Weigel’s argument is that Cardinal Ottaviani’s conviction that “error has no right” is now being used against us by rabid secularists, maintaining that Christianity must be silenced because…. error has no rights. This would show that Ottaviani’s conviction was wrong.
Now, apart from the huge problem that the Cardinal’s opinion is what the Church has always believed, the argument just doesn’t work from a logical point of view.
The idea that Error has no rights is not proven wrong because others oppress Christians or the Church using the same argument, for the very reason that… they are wrong. Christians have always been persecuted, and will always be persecuted irrespective of whether they hold to Truth in matters of religious freedom, or cave in to the modern “inclusive” mentality. If anything, the last years have abundantly showed even caving in to “inclusiveness” does not spare from persecution.
The argument, tough, does not work in an even more elementary way. If we say that “it is right to put dangerous criminals in jail” this does not prevent others from unjustly putting us in jail because they deem us dangerous criminals; but this does not negate the validity of the principle in the least!
How, then, do we distinguish those who are right from those who are wrong? Simply by knowing what is right and what is wrong. The Church is right, the Heresies are wrong. Christianity is right, Atheism is wrong. God is right, those who oppose Him are wrong. How do I know that? Because the Church says so. And who is the Church to say so? She is the Bride of Christ.
It’s simple, really. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what is important is on which side one is. To say Muslims should have the right to build mosques if we want to have the right to build churches neglects the fundamental difference between a church and a mosque, Truth and Error, true God and false god.
We must stop with this inclusive, egalitarian waffle and resolutely take the side of Christ. Be assured caving in to the fashion of the time is not only to betray God, but will not ensure a single additional church being built, as these times of church closures and coming persecution abundantly prove.
One of the issues touched by the Holy Father during his disastrous meeting with CLAR was the one of the dying orders that cling to the vast possessions they have; a state of affairs the Pontiff doesn't like because he would rather use the assets for other purposes (presumably, giving the money away) whilst the interested parties reply the money is necessary to provide for them before the old nincompoops stretch – as the cynical Italian would say – their paws.
It stroke me as odd that the Pontiff didn't even mention with one word the lamentable state of these orders, or wondered how they could slowly commit suicide in such a stupid way, or admit the unprecedented crisis of religious life; he also did not waste one second to mention in passing the enormous damage created by the lack of religious personnel for the coming generations. His concern was, apparently, centred on the fact the old boys cling to vast real estate, which the Pontiff would rather see sold and, if the now fashionable rhetoric is to be followed, spread among the poor.
I am informed that horses are extremely centred in the present, which is why they can, say, be bought and sold many times in a way that would, say, break a dog's heart. The horse only thinks of today, they say. He is not in the least interested in the past, nor remotely concerned about the future.
The Holy Father's free-wheeling reflections concerning the money of the dying orders reminded me of the horse thinking, with the Pontiff faced with the utter ruin of a vast number of once great religious orders and the great damage for future generations, but concerned about the fact they don't want to give him the dough.
Alternatively, I can only imagine that his repeated “what do I know” and “perhaps” reflect his real thinking, and this Pope subscribes to the disquieting theory that the Holy Ghost doesn't need or want religious orders anymore, as in this oh so brilliant new age of ours, in which divorce, contraception, sexual perversion and defiance of Christian values are in a new Springtime, He will transfer the task to the oh so new man, and the contracepting, aborting, divorcing laity will take care of things. In this perspective, it makes perfect sense that the Holy Father say “what do I know” about the fact these orders are dying, but does know he would like their vast resources. Again, we would be here in front of a Jesuit rather unconcerned with the almost extinction of his and many other orders. Once again, note he says “they have no vocations” and sees in that a fact he can't really explain. That there are no vocations because the orders foxtrotted things up in the most egregious manner doesn't even enter his mind. Such is the mentality of a product of V II.
I Imagine this, because if this were not to be the case the Pontiff would most certainly focus on the restructuring of the orders according to pre-Vatican II rules, and encourage them to use their generally extensive resources to finance their growth; a growth which, if you believe God wants to have solid religious orders, you must believe will come once these orders are made solid again.
Nothing of this is to be seen in the Papal reflections. The traditional orders are all more or less dying, and his words suggest a sort of confrontation or at least opposition to his wishes that has gone on for some time, with the Vatican gently suggesting the orders divest part of their assets and the orders gently answering that they need them to fund their old age.
Probably horse mentality is, therefore, not really at play. Rather, a perfect easiness with the dying of religious orders. This is, of course, coupled with the near-perfect blindness of the V II man, either unable to see that the traditional orders are growing fast, or willing to consider their growth a residue of the past, as if those people still believed they live, erm, cough, in the Forties.
But hey, what does he know.
In the meantime, give him the money.
Stimulated (or you might say: terrified) by the recent appointment of a Jesuit as, erm, bishop of Rome, I have decided to visit more in detail the site of one of their provinces. Not being very good at Spanish, I decided to focus on the site of the British Province.
The "who we are" site tells us there are 20,000 Jesuits around, but doesn't tell us anything about their age.
One and a half day into the latest mess created by Pope Francis with his own carelessness, we are put in front of a show of incompetence that lets one wonder why on earth Cardinal Bergoglio was deemed the best fitted to put some order in the Vatican machinery.
As I write this in a cold, grey UK morning, we have two Rosarygate updates on the usual Rorate Caeli. With the first we were informed a probably desperate Father Lombardi declined to comment on the “private” conversation of the Pope, as several Vaticanists explained to El Mundo that yes, Bergoglio is the man who would talk such rubbish. This was a huge occasion to clarify and set the matter to rest, and was lost.
Would it have been too much for the Pontiff to authorise Father Lombardi to say something on behalf of the Pope, renewing his encouragement to pray the Rosary, his respect for those who count them, his special gratefulness for the rosary bouquet given to him, and his renewed confidence in the work of the CDF? Too difficult? Really?
It was in fact too difficult, one thinks, because this is a Pope very humbly attached to heterodoxy and, in Franciscan simplicity, unwilling to backpedal even when the entire planet is asking “could he really have said that?”. Yes, he could. Yes, he did. Yes, you can bet your pint he'll do it again. This was not an occasional slip of the tongue, as such episodes are now at least one too many, and too worrying for that. This was an insight into Pope Bergoglio's world, which is why he refused to backpedal. Methinks, he considers all this mess a tempest in a glass of water, caused by people absurdly attached to these practices of the past like the Rosary, and who think they live in the Forties.
After a clearly hand-faced Lombardi declined to comment, the pressure was obviously on the CLAR to save what can be saved, or at least smooth some corner; but those at CLAR obviously refused to do the Pope's job, and confirmed (second Rorate update) the content of the report, though they tried to downplay the quotations implying the man with the writing pad must have been thinking of women, and all was written from “recollections” after the fact.
Don't make me laugh. As if words of the Pope would be put in quotation marks without someone there having written them down verbatim. Nor did CLAR, as I write, modify or correct or retract one single word of their report.
If CLAR had said “awfully sorry, we were very wrong on this one, the Vatican phoned and it is clear there must have been two or three rather massive misunderstandings”, the matter would have somewhat settled down, but they would have lost face without being in the end guilty of any misinformation. One can understand they decided to weather the storm and say “no, this is really what he said and meant”.
If I were in the same room as Father Lombardi – whom again I imagine, Jesuit and heterodox as he is, with the hands on his face, leaning on his desk in utter disbelief – I would suggest that anyone who is received by the Pope signs a confidentiality agreement, notepads are utterly forbidden, and even smartphones are given to Vatican officials before entering the Pope's room, as it is very easy to use them to record every word he says.
“But Mundabor” – you might say – “this is absurd! It is tantamount to admit the Pontiff is such a maverick that the Church must be protected from him every time he opens his mouth and speaks off-the-cuff!”.
Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past - but repetita iuvant - they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an "ask an Apologist" question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like "good suicides to go heaven" and the like.
Hopefully you won’t need Italian (some parts are in English) to understand one only needs to walk around Rome with a microphone to find a number of priests who have no clue about the Ten Commandments.
The irony of the journalist is, in pure Italian style, abrasive but suave (“count with your little fingers”, a phrase told to little children, probably takes the biscuit).
The way some of them make asses of themselves is painful to behold (“do not sleep?”).
Personally I couldn’t stomach viewing all of it, but I think it’s highly instructive.
As they say in Italy: braccia rubate all’ agricultura (arms stolen to agricultural work).
More is emerging concerning the senseless talk of the Holy Father to a confraternity of religious from South America.
This time, it emerged the Pope said to the present that perhaps a letter from the CDF should arrive, “telling you that you said such or such thing… But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward”.
In case you still aren't worried, there's more.
“Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up”.
These words are astonishing in their kindergarten shallowness, and that they come from a Pope – and from a Pope who seems to like such stunts, and find them just the ticket – is very telling about the degradation the Pontiff is throwing on the Bride of Christ.
I leave it to the professionally blind and to the compulsive Clericalists to try to find some twisted interpretation of these words which might let the Holy Father appear desirous to preserve Catholic orthodoxy; but as for myself, I won't buy it.
The Pope has clearly undermined the very office of the CDF, because in his world doctrinal matters are secondary to “doing something where life calls for it”. One truly believes he is listening to some “worker priest” of the Seventies talking of a brave new world where spontaneous “doing something” is what comes first, and the proper observance of God's rules – and, unavoidably, their intact transmission – must take second place. This, three months after his election. One cannot but imagine what he will do in three years, or in thirteen.
It seems to me increasingly more probable that this Pope wants a sort of “permanent revolution” within the Church, a sixty-eight-type “ferment” in which Catholic world order takes second place to what in Italy is called “azionismo”, the exaltation of “doing” for the sake of doing, and of a cult of what is “spontaneous” and allegedly “good hearted” that takes precedence over old, “stuffy” concepts like proper praying, proper thinking, proper liturgy, proper theology, and proper obedience -to his lieutenants -.
Of course such a one would stage Pinocchio masses. Of course he would downplay or even refuse to contemplate hell for those who die in their atheism (hey, they “do good things” too…). Of course he would refuse obvious signs of Catholic orthodoxy like the Mozzetta. Of course he would suggest that people “not worry” if they are being heterodox. The true Jesuit.
This is '68 all over again.
I hope this Pope remains in charge only as long as it takes to move he cardinals to think “never again!”, and then resigns and moves off to some favela. Alas, he will largely appoint cardinals who think and act like him, so one hopes the resignation comes before he has had he time to damage the Church for a very long time to come.
Is the Pope Catholic? The question doesn't appear very rhetorical anymore, and it has been only three months.
Fasten your seatbelt, and pray.
Read on Rorate the transcript (unofficial and unauthorised; I wonder whether a dementi will follow) of the latest free-wheeling thoughts of a Pope for whom to think of something and to say it seems to be one and the same.
A group of faithful offers him more than 3,500 rosaries prayed for him. Think how beautiful and moving this is! Would you not be moved at knowing someone prayed one Hail Mary for you? When the Pope receives not 3,500 Hail Mary, but 3,500 rosaries he is not at all overwhelmed by the stunning beauty of this gift; instead, he takes it “with respect”, but he is also “concerned” at the practice.
The Rosary? Seriously? Do you think you live in the Forties? And come on, are you even counting?
Please visit Rorate and read there the entire text of the transcription; it transpire an atmosphere of mockery among the present, to which the Holy Father reacts by saying to them not to laugh, but clearly showing with his “concern” he thinks the same as they do, without the mockery.
For a Pope who goes around saying he is particularly devout to the Blessed Virgin, this is seriously beyond the pale. Actually, this is beyond the pale for anyone wearing a habit.
We live in times where, to put it mildly, what would be considered object of mild derision and cause of very sad reflections in a country curate comes from the mouth of a Pope with such astonishing frequency as to make it a part of everyday life, in the same way as the ramblings of the village stupid isn’t even noticed after a while.
In this case I don’t know about the village, but I don’t have many doubts about the stupid, because a Pope who has recently been publicly corrected about a fundamental tenet of Christianity – one that should be within the grasp of every catechised child – and insists in saying whatever happens to cross his not very well instructed or reflective mind without any problem perfectly fits the description. Can you imagine the Pontiff Emeritus talking like that? Can you imagine any Pope of the past doing the same?
And so we learn that to the string of pearls this truly astonishingly incompetent Pope has given us in less than three months another one must be added: don’t pray the Rosary because it’s so passé and for Heaven’s sake, don’t count them! I mean, do you think we are in the Forties?
I am now eagerly awaiting for the corrections or, ahem, “clarifications”, of the Lombardis and Rosicas of the world, explaining to us that the Pope is oh so very fond of the Rosary and by any means, feel free to count.
The worst of it is that the clarification might even not come.
What is cause for concern here is not the Rosary, but a Pope who is concerned about them.
My next rosary is for Pope Francis. I hope he won’t be too concerned.
This blog here appears exclusively dedicated to the Rosary in Latin. His wisely anonymous (and therefore, perhaps a "her") creator did an excellent work in caring for those who have not been exposed to Latin, at all.
The main page has all the prayers in Latin. If you have doubt as to the correct pronunciation, there are several links leading to pronounciation help.
Father Ray Blake has, as so often, perceptive considerations about careerism in the Church; careerism fuelled by the “expectation” of a red hat for certain prestigious dioceses, and the custom to move bishops from A to B to C as their, erm, career proceeds.
If the system were to be frozen, a bishop would know that it is highly probable he will remain in his diocese for a long time; this would in turn allow him to start a long-term work of re-shaping of his own diocese. He wouldn't be allowed to see his diocese as a “station” towards more prestigious appointments, and would not be motivated to ingratiate himself to the press or the powers that be and appear just the ticket for the next big diocese in need of an appointment. Incidentally, if he is bad this would undoubtedly be seen in the figures concerning vocations, conversion and co. and said bishop wouldn't have anywhere to hide, nor would he be allowed to move elsewhere and endanger a bigger or more prestigious diocese (Peter Smith comes to mind; or our own Vincent “Quisling” Nichols). The contrast in results between the good bishops, those who make an excellent work in their diocese, and the Nichols would be brutal. Then, the one or other bishop could be gently pushed elsewhere for manifest incapacity; but ending down, not up.
The problem with this system is, I think, that it would work. No more easy favours for the friends of the friends; no more opportunities to hide one own's incompetence claiming lack of time to do a proper job; no more trendy prelates guffawing around in desperate search of a camera. Bad times all around.
Plus, as the conservative dioceses tend to regularly fare better than the trendy ones in vocations etc, this system would lead to conservative bishops systematically rising to preeminence; a preeminence earned by good and hard work and not by networking and by appointment.
Meritocracy? God forbid! What would happen of the trendy crowd? That would, one day, be the end of…. gasp…. Vatican II! No, this certainly can't be allowed, will our men in black, purple and red think; let us rather build fully unrecognisable “trendy” churches; let us follow the crowd on social and environmental issues; let us waste money in stupid modern art exercises; and let's be overtly or covertly approving of same-sex unions, even those of us who don't wear stilettos in private. The Church will be damaged and countless souls will get lost, but who cares…
We'll be so popular; and if you, my dear Father Smart, can say the right things and mix with the right crowd, one day the diocese will arrive for you, too.
Read on the usual Rorate the report concerning a talk held by Father Berg, FSSP superior. Father Berg tries, like the FSSP as a whole, to square the circle, and unavoidably fails to persuade.
The main messages Father Berg sends are in my eyes two: a) the Council radicalised the conservatives as well as it did the progressive, and b) none of the two opposing sides tried to follow the “difficult” path of the much-abused “hermeneutic of continuity”.
As to the first point, we do not have the script, but I would be curious to know whether Father Berg brought some evidence of the supposed “radicalisation”. Unless and until Father provides evidence, I think it much fairer to say the Conservatives haven’t radicalised themselves in the least, but have simply kept the position the Church always had. It is a contradiction in term to accuse he who hasn’t changed of having radicalised himself simply because other people have done exactly the same.
As to the second point, Father puts himself in an argumentative cul-de-sac with his very words: if Vatican II had been the fruit of orthodox thinking, the “hermeneutic of continuity” wouldn’t have been difficult at all; but the Council was exactly that: revolutionary and disruptive, hence the mess that followed it.
The Council must, says Father, be interpreted in a spirit of continuity with the past. Of course it must; every Church document must be read in this way, and it would be utterly Un-Catholic to even attempt anything else. But exactly here lies the problem. When examined with a hermeneutic of continuity in mind, the Council documents appear gravely wanting: muddled, duplicitous, wrong, or outright stupid.
There is no way you can reconcile white with black and keep it white. There is no way you can, say, reconcile religious liberty as seen before and after Vatican II and say it is the same. It just isn’t. Therefore, one must read the Conciliar documents in a hermeneutic of continuity and conclude they are seriously flawed documents.
I am all in favour of a hermeneutic of continuity. Again, I do not think any other approach is possible. But exactly for his reason I think all documents produced by that disgraceful exercise in marketing and populism must be put in the attic and substituted for newly written documents addressing the relevant issues without ambiguities, and able to stand the test of being read with a hermeneutic of continuity and found not wanting.
Odd, isn’t it, that by the encyclicals and other documents from pre-V II Popes problems of “hermeneutic” were never a big issue? Perhaps because they were clearly written, and orthodox, in the first place?
Vatican II was the fruit of the flawed (nay: heretical) ideology that took possession of it pretty much from the start of the official works. Its documents are nothing but the unavoidable consequence of this original flaw. Consequently, they must be discarded and their place taken by new documents, which are written in sound orthodox language and transmit sound orthodox Catholic values rather than trying to please everyone, but particularly the wrong crowd.
It’s exactly their reading in an Hermeneutic of continuity that demands it.
And it came to pass the blogger known all over Catholicism for being rather unsavoury made an apology and admitted he is rather unsavoury.
Kudos to him, and all that.
Still, yours truly allows himself a couple of thoughts, related to the general problem of the endless bickering on the Internet.
If the BBC anchorman is a bitter bastard the public has reason to complain, because the bitter bastard uses the resources and TV frequencies paid (forcibly, of course) by all of us. The Internet, though, is different, and no one is forced to click Mark Shea’s blog, or has to pay a dime because he runs one. If one, therefore, wilfully clicks his site, he implicitly accepts all the bitterness, insults, and generally poisoned atmosphere and assorted rubbish that he will find.
The problem is, apparently, made worse by the strict connection between Shea on Twitter and Shea on his blog; a bit as if the blog were the petrol, and twitter the matches. Not a good combination, I am told. I’d say it’s rather frequent, though.
Secondly, I think the role of a blog should be the one of enraging souls and stirring them to assertive action, not to provide discussion themes for old ladies’ afternoon teas when the weather has been examined to everyone’s satisfaction. There’s enough sugar on the net to give the world diabetes, and nothing is more trite than calls to “harmony” and “understanding” when we live in times demanding anger and confrontation. Whilst I do not like the way Shea thinks, I never perceived his abrasiveness as a personal offence. Everyone is made his own way. Again, I can always choose not to click his site.
Thirdly and lastly, in my eyes much of the problem is caused by the “democratic” mentality of our time, with the related expectation that everyone has the right to say everything everywhere; again, a recipe for continuous bickering. If you add to this that many blog allow quarrelling in the comment section because of the huge amount of page views it generates – an important factor for commercially run Catholic sites, or simply for the ego of many a blogger – you understand how the net can be such a tavern.
Yours truly has chosen a different way, explained in short as follows:
1) This is not a place for debate. If you are an abortionist trying to persuade me that abortion is fine your comment will never appear, period. This is a place where sincere Catholics go to find ammunition, not ceaseless bickering with the usual suspects.
Life’s too short. You want to quarrel until 2am? Pick a forum.
2) Whilst this blog is (I hope) rather trenchant, I never abuse it for personal confrontations. If someone nerves me on Twitter I might use the issue for a blog post, but I have never started the crusade against the person saying “Mr such and such wrote I am an idiot, let me explain why he is a cretin”. Again, life’s too short, and when you click here your time should not be squandered for my own petty confrontations.
3) If you want a grittier Mundabor, you can follow me on Twitter, when I occasionally write my thoughts (the blog has precedence, and time’s a tyrant) and can be as brutal as the brutally concise medium requires. But again, it is a choice, and no one is obliged to follow me. Also, I avoid becoming addicted to Twitter, or mired in controversy. I block idiots like it’s going out of fashion. Life’s too short to waste it answering to idiots.
4) I never try to be popular, or liked. You can get rid of this blog instantly if you don’t like it, and I promise I will not be offended in the least, or call you “intolerant” or “insensitive”. At the same time, I do not feel any urge to apologise because you don’t like my blog, myself, or the values I try to protect.
I can therefore, semel in anno, have some sympathy for Shea on this one. He promised to improve, but it’s easier said than done. I prefer a bitter blogger I can click every now and then to a sugary one that is useless every day. My Catholic upbringing leads me to think people are accepted as they are or avoided as they are. It simplifies life a lot.
I for myself will decide every time whether I am in the mood for a dose of Shea. If I click his site, I won’t blame him if what I find it’s not of my liking. But I will always find him – even when he is wrong, which is very often – a preferable way to employ my time than the huge amount of Catholic blogs for the kindergarten available around.
If you live in England, you know that a huge explosion might well be in store in the next very few years, as it is now becoming increasingly more evident the UKIP is being given the status of “eligible party” for general elections (as opposed to, say, European ones) by millions of voters.
Whilst the UKIP's boys 'n girls can still manage to ruin everything, the probability they will be Cameron's gravedigger is not a bad one. But they are a young party, and suffer from the difficulty of transitioning from a one-issue party to a credible social and political project for the Kingdom's future.
Some seem to be worried this party might become too much “right wing”. This is certainly not a bad word to me, as I am proudly Right Wing and demand to be respected as such, as many others are Left Wing and think it perfectly fitting. What I think is feared here, though, is that the UKIP might be highjacked by the extreme right element, the xenophobic loonies conspiracy nutcases, and the likes.
Well, being a foreigner in this country I should be worried, then; but I ain't; not in the least. My worry is rather that the UKIP might not become a right-wing party, but rather an imitation of the Tories with some chilli pepper added for the benefit of rural England.
What the UKIP means for us sound Catholics is, in my eyes, rather the issue. If they try to run after the secular mainstream and betray Christian values they will become just another evil party whose only use will be to kill Cameron's tenure (yes, please!), after which they will rapidly disappear. For us Catholics, the only reason to vote for them will be to punish Cameron and his bunch of perverts.
If, however, the UKIP should develop a coherent image – and praxis – of a party rooted in sound Christian thinking, they will have a good chance to survive the wave of protest against Cameron and grow to be the heir to the traditional Tory party and Tory values. At the same time, they will become the only possible choice for every Christian who does not want to have aiding and abetting of sodomy on his conscience and values his salvation more than his wallet.
Where we are now, it's difficult to say. The UKIP have their own “LGBT” group (an extremely bad sign), but the grassroots appear to be rather indifferent to the attempt of the party leaders to make them stupidly “mainstream”. Yes, they might have the one or other nutcase, but we must be very prudent here, as every sound Christian will nowadays be considered a dangerous extremist by the mass media and this will easily become a widespread perception. At the moment, the UKIP are riding a huge wave of hostility towards the EU, coupled with the dissatisfaction of traditional Tories with the Chameleon. How long this will last is anyone's guess, particularly as the Tories seem to want to recover sanity – at least in EU matters – with or without Cameron.
Am I worried the UKIP might become a danger for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens like myself? Not in the least. Am I worried they might “cameronise” themselves in the stupid pursuit of a mainstream who would in this case still vote the Tory party in the end? Rather. Am I worried they will soon become useless to Catholic voters? Very much so.
If you ask me, the sodomy issue is the one that will decide the party's destiny. If they take a clear stance on it they will lose some of the leftist protesters – they have those too, it seems – but will attract a faithful following of solidly conservative, Right Wing voters. If they try to be all things to all men – as seen in the stupid “LGBT” group – they will rapidly become an imitation of the latter days Tory party, and the voters will end us preferring the original.
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in "endangered" constituencies to wake up a bit before it's too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
The first mark of the wise man is that he pays attention before he opens his mouth, and does not talk of things he doesn’t know. Even those who are not wise will, if they have some humbleness and fear of the Lord, at least pay attention that they do not give scandal.
Our Pope Francis does not have a perfect command of Dante’s language, though one must say he knows it well. He wants to have a public Mass and a homily every day. This is a lot of work, but is perfectly doable if one knows what he says, let alone has at his disposal the human resources available to a Pope.
Pope Francis does not want to publish the homilies in their entirety, because they are supposed to be spontaneous and informal (and, cough, the rambling must be atrocious); but he does not want to keep them unpublished either, for reasons unknown to me but which must have to do with the idea whenever the Pope opens his mouth the gold coming from it must be made available to the planet, lest Creation should suffer.
One would think that here only one of two would apply: either the Holy Father’s homily are important, and then they should be carefully revised beforehand, and in case written by others from starting points given to them by the Pope; or they are just short reflections among friends, and then they should remain among friends lest something wrong comes out of them. Wisdom requires that a Pope pays great attention to what is publicly attributed to him, and humility requires to consider the world doesn’t need to read whatever the Pope thinks or says on a given moment; particularly when it’s wrong.
This does not seem to be the case. Apparently, the world must know whatever word comes out of the Pope’s mouth on a rather daily basis, but no one – least of all the Pope – seem to be willing to put some serious effort, either directly or by delegation, to do it right. All the publicity, but none of the homework. Nice.
I fail to see where is the wisdom, or the much-vaunted humility in this. A clearly lacking theological formation, coupled with the idea that whatever the Pontiff says must be made known to the world, seem to be the main ingredients of this strange, and at times scandalous, situation; a situation which is made worse by the obvious fact that the Pope either doesn’t realise the mediocrity of his theological knowledge, or simply doesn’t care and thinks such need for orthodoxy is a thing of the past, unnecessary in the new age of Pinocchio masses.
I have learned to mistrust anyone who doesn’t take the liturgy seriously. As I have often written, if the Lex Orandi is lacking you can be sure the Lex Credendi will not be better. In this case, though, we have a more serious problem: an allegedly humble Pope who a) cannot find in himself the humility to recognise he gives scandal; b) doesn’t want to spend the energy necessary to avoid it, and c) doesn’t even have the humility to say “let’s keep this private, then”.
I fail to see any wisdom, or diligence, or humility in this. I can’t think how this way of thinking will not cause further confusion and utter scandal down the line, particularly considering there seems to be from the side of the Holy Father no awareness at all of the enormity of what he says, or any interest at all in stopping it if he is aware.
If you ask me, someone near to him should speak to the Pontiff and clearly say to him he must either have his homilies written (or reviewed) by competent and utterly sound theologians, or keep them altogether private. We cannot go on with a Pope that might throw a theological (and heretical) bomb every day that God has made without gravely confusing the Catholics, and making a joke of the teaching role of a Pope.
I gladly follow the invitation of the always excellent Rorate Caeli to divulge this brilliant article concerning the devastating effects of the infiltration of gravely disturbed clergymen within the structures of the Church.
I am doubly pleased because Father Oko has no false scruples in avoiding words generally considered politically incorrect, and uses them liberally and assertively. This is one after yours truly's liking, for sure.
One of the many mistakes of modern thinking is the inability to assess goodness in its proper light. This in turn causes a tragic inability to understand who the really good people are.
It is traditional Christian teaching that God’s goodness is, so to speak, the sum total of both His Mercy and His Justice. On the human and practical level, this always implied the obvious concept that one can’t be good if he isn’t also able to enforce good behaviour, or to defend what is good with more than words. The idea that the Crusades be “not good” would have never entered the mind of people able to properly assess goodness.
Not so today. You will notice everywhere – and most tragically, in the thinking of many Catholics – that for very many “good” means “harmless”. If one is ready to punish, he can’t be really “good”. Goodness has become spineless thinking and behaviour, the non-violent, Gandhi-crap that has been polluting Western society for too long.
Popes are, unfortunately, a tragic example of this new thinking. Popes like Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII were good in that they were not only good men, but able enforcers. In contrast, the last Popes have all been bad enforcers, and their “goodness” has now become synonymous with the inability to act as a Pope should. Modern Popes are Gandhis in a white tunic: perfectly harmless, photogenic, and utterly innocuous for the Church hierarchy.
The first example of this was John XXIII, whose nickname il Papa buono (the good-hearted Pope) is due to his utter inability to do much else than being pious.
The Vatican Council he naively started was out of control only weeks into it, and there were no consequences. Theologians censured or silenced until a very few years before took over proceedings well before his death, and again there was no reaction. The very idea of the Council was thrown over board very rapidly, and one would almost think it I possible the Pope who called the Council is the one who presided over its highjacking.
How can such an irrelevance be good? It can only if one is drink with the kook-aid of the new times, of peace and dialogue as supreme values, with Gandhi instead of Christ as the guiding light.
Pope John XXIII certainly was a saintly man, with a very good heart. But he was the first of he ones to confuse “good” and “harmless”.
We pay the consequences still today.
The Lords, on whom Christian hopes rested, have yesterday turned down the proposal to kill the law about so-called “same sex marriage” with a majority of two to one.
The good news is that this was only a preliminary vote, a sort of “sudden death” proposal that would have killed the measure without even examining it in detail. There will be further votes, and continued lobby work.
The very bad news is that I personally do not think anything will change in the future. Let me explain why.
The excuse used by cowardly peers to justify their vote in favour of the exam of the law is that they need to look at things in detail before making a decision. This makes as much sense as to say that one needs to look in detail at a law legalising incest with one's own child before deciding whether it's, erm, an advisable piece of legislation. In my eyes, it is very naive to think that a Peer who did not have the guts to vote against abomination in principle will vote against it on technical reasons. Christian groups are not the only one who will apply pressure, and Number 10 was reported to have worked massively on this in the last week.
Add to this that the Lords is not the chamber it used to be. Once the largely hereditary preserve of wealthy – and therefore naturally conservative and financially independent – families, it has now become the emergency exit for politicians whose career within the party has been spent and are, as the saying goes, “kicked upstairs”. Lord Mohammed of East London Ghetto, or Lord Proll of Working Class Constituency, are nowadays more likely representative of the breed. These people are in the Lords not because of their cost allowance, but because of the well paid perks they can get or hope to get from the network of firms wanting to ingratiate the government. They may be elected for life, but they are not independent in any way in which wealth would make them independent.
To tell you how bad it is I only need to mention that even Mr Welby, the Mickey Mouse Archbishop of Mouseton, erm, Canterbury, has seen it as fitting to leave his own archbishops (around a couple dozen of them in the Lords, if memory serves) free to vote according to “conscience”. Go figure.
As to our own idiot, his silence has been deafening for many months now, and from the beginning of this mess he has limited himself to the strictly necessary, preferring to avoid appearing on the radar screen most of the time.
This is the situation we are in, and you can make your own guess about the probability of success.
I have reblogged some days ago my old blog post about Our Lady of Quito. It is reassuring to know that the Blessed Virgin – in whose apparition I believe – had warned about a massive attack on marriage. Everything is, so to speak, under strict observation from above and whilst we knew that already, it is beautiful to be told from the Blessed Virgin, too. We must go through this as well as we can, drawing strength from prayer and, in more serene days, thanking the Lord we live in times allowing us to fight the good fight against the perverts as our fathers and grandfathers did against Communism.
On a not unrelated note, yesterday was also the day our Cardinal Ravasi hobnobbed with other idiots amidst prosecco, finger sandwiches and perverts, trying to be one of them like a spot-plagued adolescent desperate to mix with the “cool people” at school. I have also not read the latest rumblings, erm, homily of the Pope, but I do not doubt it was not about the greatest issue of our time, more likely about the need to pay attention not to spill the milk in the morning (eh? no?) or to wait when we meet all in heaven (yes, yesss! Even the atheists!! Come on in everyone!) as we “do good” so well.
Am I the only one who is wondering what has happened to the famous dossier concerning the homosexual infiltration within the Church?
It is not unreasonable to think this dossier is what persuaded Benedict to throw in the towel and leave the hot potato in the hands of his successor; if this is true (and at least concerning the hotness of the potato there can not be any doubt) one would expect any acting in the matter to be accompanied by the spectacular removal of many in influential positions within the Vatican; a removal certainly made as discreetly as possible but such that it could never escape the attention of the Vaticanists and even of common people who read Church news. This, without considering that one or three would have to be disciplined, and again this would not easily escape attention.
Is anything of this happening? Or has the Holy Father decided the problem isn't so bad as it is widely believed to be, the heavy dossier is a grave case of paper and ink waste, and the perverts “do good” too, so “we will all meet in heaven” anyway?
It will soon be three months since the Pope's election. One wonders whether we will ever see some action in the matter during this pontificate.
Or else I am being unnecessarily suspicious just because nothing is happening. My bad, no doubt.
The Biennale of Venice is about to open and, as every two years, the usual army of cretins and perverts (often in the same person) will afflict humanity with their senseless blathering about degenerate (supposed) art.
This year, though, there is a novelty: the Holy See thought it fitting, and in the spirit of Franciscan Simplicity, to play idiot among the idiots, in an extremely childish effort to look cool.
We are not blessed yet with the visual result of this exercise, but from what transpires the money will be as wasted as you would expect it to be. The “destruction of the environment” will have a prominent place as princes of the Church brown-nose (as in: brown-nose) every brainless fashion of our time, desperately hoping to be considered hip by a bunch of degenerate cretins, who despise them anyway.
From what I read around, the Head Prince in question is Cardinal Ravasi, a man whom some even considered papabile back in March. It is obvious Ravasi did not know anything about “Franciscan Simplicity” when he decided to waste the Church's money on deaf people dancing around (note to the reader: they had to be deaf, or with some other impairment; otherwise it's not patronising enough) and such like, though I do not doubt his conversion to it was instantaneous after the fact.
Michelangelo, Raffaello and all the countless other great artists (real artists, not morons) who gave the Church and the Western Civilisation so much true beauty must be rolling in the grave; but again, they lived in times in which people had enough sense to honour and seek real art, rather than being terrified of being considered unrefined if they say the emperor has no clothes and all this so-called art is not only degenerate, but it is not even art by every sensible definition of the word. What is called “art” at the Biennale pleases the stupid who want to play intellectual, and attracts those in desperate need of a varnish of supposed coolness. The one or other cardinal comes to mind.
Nothing of this will trouble, I am sure, our hero Ravasi, who will hobnob with perverts and assorted ultra-liberal nut cases; perhaps with the pathetic excuse of the evangelisation, but in fact being clearly converted to their values, and desiring with all his might to show it.
I am aware this senseless expense was decided before Pope Francis' election, and one must clearly apportion to Pope Benedict at least one part of the blame, as it is inconceivable such an exercise would ever take place without his knowledge of, and consent to, at least the idea and the principle. Still, I can't wait for Pope Francis' criticism of the expense of 750,000 Euros for people dancing around (and such like kindergarten exercises) whilst his dear friends in the favelas live in dire conditions.
The truth is that the corridors of the Vatican have become pray to such degeneration – of thinking at the very least – that they desire to espouse and approve the degeneration of the world with the shameless energy – and expense – put on show on this occasion.
Vatican II is a degeneration of the very idea of what the Church is supposed to be. It is the novel concept that the Church and the World can be “friends” rather than enemies. But this is the thinking not of spiritual, but of worldly people.
This is one of those days when the nicest thing one wishes to the Tory party is a painful death. I mean, I wish them death every day, but some days I wish them a painful and shameful death.
The Prime Minister has been forced to another humiliating U-turn about Europe, only hours after two Tory heavyweights (Gove and Hammond, the first a possible successor) have stated on TV they would vote "out" to an in or out referendum about he EU, almost in the same hours in which the chameleon was extolling the great advantages for the Kingdom in staying in.
And so it came to pass that so-called same sex marriage was pushed very hard in a certain State of the US. This State is very solidly in the hands of the Democrats, and might have been considered a reasonably safe bet. This State is also the adoptive one of the current President, who has been lovingly nurtured and protected by the local – very corrupted, as even we in Europe know – political and party machine in order to become the poster boy of a brave new world without God or shame, and recently the first honorary “Gay President” in the Land.
This new satanic measure had already made it through the Senate, which – on St Valentine's day, no less – approved the measure amidst the excited screeches of the local perverts. One would have been justified in thinking the measure would have good cards in the lower chamber.
Alas for the perverts, it wasn't to be, at least for now. The measure failed – please read this twice – to even gather enough support for a vote to be called in the first place. This, notwithstanding the intervention of the above-mentioned Gay President, who travelled to Illinois to say please, please go to hell with me.
Now let us reflect on this: the intervention of the Gay President was not even enough to allow for a vote, let alone a victory. Decidedly, Presidents are not what they used to be.
Between the lines, you get even more interesting information: when many Democrat legislators ask for more time to talk to their constituents, it means they are terrified of voting in favour of the measure and be massacred as a result; this, notwithstanding the party pressure, which must have been absolutely massive if even the President intervened. It must also be noted the black religious community has erected a solid wall against the measure, and good luck to the “Black President” on that. Thirdly, the measure had been already amended with the usual fake “protections” only extended to explicitly religious institutions, but this was evidently not nearly enough to avoid its demise.
It is very sad to see the once so celebrated heathen messiah having so little influence on his own people, in his own home turf. Sad for Democrats, I mean. We obviously do not know how this will go on, and one can be sure the minions of Satan will continue their effort against basic decency and Christian morality; but one cannot avoid noticing that, whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, the opposition to heathenism is getting more determined and organised as religious communities continue their work on the ground and oppose the stupid “human rights” mantra of the perverts.
Perversion has no rights. Those who want to see perversion as the founding principle of their community only need to be a little patient, and they will find their wish fulfilled beyond their expectation.
And so it came to pass that yours truly was at a Mass where a young priest, never seen before, was officiating.
The priest explained during the homily that he was from Nigeria, and a member of a missionary order. No electricity where he lived. No Internet of course. Water is what they get from rain. Fifty different cults in the region. You wouldn't believe these things still exist.
As he spoke about the “challenges” (as he called them) of his missionary work, there was no trace of any intention to let the present feel “guilty” for the wealth of their circumstances.
He looked around him, to the beautifully decorated church, and clearly liked it; but with no trace of either envy, or any feeling the church represented an “injustice” or “inequality” of any kind. Not one word was spoken of “Franciscan simplicity”, neither the suggestion was made the local economy should be damaged so that his own work might flourish.
His appeal for donations was simple, noble, beautiful. You saw a man who knew his fund raising is in the hands of Providence, and does not need any questionable, unsavoury or outright stupid argument to make his point.
The contrast with the flipping Jesuit some years ago, who ranted for ten whole minutes about armaments, guilt-tripping the presents without pause, couldn't have been more striking.
I looked at this simple, brave man of Christ, whose solid faith was evident in the modest, simple way he explained what he did and why he was there, and I saw the Indefectibility of the Church literally standing in the sanctuary.
As Christianity in Europe runs the risk of becoming a sentimental accessory between divorces, the Church of Christ continues to grow, amidst difficult circumstances and at time outright persecution, through the work of priests of simple courage and authentic vocation. You saw the man, and you could not have any doubt about it.
God bless our good priests, the veins and blood of the Church. They will continue to spread Christ's work whilst we in the West allow abortionist, communist, marijuana-approving priests to get circus requiem masses with perverts in attendance, and receiving communion.
This is not a scam in Medjugorje style, or a pious fantasy of old maids with an excitable fantasy.
This apparition took place at the beginning of the XVI century, and was approved by the local bishop a short time later. It was accompanied by further miraculous events at the beginning of the XX century, when the events described by the Blessed Virgin were approaching.
The press release of the SSPX Italia after the scandalous events at the funerals of don Gallo.
Italian original first, my translation (as literal as possible, no emphases) follows.
In seguito ai funerali di don Gallo presieduti dal card. Bagnasco la Fraternità San Pio X denuncia il grave scandalo causato dall’intervento di Wladimiro Guadagno (detto Luxuria) e dal fatto che il cardinale gli abbia amministrato la Comunione, come se il suo pubblico comportamento e la sua attività da parlamentare non fossero contrari alla morale e scandalosi.
Così si è agito anche nei confronti di altri rappresentanti di movimenti contrari agli insegnamenti della Chiesa. Secondo la dottrina cattolica e la logica del Vangelo gli autori di peccati notori, prima di accostarsi al sacramento dell’Eucaristia, devono pentirsene e riparare pubblicamente.
Riguardo alle posizioni difese da don Gallo, non denunciate dalle autorità ecclesiastiche, ed in un certo qual modo avallate dalla presenza del presidente della conferenza episcopale italiana al suo funerale, si ricorda che:
1- La legge di Dio condanna la pratica omosessuale e la Chiesa insegna che essa costituisce un peccato contro natura che grida vendetta al cospetto di Dio.
2- Don Gallo ha aiutato delle donne ad abortire. Ora l’aborto è un crimine poiché si uccide un essere umano innocente ed è punito con la scomunica non soltanto per coloro che lo praticano ma anche per tutti quelli che lo favoriscono in maniera efficace.
3- L’utilizzo delle droghe cosiddette leggere, incoraggiato da don Gallo, non soltanto costituisce spesso il primo passo verso altre sostanze stupefacenti, ma è contrario al V comandamento che ci ordina di custodire il nostro corpo come un dono di Dio.
4- Il comunismo, esplicitamente sostenuto da don Gallo, è stato condannato dal Magistero ecclesiastico come “intrinsecamente perverso”.
Tali comportamenti manifestano in maniera sempre più evidente la grave crisi che sta attraversando la Chiesa ed il tradimento da parte di membri importanti della gerarchia dei principi più elementari della morale cattolica.
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci
Superiore del Distretto d’Italia della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X
 Catechismo di San Pio X
 Nuovo codice di diritto canonico can. 1398
 «Comunque è vero, sono comunista. Non dimentico mai la Bibbia e il Vangelo. E non dimentico mai quello che ha scritto Marx». Da Angelicamente Anarchico, Oscar Mondadori, Milano, 2005.
 Pio XI, Divini Redeptoris
Following the funerals of don Gallo, officiated by card Bagnasco the Fraternity of Saint Pius X denounces the grave scandal caused by the intervention of Wladimiro Guadagno (known as Luxuria) and from the fact that the Cardinal allowed him to receive the Communion, as if his public behaviour and his activity as a Member of Parliament were not contrary to the morals and scandalous.
The same happened concerning other representatives of movements contrary to the teachings of the Church. According to catholic doctrine and the logic of the Gospel, the authors of notorious sins must, before they approach the sacrament of the Eucharist, repent of them and make acts of reparation publicly.
Concerning the positions defended by don Gallo, not denounced by the ecclesiastical authorities, and in a way endorsed by the presence of the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference at his funeral, it must be kept in mind that:
1. God’s law condemns the homosexual practice and the Church teaches that it constitutes a sin against nature, that cries for vengeance in the presence of God .
2. Don Gallo helped some women to abort . Now, abortion is a criminal act because an innocent human being is killed, and it is punished with excommunication not only for those who practice it but also for all those who facilitate it in an efficacious manner .
3. The utilisation of so-called light drugs, encouraged by don Gallo, not only often constitutes the first step towards other hallucinogen substances, but it is contrary to the V commandment that orders us to custody our body as a gift of God.
4. Communism, explicitly supported by don Gallo , has been condemned by the ecclesiastical Magisterium as “intrinsically perverted” .
The events show in an increasingly more evident way the grave crisis the Church is now going through, and the betrayal of the most elementary principles of Catholic morals by important members of the hierarchy.
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci
Superior of the Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X
 Catechism of Saint Pius X
 New canon law code, can. 1398
. “Anyhow it is true, I am communist. I never forget the Bible and the Gospel. And I never forget what Marx wrote”. From Angelicamente Anarchico, Oscar Mondadori, Milan0, 2005.
. Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris.