choose, is the man or woman you have deemed good enough to get the only card you have. If the cooperation fails, there’s no way one of the two can call himself innocent. Yes, the wife is a slut. But a real man does not marry a slut, only a child does. Yes, the husband has a wandering eyer. But a woman – like the man just mentioned – should have known beforehand what deal she was getting, instead of drowning in a sea of emotionalism and marry just because of “luv”, and then refuse the delivery of the parcel she ordered.
This is why in case of divorce – or separation, which was always the case before 1970 – the stigma remained attached to both. To one side generally more, if there was an obvious culprit. But to the other too, because it had managed to screw up the only thing he or she was required to get right in life. Because again, in that kind of society how much money you make, what a career you have, what house you live in and what car you drive was always far, far less important than whether you have an intact family. I can’t tell you the times I heard the phrase “se divorzi, sei un fallito”; “if you divorce, you are a failure”. Yes, this was so more clearly among the socially conservative minded. But boy, there was an awful lot of them.
Of course, this worked in that way because this was the way society worked. You can’t export this situation to countries, like all the Anglo-saxon ones, where such deadly seriousness in matters of marriage was probably dead after the First World War. But Italy was different, being blessedly free from divorce until 1970. When laws change, you will have to wait an entire generation until the morality of the common man follows the legal situation; but then the entire society is screwed, as a generation of children grow up knowing every marriage has a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it. Take away the door, and see how people’s perception of marriage change. Divorce is pure poison.
The results of this brutal social pressure were, though, beautiful. Low divorce rate even decades after the introduction of divorce, and a pervasive social control that worked rather well particularly in smaller centres, and not badly at all even in the big cities.
Note, though, that few people, twenty or thirty years ago, would have bought the thing with “luv”. Once you have married, they would have said, you have lost any right to look for “luv” elsewhere, until and unless your spouse does you the favour and kicks the bucket. If there were children, this search for “luv” was seen – and rightly so – as the madness of middle-aged adolescents, unable to take their responsibility and understand that when you have children, your own “happiness” must give way to a superior interest. Yes, it must give way to a superior interest. There are things bigger than oneself, and one’s happiness. Thinks like God, Fatherland, and family; requiring you not to play with sacrament, to give your life on the battlefield if necessary, and put to put your family before your individual quest for emotional satisfaction. Millions of my generation grew up like this. We saw it work. We now see the new generations growing up with a different set of values: divorce, concubinage, even “same sex unions”, and one’s own selfish interests as the metre of what is good and worthy of legal and social protection. What a load of rubbish.
The old system worked. Was it harsh? You bet it was. Is it harsh to mock the young woman who looks like the White Whale at 28, and give her nicknames like “Forrestal”, “Nimitz” or the more generic “aircraft carrier”? Is it harsh to mock the boy who behaves like a girl at 15? Not many of those in the Italy I grew up in. Social control works a treat, but only if it’s harsh.
This has all gone now. Largely in Italy, and completely in more northern latitudes. If you ask me, divorce destroyed it more than anything else.
Nowadays, individual happiness is a human right. Your husband sleeps around, so you have the right to scar your children forever. Your wife is a nagging champ, so you have the right to be tempted by the younger colleague. A family is destroyed; but who cares, because there is simply no social price to pay: not in front of God, about Whom very few care; and not with the neighbours, about whom many more do.
Nowadays, everyone is so full of understanding. “It didn’t work. How sad”. “I am sure you’ll find a better man/woman soon”. “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”. Crap like that. Emotions galore. Families destroyed.
No. The violent drunkard is still your husband. The whore is still your wife. Even in those cases where you cannot live with them, you can still pray for them. That’s the lot you chose. That’s the card you played. It’s yours now. Yes, it’s harsh. Life is. The German poet Friedrich Schiller said it wonderfully:
“Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet /Ob sich das Herz zum Herzen findet!”
“Let him check, he who binds himself forever, whether the heart matches the heart!”.
The same poet lets this follow by a short, but ominous warning: “Der Wahn ist kurz, die Reu ist lang”. The madness is short, the repentance long. Nowadays the madness is short; then up to the next madness. “Marry in haste, repent at leisure” has become “marry in haste, complain about the Church”.
As always, the destruction of family values has far-reaching consequences. In the last two or three generations in most Anglo-Saxon countries, divorce has been an obvious possibility for everyone. So obvious, that people are born with it. Therefore, all my readers from the US, Canada, Australia, the UK have been born and grew up in a society that accepted divorce. How can such a society breed and instil that concept of sacredness of a marriage that is so vital for the marriage to stand the inevitable tempests? If happiness is the new religion, why would a man not go away with the pretty young thing? Who will tell him “no, you must stay on the side of the mother of your children”? Why? He only wants to be happy! Who are you to judge? Has Francis not told you you should not condemn him? I could make similar reasoning for the other sex, but you get my drift.
If Argentina is anywhere similar to Italy – and I am pretty sure it is – I think this is the situation mentioned by the Bishop of Rome when he complains about those who condemn those who “experience failure” in their “luv”.
Being post-Catholic, Francis is obviously unconcerned with the social consequences of such “failed luv”. We were told at University – where people were also far more Catholic than Francis on his most Catholic day – that “every divorce is a bomb put under the chair of society”. Everyone understood it, and understood why. I doubt Francis does, or cares. It was fairly common thinking then; certainly it was among practising Catholics, and very often among conservative cultural Catholics. When one married, “luv” was just not part of the equation anymore, marriage was. The bed you made, and all that.
This is not Francis’ world, of course. He isn’t one to “judge”. It is not told, but implied “luv” is his sacrament. It is not told, but implied marriage must, if “necessary”, give way in some way the Synod will care to elaborate upon.
Implied, mind. Others, like Cardinal Kasper, will dig the marriage’s grave. Francis merely prepares the ground.
But I grew up in times when average people were far more Catholic than today’s Pope; when the social rules were fairly well-known; and when people were expected to decide like adults, and to live with the consequences. They knew – all of them knew, because those were the times – that there was only one go, and they were expected to use it well, and to know what they were doing. Marriage was, as people jokingly used to say, “the prison you chose”. It gives you the idea people were expected to live with the consequences of their actions, like adults; not run away like adolescents. It worked. It worked very well, and most people were smart enough to understand that the second chance wasn’t really likely to be better than the first; then when one has been able to screw the only important decision of his life, the probability he will make it all right the second time is – sacrament aside – slim.
This, as far as the “luv” thingy is concerned.
One suspects, though, that Bergoglio has another target in his sights: the communion for public adulterers. He does not say so, of course. But again, he creates perceptions; he builds a climate; he creates a “do not judge” narrative that can be exported ad libitum to any other situation. Don’t be a pharisee. We don’t do casuistry. You are a bad, bad Christian.
Comments are allowed, but only if they do not touch personal matters. I understand this touches some of you from rather near. I wasn’t there. I do not know you, whom you married, your circumstances, your social system. I understand you did not grow up in Italy. I am talking of the society I know, which I think is the society Bergoglio knows.
But please understand I have no desire to hear personal stories of recrimination. Where I grew up, no one was.
“The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes, but is tolerant in practice because she loves. Enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe, but they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.”
This was written by the great Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the privilege of dying before the “great Drunkenness” took its course.
It is consoling to see that the “Inclusiveness Nazism”, or if you prefer the “Dictatorship of Relativism”, wasn’t born in the XXI century but is in the very fabric of secular thinking.
Our religious values are under attack. Not for the first time, not for the last.
We would be far more effective in the fight if we stopped behaving like sissies already, and decided to shoot from all cannons still at our disposal instead.
Pope or no Pope, Western countries are highly sophisticated democracies, very sensitive to where the wind blows.
A shift of the prevailing winds would be registered by them very fast, and would see the weathervane changing direction with great promptness. The Church is still so powerful, in all modern Western democracies – even the Netherlands, or Belgium – that if they declared war to the anti-Christian mentality and legislation most politicians would deem it suicide to openly contrast them. These people have been kowtowing to a tiny minority of perverts for decades. The thunders of the Church would have them answering to calls of “stay!” like well-trained dogs.
If the Church officials in the West were to defy them, they would chicken out big time. But this does not mean Church officials are necessary. We, the people, can do a lot on our own. Slower, for sure, and with far less power. But we can nevertheless.
Pope or no Pope, let us go back to being intolerant in principle.
I have enough of reading Catholic bloggers never tired of telling us how stressful and hurtful the situation of those divorced and remarried is. They never think of the stressed of those who chose to pray the price of obedience. They never think that the first priority is the protection of God’s laws, not the sugary understanding of everything and everyone. Do you give drugs to an addict out of “compassion”? What is worse: to allow him to kill his body with drugs, or to allow him to kill his soul with sacrilege?
We believe. Therefore, let’s be intolerant in principle.
From one of Francis’ continuous stream of public homilies (one hopes La Stampa’s translator is better than the one of the Official Vatican News service).
“A Christian is a person who “thinks like a Christian, feels like a Christian and acts like a Christian. And this is coherency in the life of a Christian. Someone can be said to have faith, “but if one of these things is missing, he is not a Christian, there’s something wrong, there’s a certain incoherence.”
Eugenio Scalfari is a person who thinks like an Atheist, feels like an Atheist and acts like an Atheist. Well, I must admit there’s a certain coherence in that. This must be why Francis did not feel the need to say one word of disapprobation to him.
The moral? For Francis, woe to you if you are a weak Christian. It is far better to be a coherent Atheist.
“And when there is no Christian coherency, and you live with this incoherence, you’re giving scandal. And the Christians that are not coherent are giving scandal.”
And where there is no Christian coherency, and a Pope lives with this incoherence, calling Proddies “brother bishops”, hobnobbing with Atheists to whom he promises salvation if they follow their conscience whilst berating Traditionalists and orthodox Catholics every forty-five minutes, he is giving scandal.
If you find yourself in front of – imagine! – in front of an atheist and he tells you he doesn’t believe in God, you can read him a whole library, where it says that God exists and even proving that God exists, and he will not have faith. But if in the presence of this atheist you bear coherent witness of Christian life, something will begin to work in his heart. It will be your witness that that he will bring this restlessness on which the Holy Spirit works. It’s a grace that we all, the whole Church must ask for: ‘Lord, [grant] that we might be coherent.’”
If you tell this Atheist he can be saved if he follows his conscience, he will simply not care a straw for the way you live. Particularly if this involves things like no fornication, no abortion, no divorce, and no contraception.
Soon it will be one year since one of the worst Popes in history has been elected by Cardinals who should have asked in prayer the Holy Ghost for guidance, and preferred to listen to the world instead.
Soon it will be, also, one year of constant admonitions that the secular Press will soon turn against Francis. Because they don’t understand him yet, you see.
I am still waiting.
In these twelve months, Francis got an entire collection of covers in secular magazines, countless articles of praise and the endorsement of champions of Catholic orthodoxy like Hans Kueng and Barack Obama. Even the UN praises him for not doing that for which they horribly berate and slander the Church.
In the meantime, even the most retarded have understood that Francis is the Pope; and that therefore there will be no women priests, official endorsement of abortion, participation of the Pope to “gay pride” parades, or sponsorship of condom producers.
Still, the man is as popular as ever. He actually becomes more popular as even the likes of Rolling Stone grasp the lasting damage he is producing.
Therefore, I think the secular press will very probably never turn against the man.
It makes sense. When you understand that the head of the enemy fraction is your most effective weapon, you don’t start shooting at him just because he isn’t the head of your fraction. Rather, you allow him to go on with his work of destruction and enjoy the fruits of his work.
This will be a long wait.
As Francis’ antics continue unabated, the ranks of those who cry scandal grows. This puts those under pressure from whom it can be legitimately expected that they say something about it. I am not talking of blogging priests here – I have received messages of encouragement from several priests, all saying in various ways “we cannot criticise the Pope the way you do” -, for which obvious allowances must be made; rather I refer to those media outlets run by laymen, and without a hierarchical relationship with the Pope.
Most notable among those outlets is, of course, Michael Voris’ effort. Voris has, at least up to now, embraced a policy of almost total silence concerning the elephant in the room; or rather, the bull in the China shop.
When you visit Voris’ site, you still find very interesting contributions about the careless ways some of the employee handle the china, the way the windows are kept dirty and shabby, the chaos on the shelves and the lack of proper presentation of the china itself. What you do not find, is a word about the bull which, at the same time, is destroying the china with mucho gusto, and is being praised to the sky by those who wish to see the shop razed to the ground.
Now: Voris has all the right to ignore the bull, and I believe he is sincere in his thinking that to criticise said animal might do more damage than by allowing it to keep breaking china whilst complaining about the careless employees. I do take exception, though, when this arrives to the point of criticising those who criticise the Pope; because this means simply not to understand that those who criticise the Bishop of Rome do so out of love for Christ and His Church, and see in the criticism as much of a duty as Voris sees in his silence.
For some days now a statement has been circulating, that is unduly critical of all those good Catholics who think it their duty to protect the faithful from the devastations of the Humble Bull. Someone posted it on my comment box. I did not like it one bit, and found it not Voris-like. I think it should be removed.
The thinking does not make sense. The Pope is not some kind of Demi-God. He is the successor of Peter, but every Bishop is the successor of the Apostles. If, therefore, criticism of the successor of Peter can confuse the faithful, then criticism of the successors of the Apostles should also be avoided.
Furthermore, the idea that when a Pope gives scandal the best thing to do would be to be silent in front of the scandal is utterly outlandish. It is, in fact, scandalous. A bad Pope alone gives more scandal than thirty bad Cardinals together. If scandal must be fought against, than the Pope’s scandal first. If it is better to shut up, than it is better to always shut up.
Thirdly, the strange mixture of half-admission and half-denial will not work in the long term. To say “we have seen that there is a problem, we merely refuse to deal with it” will in time anger both those who see the problem, and those who don’t. Catholicism has a way of its own of putting one in front of a choice: one can’t approve of Christ and not disapprove of Francis. Not, at least, if he isn’t a priest, whose incardination in a hierarchical system gives him, so to speak, an added public duty that can probably be legitimately exercised as long as Francis’ antics do not reach the level of formal heresy.
I do not know exactly who runs the show at Church Militant TV, and whether Voris has the last say on what goes there, and what not. But certainly, whoever takes the decisions there is responsible for what is presented as the sender’s opinion, and by being the most public voice of CMTV Voris must also accept to be identified with such statements. Again, the thing to do would be to remove the mini-manifesto at once.
I have lost interest in Church Militant TV, and for a while now have not posted or commented on any of their videos. I am sure the quality is customarily high, and I am also sure of the honesty of most of the people involved; but it goes against my grain to watch a programme dealing with some problems in some parts of the vast Empire, whilst Rome itself is burning.
Rome will not be destroyed; but Rome is burning all right. We need for more and more followed public voices to take a clear stance and say that this has to stop. As the number of the critics grows, the public opinion will be made increasingly more aware about the issues on the ground. Countless are now confused, unable to understand this madness, desperately trying to find a logic in this absurd situation, or simply disappointed in what they see as merely another political party on a popularity drive. It is time to do what we can to put pressure on the Humble Bull, and let him understand that we don’t care for his more or less blood-chilling motivations, whatever they may be. We will never be sold on this rubbish.
We side with Catholicism as God commanded.