And it came to pass a teenage girl was “punished with a baby” (© Obama 2008); which presupposes sex, of course, but modern parents do not really care for chastity, so there you are.
Unfortunately, there were no abortion clinics within the state; therefore, something convenient and fast to get rid of the baby will have to be found, without the hassle and inconvenience of traveling.
Therefore, would-be (actually, would-not-be) grandma bought some unauthorised
medicaments lethal poisons on the internet to get rid of the baby fast and on the cheap. I notice the news have no trace whatever of a father. Don’t ask me why I am not surprised.
The poison is bought, and the girl proceeds to kill the baby in her womb. The thing goes wrong, and she must be recovered in the hospital for the complications of a half-botched chemical abortion. Two years later, the mother is charged. She faces jail time, and serves her right.
I cannot avoid noticing a few things here:
1. It is fine if you kill your baby in a far away abortion clinic; it is not fine if you kill it with internet-sources poisons. The law protects the life of the girl (and the abortion isn’t without danger, either), but the baby’s rights are nowhere to be seen. “Look”, say the prosecutors, “we are perfectly fine if you kill your baby; but please move your ass to the nearest butchering place…”.
2. One never ceases to wonder at the interior life of such people. To look on the internet for a poison that would kill your grandchild on the cheap.
3. Wait for the Abortion Nazis to try to ride this: see, they will say, nowadays to abort a baby isn’t easy enough, so we must provide for more opportunities to kill the baby; otherwise the “vulnerable” parents (or rather parent) will recur to the pill, or to a coat hanger. This argument was used in Italy when there were an estimated few thousand illegal abortions a year, and obviously a death every now and then as a result of obvious, grave criminal offences. Now we are easily above 100,000 deaths a year in the same country. Congratulations. Very humanitarian.
4. The would-not-be grandmother now faces some jail time; I can’t imagine it will be very long.
The baby was killed.
Hilarious blog post of the Puffington Post, where the argument is clearly made that the fact God has put the baby in the womb means God has given the woman the right to decide whether she wants to kill him or not. The Feminazi’s “to do list” includes the literal words:
“Abortion can be a difficult decision, we agree, but God obviously trusted women to make that decision: look where She put the embryo”.
This is beyond parody (have you noted God is “She”? Capitalised, even. Such a devoted follower. I am moved). Still, let us follow this Nazi logic and let us see where it leads us.
If the logic is to work, then slavery must be perfectly legitimate, provided the baby is born from a slave in, say, Alabama ca. 1840. There can be no doubt she-god put him there: in that womb, in that plantation, in that legal status.
Or you could make the case for infanticide: she-god has obviously made the baby as harmless and as dependent from the care of the mother in his first weeks and months of life, as he was in the womb. Actually, it is factually much easier to kill a baby after birth than it is to smash his skull and tear his limbs in the womb (this is what happens as a result of a late “difficult decision”, by the way). Following the logic of our Nazi-ette, it’s obvious her she-god wants the mother to be free to decide whether the baby shall live or, say, have his skull smashed in exactly the same way as with a late term abortion, but at no danger or physical discomfort to her.
Many permutations of this Nazi logic are thinkable, but I would like to mention just a third one: if this logic applies, the Holocaust of German and Austrian Jews is perfectly justified, because it is obvious she-god wanted for them to find themselves in the Third Reich; in the womb, so to speak, of Nazi Germany by 1933 for many of them, and by 1938 at the latest for th eothers. On reflection, the same reasoning can be applied to, say, Polish and Russian Jews, whose falling within the Third Reich by way of invasion was certainly known to she-god from before all time.
What shocks more of these people is not the logical non-existence of their childish arguments; you read a lot of childish arguments on liberal blogs. No: it is the cold-blooded, shocking cruelty inhabiting their minds; the deep Nazism of their thinking without even the extenuating circumstance of the unceasing propaganda and the suffocation of every alternative opinion that the likes of Dr Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler created in Germany.
The Nazis are among us.
It must be rather funny, these days, for the army of people with a very thin varnish of Catholicism – you know the type: the “I am a baptised Catholic, but my theology is so evidently superior” types – who have thought, as many of them must have thought, that it’s so simple really: you stop obsessing with the remnants of an ancient past and embrace modernity , and peace will be declared between the world and the Church. I am rather sure many of these people, tambourine priests among them, were wondering why it had not happened before, and we had to wait the year 2013 for a Pope who just “gets the people” and is “in tune” with the world.
Whilst I never underestimate human blindness or plain stupidity, I dare to hope in the months and years to come some people will open their eyes and recognise a simple truth of life: the Church and the world cannot be more reconciled than the devil and the holy water; not now, not ever.
The recent lecturing of the Vatican – which is, in fact, a lecturing of the Church and Her Truths – from the side of the United Demons is the clearest signal to day of this, again, inescapable fact of life. Appeasement has never worked, does not work, and will never work, because the Church Herself exists because of the fundamentally irreconcilable ways of the Church and of the World.
If the Church could make peace with the world, the Church would simply have no reason to exist, and an impressive demonstration of this is that when vast parts of the earthly Church try to at least get to a truce, or a ceasefire, with the world, the Church herself is gravely wounded and reduced to factual irrelevance in vast territories in the short time of one or two generations; with only the promise of Indefectibility saving her from the self-destruction to which this stupid attitude would otherwise condemn her in another two or three generations at most.
And so there we are: the church – I mean, the people who represent Her as an institution – tries to accommodate the world’s demands; but the world is insatiable, and will never stop posing new demands after the old ones have been appeased.
You “don’t judge” sodomites, and the world will demand that you recognise their inherent goodness; you “don’t obsess” about abortion, and the world will demand that you support it; you want to be “in tune” with the world, and the world will ask you to practice what you preach.
No black shoes, simple cars and other more or less subversive shows of “humbleness” will ever change anything on this, because in this matters the conflicts deals with the very essentials.
If Francis thought his lack of teeth – or worse – in matter of sexual perversion and abortion will persuade the world to leave him alone, now he will be forced to learn his lesson and understand that, much as the world may flatter him, it will require his tribute from him anyway; a tribute so high, in fact, that not even Francis will ever be able to pay it; this, even assuming he would want to, which I sincerely hope is not the case.
If, on the other hand, Francis has no illusion on the inevitability of conflicts, and merely hopes to increase his own popularity in the world as the man who “does what he can, though he can’t do more” (a strategy clearly followed by the German and Austrian clergy with their rebellious sheep), then his chances are vastly better, but I still think at some point the world will get tired with one sitting on the fence, and be him the Pope.
The Church is at war with the world. She must be, because this is why She exists. No Pope will ever be able to get rid of this war as easily as he can get rid of the Mozzetta. Therefore, the only way is the Christian way: to fight against the world frontally and without any desire for truce.
Our side will win in the end. Actually, it has won already. So go on and fight the good fight, good and less good men at the Vatican, instead of trying to appease an enemy that will never be satisfied.
You will not believe this article, coming from the British “The Independent”.
Let me give you some background. The “Independent” is the newspaper for the reds who feel they are too fine to buy the “Guardian”, a newspaper still stinking too much, to their finely educated noses, of assembly line and coal mine. Let us say you are a half-employed “social worker” from a professional background, married to a “chariteee” worker but coming from a wealthier background (say: papa was a lawyer or an accountant, but you wanted to change the world so you wasted your best years on useless rubbish instead). If you are, you will almost invariably suffer from the awful lot of relatives now earning vastly more than you do. Therefore, you are very likely to lament the lack of fairness in the world, complain about “social justice”, and read the “Independent”. These are the people concerned about the “Chelsea tractors” because too many of their relatives and neighbours drive one, and who are constantly claiming moral superiority to compensate their obvious failure in life and utter uselessness in the real, hard-working, added-value-creating world. If, instead, your papa was a factory worker, a coal miner or a waiter, you will probably read the “Guardian”, and be at least a much less frustrated human being. In short, the “Independent” is the newspaper for the declining middle-class with the worst of both world: the airs of the bourgeoisie, without the moolah to support them. You know the type. They’re everywhere. The gift of the Sixties to humanity.
These geniuses of the “Independent” now have an article about the plight of those poor, poor people who go around butchering almost born children, and suffer so much from the lack of understanding of the population; because – as it turns out – even most abortion supporters do not like them, at all.
Spare a thought for the poor bastards. They are exposed to the constant threats of those savage animals claiming, of all things, that a baby cannot be butchered in the womb. Let a tear escape from your weary eye as you read that eight of them had to suffer what they themselves do to babies all the time, albeit certainly the doctors suffered much less. Ah, the poor lambs! And they so good! Think: one of them was killed as he was going to church! To church, do you understand? We really, really should reconsider our judgment* of these people! We are even told they fulfil a, sort of, erm, er, humanitarian role. You see, those babies they butcher to pieces are “gone horribly wrong” (erm, I mean, the “pregnancy” has gone horribly wrong; they wouldn’t say so easily “the baby is wrong, so he must die”).
The fact is, these people live in a world of strict tolerances, like an inspector in a German quality control department. If a specimen is not on par with the specifications, it must be discarded. They do it with tyres too, I am told, so where’s your beef?
“Of course”, they say, “these late abortion happen late for a reason!”. They are, you see, substandard
tyres babies specimens who have not satisfied their parent’s quality test! What’s a humanitarian doctor to do in these cases? Crush the baby’s head and dismember him one piece at a time, of course! You don’t want a sub-standard specimen to be born, surely? What Would Audi Do?
Notice, now, the sympathetic picture of Dr Carhart as he looks pensively out of the window, his face the picture of dignified silence in the face of calumny. He looks far, far away, towards a future when an unborn baby will be butchered in peace, without any obnoxious, as the Independent says, “anti-choice” (truly satanic, this one) fanatic putting himself in the way of a honest humanitarian, erm, business.
Dr Carhart doesn’t get the “american hero” picture, though. This honour goes to Dr Tiller, killed by a pro-lifer whilst, as already said, fulfilling his duty of exemplary Christian. Jesus wept. Or not, as the case may be.
Basically, Dr Tiller is a martyr of modern Nazidom. How moving.
Now, clearly this blog does not endorse the murdering of late-term baby butchers. Not even when they themselves endorse and execute the butchering of countless unborn babies. But there is a huge gulf between not approving the unlawful killing of people, however bad (or very bad; or worse) they may be, and the apology of the butchering of unborn babies, and the pathetic attempt to present the executioners as the victims put in place by this – luckily for “Fran”, not aborted – leftist hack and by those like her.
I should, in fact, be shocked at the very idea there would be people for which the “Audi thinking” simply applies to humans. Vorsprung durch Abtreibung! Still, I read too much about these people in my blogging activity to be surprised at the very existence of people like that. This, my friends, is the construction material of hell, with all the bricks and mortar in place.
This is hell as it lives, breathes, and writes.
* we do “judging” on this blog. It’s because we think, you see. If you don’t like it, click away now.
I remember very well my sadness at the rapid disappearance – and most people said: inevitable extinction – of the traditional mechanical wristwatch in favour of the new quartz one. It seemed to me an entire world was dying, and an entire planet was embracing a soulless technology and killing the beauty, the magic and, yes, the poetry of craftsmanship. Small firms – then – like Blancpain and Chronoswiss decided this was too stupid, and the surrender to the power of quartz by no means unavoidable. They started producing watches for people who love beauty, and do not live by the second. This was the turning of the tide. A few years later, the mechanical wristwatch was already established as the timepiece at the wrist of the discerning – if, back then, pretty solvent – man of taste. Today, mass production of perfectly affordable, excellent mechanical wristwatches is all but back, and back with a vengeance in terms of general quality and value for money.
Then there was the matter with Communism. Once progressing all over Africa, rolling over vast part of Asia, heavily influencing South America and even infecting many countries in Western Europe, its advancement seemed unstoppable. In those years, the US administration spoke of “containment” of Communism, as if a tsunami was obviously coming their way and the only thing they could do was to avoid being flattened by the impact. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher changed all this. In my eyes, Reagan’s election was the turning of the tide. Ten years later, Communism was all but bankrupt.
Then there was the “global warming” craze, by 2006 the pet ideal of the stupid and by 2008 clearly advanced to State Religion in countries like the UK. A few people kept swimming against this immense tide, unafraid. I mention here the Cato Institute with its brilliant work, and most of all an homosexual, Proto-communist, far leftist environmentalist with the rare courage to recognise he had been completely wrong all the time: Bjorn Lomborg, the author of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg was persecuted for years, as the Climate Mafia tried to deprive him of income and dignity. He was, last time I look, vindicated, and the new religion was – thanks also to new taxes, heavily challenging the masses who are only in favour of “good causes” when they do not have to pay for it – dead and buried by 2011. This time, the turning of the tide was, even, exceptionally fast.
Another tide is now turning: abortion. One must be blind not to see that what seemed only twenty years ago an unchangeable “new reality” all over the West, but particularly in Western Europe, is now crumbling under the pressure of a new generation of people not ready to accept murder as a way to solve a problem, and not willing to swallow the tales of the self-serving murderesses. This was a slow turning, and it will unfold very slowly in the other direction; but it’s undeniably there. What changed matters here is more difficult to point out. The army of aging women haunted by abortions committed decades before certainly played a significant role; the demographic also helped; the beautiful work of John Paul II was without doubt another big factor. This was a very slow turning, but I don’t think any Cuomo or Obama will be able to do anything against it.
And then there is another tide, that has not turned yet: Sodomy. As perverts and their helpers advance in the Western countries and try to have perversions recognised as human right, a strong opposition develops. Russia, under Putin’s guide, exposes the West’s godless stupidity with admirable energy, and may it long last. Many African countries refuse the drink the homosexual Kool-aid. Resistance develops in countries like France. I am under no illusion that the turning of the tide will come soon here. Rather, years of bitter fight await us. I am also afraid it will get worse before it gets better, as I see Italy unable to resist to the new wave of sugary goodism, and rapidly advancing towards legal protection of sodomy under the benevolent look of the “who am I to judge” Pope. It will get worse before it gets better, but when it gets better it will be because of those who have not shut up when it was very bad; and if we were to shut up now, who knows when it will become better.IN the matter of sodomy, I think the wake-up call will come when the children “adopted” by them will turn up to be victim of sexual abuses in percentages unknown among heteros. Unless, of course, by that time things will be bad enough that no one will be able to see the problem in the first place. hey, if forty years ago anyone had told me one day sodomy would be celebrated, I’d had laughed out loud, too.
Still, let us not lose courage, and let us stay in good spirits.
The same as for the watches, communism, global warming and abortion, one day this tide will turn, too.
I always had a marked dislike for those who want to bend everything to their own ideology; particularly so. when the issue is religion. You all know the types: the revolutionaries telling you Jesus was a “revolutionary”, the pacifists maintaining he was a pacifist, or the environ-mentalists insisting that Jesus was one like them. They all take a message (actually, the Truth) and deform it so that it may serve their own purposes.
The Bishop of Rome, “who am I to judge”-Francis, is no exception; and he is no exception, inter alia, pertaining to one of the most sacred issued in Catholicism: the defence of the unborn.
As a Pope, Francis must say something on the matter every now and then. He tried to downplay or kill the issue: first keeping schtum for months, and then telling us we should not “obsess” with abortion, the loneliness of the elderly clearly being a far bigger problem. Still, he realised he would not be able to completely avoid the issue. What will he, then, do? He will do like the people mentioned above, and conveniently deform or downplay the issue to promote, at least in part, something else.
He did it one first time when he spoke of the unborn child as poor. Put that way, the impression is endangered the characteristics of the unborn child we should first notice is not that he is God's creature, endowed with the right to live God has given him and no one can take away from him. No, what is presented to us first is that the unborn child is poor. In this way, the attention is deflected from the issue at hand (the legalised murder) and is conveniently directed towards, who would believe it, the true obsession of the Bishop of Rome: poverty.
The same has happened again some days ago: speaking of abortion, Francis had nothing harsher to say than it being another aspect of the throwaway culture, or if you want to be more ample in your criticism: consumerism. Curiously, this is another pet peeve of a man who is unable to obsess about abortion, but is perfectly able to touch ad nauseam all the usual issues of the West-hating liberal and socialist culture; which, in the end, is the culture of selfishness, smugness, envy, or plain death.
Last time I looked, to kill a baby in the womb was a tad worse than to buy a new car without the old needing replacement, or the larger LCD TV set when the old was doing its job just fine. Abortion involves an elementary issue of life and death, a brutal question of a human life being disposed of. Therefore, the issue of abortion lives in a sphere infinitely more important than every consumerism and every poverty. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a more dramatic issue than this, even for people without a religious instruction or without any interest in getting one.
Francis knows all this. But he also knows that clear condemnation of abortion as what it is, the legal killing of an innocent unborn life to satisfy the selfish desire of her mother, would come across as “judgmental” and “reactionary”, thus costing him very dear in terms of what he wants most and really obsesses him: his own popularity and perception as icon of change. Therefore, he prefers to downplay the issue whilst blowing the horn of his own ideological bias.
Put in short: Francis talks about abortion as little as he can get away with. And when he does, he tries to let you think of something else, and to direct you towards his usual issues.
No man plagued with “excessive doctrinal securities”, this one.
If you think Ann Furedi is the worst Himmler existing in England, you may reflect on the fact she probably is merely being more honest.
Mssss Furedi has stated the obvious: whenever the doctors decide the “mental health” of the mother is in danger, the baby can be murdered. The hypocrisy of the British (or Italian) abortion law is that whilst the law pretends abortion is something meant only to address “extreme” cases, what it in fact allows is abortion on demand within a certain time frame. Everyone knows that, and the majority is very fine with it.
If, therefore, the “mental health” of a woman is endangered at the thought of this astonishing event – having a baby – it is not to be seen why she would not risk her sanity at the… same event, of having a baby girl.
You see, we must be inclusive and show appreciation for different cultures here: if it is a misfortune, or a disgrace, or even a shame in a different culture to have a girl, who are we to judge? Or do we want to impose our narrow-minded, Judeo-Christian mentality on people with a different set of belief? Are we not, erm, “tolerant” of different thinking?
Is is not so, that we now legally allow the slow and cruel slaughter of animals – once forbidden in Germany – in order to allow the production of halal meat? Is it not that abortion is, all over the West, undoubtedly allowed when fig leave conditions apply? Who are we to decide that a Hindu girl cannot abort her baby girl, but an atheist girl of British ancestors can? Does the fig leave only applies to Whites of British ancestry?
Look, we live in time when girls with children born out of wedlock, or of unknown fathers, are seen as rather normal, and the moral disapprobation is apportioned, rather, to those who have to gut to say this is very bad. How would, then, the “mental health” of the girl from the council house block, who already has several girlfriends with a baby – or from the posh neighbourhood, come to that, where nowadays everyone is so liberal – be endangered by a pregnancy? Is it not slowly becoming the new normality?
In addition, whilst we live in rather bad times it is not that fornication and children out of wedlock have been invented in the Sixties. They have always been there, and I wonder whether, say, the slums of London in the Victorian era had less illegitimate children than the vastly better “underprivileged” neighbourhoods of London in the XXI century. I have, then, no record of the madhouses of the time being full with young women driven to insanity by motherhood.
They must have thought, in those unenlightened times, that pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex. Astonishing.
No, you can twist and turn it as you wish: there is no possible way it can be decided the White woman must be free to abort her baby, and the Chinese woman must not be free to abort her baby girl. Either it's forbidden or it isn't; and if “mental health” issues apply, then they must be applied to everyone.
Msssss Furedi is, therefore, not more monstrous than the society around her, that has happily allowed abortion on demand under the thin disguise of the “mental health” issue and now discovers the sexual and moral revolution is killing its daughters. She perfectly reflects the (im)moral reasoning at the root of the current abortion legislation and practice.
At least, she is a honest monster.
The new Mayor of New York, Di Blasio, has vowed to get rid of the famous and traditional horse-drawn carriages. The way the horses are treated is “inhuman”, he has said.
Someone should try to explain to him horses aren't human, either.
On the other hand, the oh so sensitive Di Blasio has no problem with killing unborn babies, at all. He actually appears to have complained that there aren't enough abortion facilities in certain neighbourhoods.
One can't avoid thinking unborn babies would have batter chances with Di Blasio if he thought they are horses. Then, he might consider killing them in the womb… inhuman.
Truly, the Nazis are among us.
I do not much like Norway. A country secular and atheist like few others on earth, they incarnate everything that is wrong with the West, as also seen in their worldwide bullying for the slaughter of unborn babies. It goes without saying that they also have a “liberal” (which means: murderous) legislation about abortion, too.
This legislation appears to have, at present, some massive uncertainties of interpretation, particularly considering the point up to which the abortion is allowed.
The Norwegian government has now decided, following the recommendation of an “expert panel”, to adopt and enforce the principle – and to promote correspondent legislative measures; which means the ambiguity was too obvious to be cleared merely by secondary sources – that abortion is never allowed if the baby is viable (that is: in the case of babies “who have the possibility of being able to live”, as they hilariously describe the matter), and the absence of logic boggles the mind.
Every baby who is not murdered in the womb has the “possibility of being able to live”. On the other hand, a baby who has just been born isn't ipso facto able to survive. He needs constant care and attention from others – hopefully the parents; one wonders how often in Norway there are two of them, of different sexes, and married to each other – and without this care and attention he would die very fast. A newborn baby is, therefore, not logically more “viable” than the same baby was just after conception: still a human life, but still in need of help of another person to reach the point where he will be able to care for himself.
The Norwegian government's way of thinking is therefore, if a slight improvement to the previous situation, a prime example of the absurdity of every abortion legislation: it is absurd in thinking that being “viable” is a criterium to decide which human life can be terminated and which is allowed to continue, and it is absurd in the arbitrary way in which a human life is considered worthy of protection: a human life is a human life, and this difference – being a human life or not – is logically and qualitatively infinitely more important than every degree of development of this life's internal organs.
This seems to me – taken in general and present company obviously excluded – a seriously stupid country; and in fact a vastly atheist country cannot but be stupid.
Still, as long as there's life there's hope, as they say. I have already reported about some good sign, and even in the matter of gender madness I have seen some signs of sanity. You never know, perhaps this decision will help the one or other to understand the cruel absurdity and selfish monstrosity of abortion legislation.
I never liked the Salvation Army. Last time I looked, the Church didn't recognise their baptism; which means – if memory serves – they are officially wannabe Christians. Always last time I looked – these almost-Proddies change their doctrines and practices very fast, so you never know – they did not drink alcohol, which makes an Italian like me smell fanaticism from one mile away. Come on, Jesus drank wine. Get real.
Well, then: the very same people who oppose wine apparently do not oppose abortion in particular cases.
I find these kind of distinguos always tragically funny.
“I am sorry, little one. But you see, your little heart beats because of a rape; your little hands are being formed because of the wrong motives. God cannot want for you to be born, surely?
Therefore, little one, please bear with me as I tear you apart, fracture your skull, dismember you piece by piece, and try to stop your rather stubborn little heart that keeps beating.
Please don't condemn me. I am so good, I do not even drink wine”.
Don't give money to the Salvation Army.
The last controversy about Obama choosing to keep God out of his rendition of the Gettysburg Address is another very telling indicator of how the mind (or what takes that name) of this man works.
Who would, believing in the Holy Trinity, do everything possible and impossible to expunge God from every public statement? Nobody, is the easy answer. Lame excuses of wanting to “respect” those who do not believe in God are as stupid as wanting to follow the rules of Ramadan so that the colleague near you is not offended at seeing you having lunch, but then again one like that would obviously leave God in the Gettysburg address so that the Christians are not offended, too.
It is evident to everyone with a brain that for a Christian to want to expunge God from the public sphere is tantamount to be ashamed of his faith; which no Christian could ever, in conscience, be, so that of this man we could only say that he has lost his faith.
We will, therefore, have to conclude that such a man is an enemy of Christianity, bent on sabotaging it from the comfortable spot of his convenient Christian facade.
Obama, the son of an early example of liberal college slut, certainly did not get any religious education from his mother, or from his anyway absent father. He grew up in a Muslim environment, and attended schools – I am informed – reserved to Muslims, which means he either was considered such, or was such, or certainly did not have anything speaking for his being a Christian. When millions in the West were listening to the bells of the local church, he heard – and stated he is still very fond of – the call of the Muezzin. When he went back to the US – after being abandoned by his mother, too; such are liberal parents – he was raised by his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother, whose liberal ideas are well known and, by the way, clearly shown in the daughter they raised.
But did young Barry improve when he went back to the “country under God”, the United States? Not really.
His Christian facade was the one of a rabidly racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, a man from whom even Obama at some point had to distance himself, and only after repeated controversy. Is this a good Christian credential? Not likely.
Does he attend church now that he has – finally – canned Wright? Very rarely; apparently a couple of times a year, on those TV occasions. Does he defend Christian values? Never. He would have his daughters abort if they were “punished with a baby” (my words, not his: punished. with. a. baby), and what he calls Christian values are without exceptions the flags of the atheists and liberal culture, from de facto socialism to de iure sodomy.
Not a Christian, then, for sure. Certainly not a Muslim. A clearly thoroughly secular man, very probably as atheist as Stalin, with a cultural predilection for the religion in which he grew up (Islam, of course), and just that ridiculously thin varnish of Christianity that is necessary to become President in the USA.
A whitened sepulchre like few others on this planet, Obama incarnates the hypocrisy of the liberal classes, feigning some lip tribute to Christianity in abstract whilst trying to eradicate it from the planet in concrete.
Stalin was, at least, more honest.
Oh well, perhaps soon-to-be Cardinal Mueller is managing to inject some (as in: some) sound Catholicism in the man's head.
Whilst Francis is still problematic, at least this time we had an improvement.
In today’s world, the Holy Father stated that the thought that all must be the same, that one must be “more normal” is brought forward by this adolescent progressivism. Referring to the readings account that those who did not follow the Law were condemned to death, the Holy Father stated that it is something done even in today’s modern world.“But do you this that today this is not done, human sacrifices?” he asked. “So many are done, so many! And there are laws that protect them.”However, despite the unfaithfulness in the world, Pope Francis said that God continues to be faithful and forgives those who are repentant.
“Adolescent progressivism” is a good description of what Francis has been doing basically without interruption since that disgraceful day in March. I dare to hope – because I am an incurable optimist – that this is Francis' way to say that there will be no more attempts – or at the least none so extreme – to appear “more normal”.
In a possible confirmation of the above, Francis takes out of his sleeve a rather powerful image: human sacrifices. The words themselves and the other reference, that such “human sacrifices” are protected by laws, seems to indicate that he is referring to abortion and euthanasia (remember: euthanasia is protected by law in some countries, like Switzerland and Belgium; whilst other countries like Britain do not show interest in prosecuting the relatives and enablers). The problem with this phrase is that Francis does not say so. Apparently he is fine with “who am I to judge” headlines, but “abortion is a human sacrifice protected by law, says Pope” is a headline he does not want to see. Very judgmental, you see.
Not being a sensation, this speech will not make the world headlines, whilst “abortion is a human sacrifice” would have done it without a doubt. A pity. On the other hand, Francis will remain popular among those who do not read Catholic outlets (basically, the planet).
Still, one notices an improvement. We are near to listening to the Bishop of Rome speaking like… a Pope here. Perhaps he has simply read a speech written by others rather than substituting it with his own … adolescent progressivism. Or perhaps today is “feed the pigeons day”. Perhaps, though, he is making an effort.
A third positive sign comes from the explicit mention of repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness. Again, this is a welcome change from the sub-kindergarten deity up to now smuggled by Francis as the God of the Christians to atheists, infidels and apostates of all shades; and again, this is not enough, because the warning about God's justice is still remarkably absent and remains merely implicit.
Is something happening in Francis' papacy? Has he started to listen to the least bad among the people near him, and has he perhaps realised keeping the course of the first seven months will make of him an object of shame and derision for all centuries to come?
Perhaps. Let us hope so. Let us pray that it is so.
But let us not abandon ourselves to irrational optimism, either. Modernists love to deceive, and to mix the heretical statements with the orthodox ones. We will only be able to say that Francis has changed his tune and the style of his papacy when we see him consistently expressing himself in an orthodox way: renouncing to the adolescent progressivism, the shameless promotion of his own humility, and the clownesque attitude, and accepting to be hated by the world for his defence of Catholicism.
One is happy to register an improvement. But really, one “human sacrifice” statement does not a good Pope make.
This article (http://www.dallasvoice.com/kinder-gentler-catholic-church-10161128.html) (apology for the mess: can't get the link to work) is a good example of why evangelisation works, and appeasement doesn't.
The deluded souls who make a show of their ignorance – and arrogance – in the article are all starting from the wrong premise: if the Church and I disagree, the Church has to change her tune.
They clearly don't know the first thing about what the Church is and how she works. The premise that the Church has to “evolve” is fundamentally Neo-Protestant.
It may be that the one or other of those interviewed – largely perverts, of course: nowadays journalists ask perverts what they think about Church teaching, and not in jest – know that the Church is the custodian of a Truth that cannot change, and pretend not to know it; but it is more likely that many of them think that the Church could change, but does not want to.
Now, if the Western clergy hammered Sunday in and Sunday out in the head of their pewsitters that Truth can, like God, never be changed, in time the concept would spread outside of the pew, in the civil society made of people who vote. But they don't, so it doesn't.
Instead, we have an insisted stressing of how the Church is changing under Pope Diana. This fuels – and cannot but fuel – the expectation of more “change” among people who think such a change is an option in the first place.
You can read the results in the linked article. Expect more appeasement, though, instead of more truth.
What will be the consequence of this mentality? Lapsed Catholics, circus Catholicism, abortion, so-called “gay marriage”, and the rest.
Under Francis, the Church is preparing a massive campaign of appeasement. As the article clearly shows, appeasement never works.
Read here to see how your hard-earned Euros are employed to finance the abortion industry under the excuse of (let me check it again) “sexual and reproductive health”.
What started in 1957 to promote commerce and, with it, prosperity and peace in a profoundly Christian Europe has long become a monster bent on erasing every aspect of Christian morality from the life of European citizen.
Whatever you may think of the degree of democratic representation present in the European Union, it cannot be denied that a system of forced homogenisation is being aggressively pushed, meant to conform everyone to the heatenish immorality of which the EU organs are at the same time the democratically elected result and the engine driving the system towards more and more heathenism.
Spaniards and Italians are much different from the Danes and the Swedes. More important still, Christians are much different from heathens. Most important of all, Truth does not care a straw for the way a representative system works: if it promotes the wrong values, it's the wrong system. Democracy is not our God. God is.
The European Union must die. Let's hope the biggest madness of this immense system of political and moral engineering – the Euro – does the job for us in the next decade or two.
He reports a quotation from JP II. Pope Wojtyla was being interviewed by Vittorio Messori. Being one in the mould of Bergoglio, Messori asks the Pope, of all things, whether he was not “obsessive” about pro-life issues.
Now stop a moment and reflect on the forma mentis of those like Messori. To them, the unpleasant parts of Christianity are those to be glossed over as fast as one can; one who insists on such disharmony-creating ideas like fighting against abortion must, therefore, be forcibly suspected of being “obsessive”. Personally, I would be ashamed of even thinking, let alone asking, such a question to anyone, let alone a Pope. But I digress…
Pope JP II answered as follows:
The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”
By all the liturgical and ecu-maniacal shortcomings of Pope Wojtyla, I doubt Francis will ever express himself in such clear-cut way, even if he were to be Pope for the next 77 years. More worryingly, I doubt Francis thinks like Wojtyla did; because as I have just said, what the heart feels the mouth will tell.
Little review: what did Francis mouth tell? A generally smart commenter, signing as “the chicken”, has made the googling for us: