As you might have read already, an online petition is asking the White House to designate the Catholic Church as a “hate group” for the Church’s views on marriage (and , actually, on sexual perversion in general, though this isn’t said).
The petition has very few signature and is obviously being criticised already, but make no mistake: this is what the future has in store for us.
I can’t say the Church hierarchy hasn’t deserved this: decades of wishy-washy thinking and weasel words on oh how the Church oh loves homosexuals has to lead to church persecution one day.
If the Church had condemned homosexuality as a lurid perversion, and sodomy as an abomination comparable to child rape in the last five decades as she did in the past almost 2000 years, we wouldn’t be in this position now. We are, because the desire not to be seen as… “haters” has prevented the Church from speaking loudly and effectually on this point. The unavoidable result is that the Church will be forced to either say forcibly where it stands (forcibly means: without weasel words, and making clear they are ready to fight this Kulturkampf) or be put with her shoulders to the wall in all those countries where political correctness becomes more important than freedom of speech, let alone religious freedom.
The following is the English Translation (courtesy of Father Z) of Horrendum Illud Scelus, with which Pope St. Pius V deals with the abomination among the ranks of the Church. You find the link on the right hand side column of this blog.
Pius, Bishop (St. Pope Pius V)
Servant of the Servants of God
For perpetual memory of the matter.
A ghastly crime, by which the joined (papal) states were polluted enflamed by God’s fearful judgment, flares up our bitter sorrow, and gravely moves our soul so that we lend now our attentions to repress it as much as possible.
1. It was properly denoted by the Lateran Council, that whatsoever Cleric will have been discovered to suffer from that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God falls upon the sons of disobedience (cf. Vulg. Eph. 5,6), is to be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery.
2. But lest the contagion of such a scourge, from the hope of impunity which is the greatest lure of sinning, more confidently grows in power, We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.
3. And thus because We have made a decree in this matter at the beginning of Our Pontificate, now in a fuller and stronger way intending it to be followed strictly, every and all priests, whoever they are, and other secular clerics, and regular clerics of any grade and dignity, busy at such a detestable monstrosity, We deprive of every clerical privilege, every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice by authority of the present legal instrument. So it is enacted that once they are degraded by the Ecclesiastical Judge, they be handed over immediately to the secular arm, which will exact upon them the same (death) penalty, which is ascertained to have been constituted by legitimate sanctions against laymen who have slid down into this ruin. Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, 30 August in the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1568 during the third year of Our Pontificate.
Notice the death penalty is awaiting those caught, as the saintly Pope perfectly well knew. Therefore, he wanted sodomite priests to be put to death. What would the Jesuits (formerly) organising the “homo masses” in Soho think about this, I wonder…
The mentality of not wanting to say things as they are out loud, but merely (if at all) issuing some softly worded statements of disapproval has brought us to this situation. When you refuse to call a pervert a pervert, it is only a matter of time before the pervert calls you a “hater” and wants to silence, jail or destroy you.
We are being warned. Will we take the hint?
Each one of us is, at some level, aware of the uniqueness of being “the real thing”. You can buy whatever cola you want at the supermarket, but however its advantages it will never be “the real thing”. Similarly, all those products or brands which are perceived as to be “the original” have a very special place. Monsieur Lacoste certainly did not invent the polo shirt, but he reinvented its use, and made of it a brand now followed and imitated worldwide. The same can be said for many other products and brands, of which Apple is perhaps the most spectacular seen in recent times (but there are others; for us Italians, Della Valle’s “Tod’s” is another brilliant example). There is an element of truthfulness in the “original”, that cannot be denied. A shoes which tries to imitate another brand of shoe is, obviously, still a shoe, but it will ruthlessly branded “a fake” nevertheless. It is fake in that, whilst still a shoe, it fails to adhere to truthfulness, and people love truthfulness. The very adjective “authentic” is often used in the sense of “truthful, devoid of lies” rather than “original”.
All over the planet, people pay a premium for the original, because the original is “the real thing”, because it is – at some level – truthful. What comes later is merely a by-product, a me-too imitation, an attempt to ride a wave of success. Nowadays it seems pretty much everything must have an “i” as prefix, and even my freeview box is called “i-Can”; but all this, of course, only reminds us of the original.
People all over the world know this. They even feel this. They certainly pay for this.
Isn’t it strange, then, that such a tremendous force of attraction be struggling there, where it should be strongest? That it should be I do not say waning, but dozing along even if it concerns what is most important, what makes it absolutely vital to be right, and to choose “the right thing”? How can it be that it is so clear human nature longs for truthfulness, and the Catholic Church, the most granitic, self-evident example of Originality and Authenticity ever created, struggles to even persuade people they must show up on a Sunday?
The answer to this is, if you ask me, that no organisation is promoted in such an incompetent way as the Catholic Church.
Instead of promoting and propagating the Truth of the Catholic faith – and people need truth; they yearn for it; look at how well the Evangelicals fare – they do everything possible to water it down. Instead of stressing the unique nature of the Church, they drown in a sea of senseless ecumenism. Instead of asking that the world embrace Christ, they try to make Christ follow the world (Jesus the Ecumenical Chap; Jesus the Global Warmist; Jesus the Socialist; Jesus the Animal Rights Activist, and all the other “Jesuses” happily invented in the last decades, of whom blessedly I only miss Jesus the Vegetarian). People don’t show up on a Sunday, because most priests and bishops are too cowardly to tell them they must.
What is, without question, the most powerful “brand” on Earth – so powerful that no one can escape being fascinated and awed by it at some level; not even hardened atheists – is made ineffective by the most tragically ineffective body of deciders of the planet. It is a great testimony of the indefectibility of the Church that after five decades of systematic sabotage and ruthless work of destruction from within, the Church still stands strong – though not as strong as it should – and able to put a fight – not so deadly as it should – when she chooses.
The level of incompetence, cowardice, stupidity or sheer heresy we experience on a daily basis would have killed the Coca-Colas and Apples of the world many times over. It is, as I speak, killing the Anglicans and Presbyterians, whilst the Methodists are, at least in the UK, already a purely geriatric exercise.
The gates of hell will not prevail, and The Real Thing will never stop to attract and fascinate.
But for Heavens’ sake, dear Bishops, get a move on.
This is the communique released today. Emphases mine.
On September 14, 2011, at the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a meeting was held between His Eminence, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of this Congregation and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, His Excellency, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., Secretary of this Congregation, and Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, and Fathers Niklaus Pfluger et Alain-Marc Nély, General Assistants of the Fraternity
Following the petition addressed on December 15, 2008, by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father had taken the decision of lifting the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and to open at the same time doctrinal conversations with the Fraternity, aiming to overcome the difficulties and the problems of a doctrinal nature, and to achieve a healing of the existing fracture.
Obedient to the will of the Holy Father, a mixed study commission, composed of experts of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and of experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assembled eight times for meetings that took place in Rome between the month of October 2009 and the month of April 2011. These conversations, whose objective was that of presenting and examining the major doctrinal difficulties on controversial themes, achieved their goal, which was that of clarifying the respective positions and their motivations.
Given the concerns and requests presented by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith considering the hermeneutic of rupture of the Second Vatican Council in respect of Tradition – hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005 -, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.
In the course of the same meeting, some elements were proposed regarding a canonical solution for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which would follow the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation.
Early days (or hours) and I have pressing engagements now (Champions League, mainly ).
It seems to me that the acceptance of the preamble is the only thing required, and that this preamble – whose content is for the moment not published – does not demand that the SSPX accepts any interpretation of the V II document deemed in contrast with Catholic orthodoxy. Actually, the SSPX seems even authorised to question the entire way the Magisterium has been (erroneously, of course) presented in the following decades (the “Spirit of V II” and all the annexed bollocks).
Without having read the preamble – which might be a cold shower, though I’d say this is rather improbable – I’d say that this is huge; but this is, in fact, even bigger
Again: early days, and we’ll have to see how the situation develops. But come on, I can’t imagine the SPPX having being informed and having given informal approval to the document beforehand.
This is huge, huger, hugest!! However it may end up, the text already signals a great understanding for the SSPX position, and the fact that they are in line with the “hermeneutic of continuity”, whilst the trendies are not.
Better days ahead. Now we only have to pray.
God bless Pope Benedict.
I had read several times about Fr Pavone and if you use the search function of this blog, you might find an entry or two about him. I liked his pro-life commitment and the way he engages to do that which too many clergymen do not want to do.
It would now appear that his Bishop has suspended him and has ordered him to come back to Amarillo, alleging that Fr Pavone has disobeyed him by not allowing the accounts of his 10-million-bucks-a-year charity to be audited.
One would say that this is (then) Father Corapi all over again (poor chap, by the way; what has happened to him? I see dark clouds there, but I digress…), but in this case the circumstances appear rather different because Fr Pavone obeys to the bishop (coming back to Amarillo as ordered) even when he is not obliged to (as he has already appealed, and the appeal allows him to wait for the decision; I am not an expert in canon law but I’d say that we have seen this in the case of bishop Nourrichard).
The matter here is rather disconcerting for a different reason: the bishop says that Fr Pavone doesn’t want to have his books audited; Fr Pavone says that the books are audited but the bishops doesn’t want to acknowledge that they are. As the matter of auditing of financial statements is heavily regulated all over the West and not much of a grey zone seems possible, I am sure that we will rather soon know who is talking without thinking here. If Fr Pavone picked his cousin to audit the financial statements because he happens to be an accountancy student, the books are not audited and I think he’s in trouble; if he had the accounts regularly audited I think the Bishop will have some explaining to do.
The other matter rather reminiscent of the Corapi affair is the bishop’s accusation about “persistent questions remained unanswered” regarding how the money is used (hence the great need for auditing, of course). Once again, either the books have been properly audited, or they haven’t. If they have, it should have been for the auditors to express concerns, if such areas of concerns had been established. If they haven’t, the problem is there irrespective of Pavone having being wasteful or not.
It is sad to see that once again, a famous priest makes headlines for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, if a scandal is really on the making (and be that one of careless administration) the Latin saying oportet ut scandala eveniant has once again deserved its excellent reputation.
As in Corapi’s case, Fr Pavone should be presumed innocent until found guilty.
I truly hope we won’t see him soon photographed in a motorcycle jacket, though.
Father Barron is going to lead his viewers on a long journey of discovery of Catholicism, 10 episodes of 60 minutes each.
The series will be called Catholicism (these days, a provocative title in itself) and one can be sure that it will make some waves.
If properly made, the potential for this series is huge. Millions of people might, in time, start to see a chunk of it only because of curiosity and be captured by the assault Barron plans on his mind and on his senses (exploring the arts, the thinking, the logic, the complex theology and the beauty of Catholicism).
If made badly this could be, of course, an equally dangerous boomerang, particularly if the series will be heavily tinged with nu-Catholic, Vatican-II tones.
I truly, truly hope that the temptation will be resisted to make a “popular” product and to say the things that do not offend the viewer. in my eyes, what Catholicism needs is to finally start saying again what the viewer do not want to hear, and to attack the anti-Catholic prejudice head on rather than keep whining and apologising for the homosexual priest scandal whilst the tambourines play in the background and we are explained how environmentally friendly Catholicism is.
We shall see.
At least this is a chance.
Everyone knows that some things are loved unconditionally. Ask anyone who loves his fatherland why he does it in the face of all the bad decisions, bad wars, scandals, and assorted miseries of his country’s history and he will tell you – as if it were the most natural thing on Earth, and rather wondering how you can be so obtuse as to even ask – that his love for his Fatherland is valid and justified independently of any mistake that some people might have done here and there, even if they committed those mistakes or outright atrocities in the Fatherland’s name.
But then the same people may start talking about the Church, and then you’ll discover that the undying and unquestioning loyalty they give to a purely human construct, they are not ready to give to the Church founded by Christ. If it’s about a country defined by Washington, or Cavour, or Bismarck they forgive everything; to the Church founded by Christ, they forgive nothing.
This blatant contradiction and summit of illogical thinking is so well-spread, that many people will subscribe to it not only without realising the absurdity of what they say, but even feeling good in the process; sometimes the same people, mind, who would despise those who are not ready to stand up whenever the national anthem plays.
Still, everyone of us should remember – and, on occasion, remember to his friends and/or Saturday afternoon Church critics – that there is no other organisation in our life that is so important – not only from a collective point of view but, more to the point, for one’s own individual salvation – than the Church.
Not even the Fatherland, not even – take this – the football club…
I was reminded of this simple truth by reading the world of Archbishop Chaput by his first homily as the new Archbishop of Philadelphia:
There’s no quick fix to problems that are so difficult, and none of us here today, except the Lord Himself, is a miracle worker. But the Church is not defined by her failures. And you and I are not defined by critics or by those who dislike us.
The Church is not run by miracle workers, she is run by fallible men; these fallible men make mistake, and are sometimes outright evil, within the Church as in every other organisation, including the Fatherland. But in the same way as you don’t define the Fatherland by the mistakes made by those who were entrusted with positions of power and influence, you must not define the Church by the mistake made by clergy entrusted with a power they have abused. At the same time, you must never allowed yourself to be defined by the same metre of either perfection or hypocrisy so much en vogue nowadays: it is not that is one is a believer he must be either a saint or a hypocrite. You don’t ask a patriot to be a perfect soldier, you ask him to try to be the best soldier he can; if he is afraid or short of perfect heroism, you don;t question his patriotism for that. Common sense, you will say, but it is surprising how often this simple logic doesn’t apply to one only because he believes that Christ founded the only Church and tries to live in accordance with this simple belief.
This is a very simple concept, that I dish to the Church critics every time – and it is more often than you think – someone wants to feel a paladin of justice at the expense of the Church, acting like those armchair generals brown-nosing their boss all day long but perfectly able to say how brave and uncompromising they would have been in front of Hitler threatening a holocaust of Polish and French Catholics.
Every regular reader of this blog knows that on these pages criticism in front of scandal given by Churchmen is not spared. This is, I think, right so, as the damage made by those entrusted with position of particular prestige and influence and care for the souls is particularly dangerous. But by all critics, the loyalty to the Institution that you will find on these pages is total.
Right or wrong, the only Church.
( You’ll have to copy and paste this, I am afraid. And believe me, you want to switch the audio off….).
From Gloria.tv, a video of the body of Padre Pio after its controversial exhumation in 2008. As you can see from the video, the body is in an impressive state of conservation. As far as I know, there are no ways known to man to preserve a corpse in such a way, for such a long time and a simple look at the video will persuade you that no embalming – not attempted, as well-known from the filmed inhumation and, also filmed, sealing of the tomb – could ever reach such results.
As the seals have been opened in front of the cameras, and th estate of the tomb perfectly corresponded to the state of the tomb filmed by the original inhumation, there can be no doubt that the largely incorrupt body shown in 2008 is the original, with no tricks attempted by anyone.
I am obviously far from saying that this alone is proof of the existence of God – which can be reached in a purely intellectual way without any need for Padre Pio’s body anyway -. Still, if I were an atheist these images would give me much to think about.
This morning at Mass the celebrant briefly preceded the homily with a short description of what is happening with the introduction of the new translation. As we were by the strange Mass that the Oratorians call “Sung Latin, Ordinary Form” – and which is, in fact, its first version, very similar to a Tridentine Mass, with only a few modifications for example with the introduction of the bidding prayers – it was duly pointed out that in this mass there would be only one modification: at the beginning of the bidding prayers, the answer to “The Lord be with you” would be “and with your spirit” rather than “and also with you”.
After which, Father Harrison simply invited to make a dry run, and after he said “the Lord be with you” all the congregation answered “and with your spirit”, in an atmosphere of tangible merriment.
You see? It wasn’t difficult. Some words are substituted with others. People are told which words are substituted for which. They say the new words. That’s that.
I so wish all those liberal whinos treating us all like lobotomised morons to have been present in order to witness this miraculous feat of instant learning. You will be pleased to know that, to my knowledge, no old pew sitter suffered any noticeable distress at hearing the words, and I even dare to predict that all of them will cope all right and survive the shock.
Furthermore, I also venture to suggest that most of those liberal thickos who have difficulties in learning new words are, at least, able to read. Well, this should go a long way towards solving the problem, as the simple reading of the text and the saying of what one finds written week after week should, in time, allow even the most intellectually challenged Birkenstock-wearing liberal moron to cope with the new words.
There were old words. Now there will be new ones. In a couple of months people will struggle to remember what the old expressions were. It’s really as banal as that. Please stop harassing us with the myth of the old man unable to learn a couple of words, or traumatised at having to say “and with your spirit”.
Another excellent blog post from the “man with no uncertain trumpet”, Monsignor Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington.
This time, Monsignor Pope’s attention is focused on the image of Jesus that was smuggled around in the Seventies, and that still influences the Sixty-Eighters and other pot-smokers today. In those years – and whilst I was a child, I got my share of those years – Jesus was generally portrayed as a kind of a whimp, a girly boy unable to exert or project any form of manliness, a mixture of hare “krishna” follower and Gandhi with, later, the addition of a dollop of Nelson Mandela. Victimised, but as meek as a sheep; bullied, but always answering with a smile, and unable to threat or harm, this is the Jesus we had brought to us as an example. “Peeaace” and “luuuuv” were everywhere, and not a whip in sight.
Well, one only needs to read the Gospel to get a completely different picture of Jesus; a man who never said things half, and never minced words; a man able to openly defy his opponents in public, in times when conflicts were carried out rather less nicely than today, and “being hurt” had a different meaning than today; a man whose followers went around armed with swords, certainly not for aesthetic reasons; a man able to free himself from the grasp of multitudes desirous to apprehend him, which can’t have been accomplished without a towering presence and an extremely commanding, charismatic, utterly manly attitude; a man able, alone, to throw away from the temple an undefined, but certainly not little number of moneychangers out of the sheer fury of his action, and the might of his whip. On this occasion, the contrast between the calm preparation of the whip and the explosion of irresistible physical power gives a wonderful example of the manliness of Jesus’ behaviour.
No, this was no pink-shirted, manicured, anti-wrinkle-lotioned, tubular-jeans-wearing metrosexual; this was a real man, oozing masculinity in everything he did. Try to imagine the scene of St. Matthew’s conversion and tell me whether it is compatible with anything else than the most commanding authority. Then try to imagine how Gandhi or Deepak Chopra would have tried to achieve the same result, and you’ll know the difference.
You see this everywhere in the Gospels, as the words and gestures of Jesus are always accompanied by an undercurrent of sheer authority, a commanding stance, the attitude of one who knows that he will be obeyed everytime he wants. Even scourged almost to death, Jesus talks to Pilate from a position of utter power, and leaves him in no doubt as to who is boss. Make no mistake, this is no Gandhi.
Thankfully, the gently whispering Jesus of my younger years is now slowly being substituted for an image more attuned to the Gospel image, largely – I think – because of the excellent “passion of the Christ” and James Caviezel’s very manly rendition of the Lord. It will take time, though, before the Birkenstock-sandalled, tofu-eating, Cosmo-reading and Oprah-watching Jesus is replaced by, well….. Jesus.
Please find here the text of the Vatican’s answer to the Irish Government’s populist and rather stupid aggression following the publication of the Cloyne Report.
Rather late now and I only browsed the text a bit before going to bed. It seems to me that this is unusually strong tobacco for any diplomacy, let alone the Vatican one. I might be wrong, and I need to re-read the thing with more leisure and more time.
Glad to see they still have some teeth left, though. At least the diplomatic ones.
The “call to disobedience” of the Austrian heretics seems to slowly infect their cousins in Germany.
Here it is none other than the head of the German Bishop’s Conference, archbishop Zoellitsch, to lead the charge of those not only willing, but proud to assume a position of open conflict with the Church and to tell us how good they are in the process.
Make no mistake, Archbishop Zoellitsch is merely trying to curry favour with the tepidly Catholic Germans who still pay the Kirchensteuer. These Germans, having been never properly instructed and having been afflicted by one of the most cowardly clergy of the planet, seriously believe that they have the right to question Catholic truth. No surprise, when even their shepherds do the same….
Said shepherds have no inclination – and no economic interest – in trying to properly instruct their sheep, fearing that, if they so do, the sheep will stop paying the “church tax”, or Kirchensteuer ; which is, in fact, no tax at all, but a voluntary contribution that can be stopped at any time, though with a certain amount of red tape involved.
I will examine below what the Archbishop is capable to say in order to secure his pieces of silver. But first I would like to point out that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Archbishop Zoellitsch’s intervention is motivated by the desire to appear in tune with the secularised “Church Tax” payer by putting himself in clear conflict with Rome. His scandalous words can only be seen in connection with the grave crisis of the “Kirchensteuer” system, now raging also in Germany.
In Italy, we call a person who gives away his values for economic interests (by extension, even if he is a man) with the resounding, emotionally charged and, well, not entirely polite name of puttana. Whilst one hesitates to call a bishop “puttana”, there can be no doubt that sheer prostitution is what is happening here. Bishop Zoellitsch doesn’t have any scruple in giving away his supposedly Catholic credentials – those values he has the duty to protect - in order to please those who pay for the expenses of one of the richest (and possibly: the richest) churches of the Catholic universe. And he is so fine with that, and has the economic motives of his spenders so much in his mind, and feels so secure that the wealth of the German Church gives him a say, that he doesn’t fail to let Rome know that Germany is a big contributor to the Roman coffers. In other words, the killjoys in Rome are requested to shut up and to let him satisfy the desires of the paying public.
Archbishop Zoellitsch’s main aim is to relieve the suffering of rosewater Catholics who have left – or have been left by – their partners and now live in concubinage with another partner (hopefully of the other sex, though I wonder what Zoellitsch would think if this wasn’t the case). The Archbishop’s argument is – wait for this – that it is a matter of “mercy” that these people should be allowed to receive communion, and at this point one truly wonder whether the speaker is a shepherd, or a madam.
Last time I looked, a concubine couldn’t receive communion because he or she is a concubine. What’s difficult in that? The concept of concubine is not difficult to grasp, provided one understands the concept of marriage in the first place. Marriage is a bond that cannot be broken as long as both spouses live. Therefore, if one lives with a person that is not his spouse he is living with a concubine, and to his fornication he adds the scandal of openly rebelling to the Church’s rules. Again: what’s difficult in that? What is beyond the power of understanding of an eight years old child, let alone a bishop?
Now, no one can say that Catholic societies have not been blessed with a human understanding for human frailties far away from the rigidity of Protestantism. But even in those societies, no one has ever dreamed to say that such frailties are justified, or that giving scandal be something deserving of mercy, or that human mercy may wash away mortal sin. Put in a simple way, a man who left his wife and family was always, always considered an idiot, a family wrecker, and a self-centered child and a woman who left her husband to live with another man was always considered the above-mentioned puttana. Similarly, it has always been considered a given that scandal be avoided at all costs, so that one’s weaknesses be not source of sin or confusion for others. It makes sense, and it works rather well.
This should now change, says Archbishop Zoellitsch. Public sin and scandal should have no sacramental consequence, because we are so merciful.
I truly wonder what the Archbishop is thinking, because what he says just isn’t Catholic: is he saying that one who leaves his spouse and takes a concubine doesn’t live in mortal sin? Really? Really? An Archbishop? The head of the German Bishop’s Conference? If he thinks that open scandal and public concubinage isn’t a mortal sin, how can he call himself I don’t say a Catholic, but a Christian? Heavens, even Casanova could give this man lessons in morals! If he thinks that concubinage is a mortal sin, how can he think that a person in mortal sin can validly receive Holy Communion? What does he think Holy Communion is, a piece of bread given to those the community wants to feel included?
The simple, painful truth is that the Archbishop very well knows what a mortal sin is; he is fully aware of the sacramental nature of the Holy Communion; he knows perfectly well that it is a sheer impossibility that a sacrament may be validly received by a person in mortal sin. He knows all that, but he has chosen to prostitute himself and the German church for the sake of the “Church Tax” payments.
If you have any doubt, you can read the rest of the interview (if you can read German). He takes the German president, Mr Christian Wulff, as example of the “good” Catholic who is left out of communion by those baddies in Rome because….. he has left his wife and is now the concubine of another woman. He says that he is “impatient” with the rhythm of “change”, thus implying both that he is better than the men in Rome and that there can be any “change” in doctrinal matters in the first place. He even comes to the point of praising the Green Party and here the whoredom truly reaches the summit. If he saw some money coming, Archbishop Zoellitsch would, no doubt, praise the North-Korean government as a shining example of “merciful” behaviour.
We don’t want to use the word that is appropriate to describe the Archbishop’s moral stature. We must be at all times aware of the fact that, by grossly insulting a shepherd of the Church, we insult the Church he represents. But make no mistake, Archbishop Zoellitsch is making of the German Church the brothel of German secularism, in the hope it continues to pay.
Personally I see only one way out of this situation:
a. Exemplary punishment of the Archbishop. Punish one, so that one hundred may learn.
b. The end of the Kirchensteuer and the dismantling of this rich, lazy, stupid, corrupt, and utterly heretical ministerial apparatus
c. The complete re-organisation of the Catholic Church in Germany with the principles of far less money for the priests – among the best paid on the planet -, far more attention to orthodoxy and far less attention to pleasing the public.
d. a massive and sustained work of re-education (better: of education) of the German Catholics.
This is not easy and not to achieve rapidly, but it can be achieved if in Rome it is finally acknowledged that the German Church is ill to the point of descending to utter prostitution in order to save her wealth and comfort.
I have taken the “Heresy in Austria” post away from the “sticky” position.
I wanted to leave it only a couple of days, but every time I read it I got so angry at clicking on the link and seeing that the “call to disobedience” was still there that I decided to leave it again and again.
With the time, though, the thing has started to nerve me rather mightily and whilst this will happen to me more often than to you, I start to think that many readers weren’t so astonishingly pleased, either.
I will re-post the post as “sticky” every now and then in order to give the situation regular visibility without unnerving the readers. On all other days, the two references to the heresy in Austria prepared from the start (the “stop” sign on the right hand side and the extra post on the upper bar, put in the second best position and only after the Rosary) will allow everyone to click and check if at least the link has been removed (it reads in German “Aufruf zum Ungehorsam”: as long as it’s there, nothing has happened).
In the meantime there has been nothing more than a moderate non-development with some more meowing from the Archbishop, meowing not only largely expected but indispensable to avoid the boot. Nothing more as far as I know. If there is anything new and relevant (excluding meowing) perhaps the one or other will let me know.
Thank you for your patience, which must have been tested in some case. I know mine was.
The Mexican Presbyterians have decided, after 139 years, to file for divorce from the PCUSA, the Presbyterian [so-called] Church of the USA.
It would appear that whilst the Holy Ghost spoke to the ones suggesting to them that homosexual priests – I mean here outright sodomites – are just the ticket, the same Holy Ghost spoke to the others – in good Spanish, I presume – telling them that this is a no-no.
As a consequence of this translation/communication/phone signal problems, the two organisations have resulted in an event that can be rightly defined one of the defining features of Protestantism, and a significant Protestant gift to the modern world: divorce.
I do not know whether or how the two organisations will discuss their differences, and whenever I am in front of these situations I can’t avoid being embarrassed for the boys, girls and third sex members (plus all the other abbreviated indications denoting sexual deviancy) of the Episcopalians.
In fact, if the Holy Ghost is speaking to both, then something must be wrong with the Holy Ghost and even they can safely exclude that. If nothing is wrong with the Holy Ghost, though, one can only conclude either that the entire idea was wrong these last 139 years, or that the Holy Ghost has gone away from/is kept out from the sister/spouse congregation, in which case the matter is more than creepy and the question why one should follow one congregation that can go completely to the dogs in a matter of decades rather than the one who has gone on strong for 2000 years and was founded by our Saviour instead a rather valid one.
Can’t wait for the moment when the Presbyterians will give communion to dogs.
Oh no, wait! It has happened already!
I have written a couple of times about the similarities between Nazism and the modern secular societies.
In the Europe of the thirties, one could have legally aborted only in one country: Nazi Germany. At the same time, euthanasia was practised only in one country: Nazi Germany again. And who was the only country making experiments on humans and so obviously and massively concerned about eugenics? Yep…
Curiously, if we except the Bolsheviks Germany was the only traditionally Christian country in Europe not implicitly accepting Christian values as the basis of society.
It seems that old Adolf has some admirers in Spain, where there are people able and willing to decide that a life is not worthy of being lived anymore and can therefore without any moral scruples – nay, with the feeling of being, actually, good – be terminated. The Nazis called this Lebensunwertes Leben, literally “life not worthy of life”. Basically, there’s one chap (or two, or three) who sit there like minor gods and decide when the moment has come to take the tube away. “Sorry ma’m, we are on a budget”.
I do not know how they say Lebensunwertes Leben in Spanish (something sounding like “Zapatero”, I presume), but it seems to me that both the mentality and the effects are exactly the same.
There is a brilliant (and long) post of Father Z about a rather good (and long) pastoral letter of Archbishop Conti, the well-known adversary of the Tridentine Mass, about the new translation that will, as he says, “grace our altars” starting from Advent.
The long message of the Archbishop jumps a bit here and there, and it would not be easy, nor interesting to read, to comment on it in its entirety.
What I find rather worthy of consideration, because denoting a mentality that is spreading more and more under the blanket of “niceness”, is:
a) the position of the Archbishop towards kneeling to receive communion, and
b) his reasons why one should not genuflect even when he has been queuing in standing.
It is very surprising to read from a bishop that standing be “the” sign of reverence in the Western Civilisation. Granted, standing is traditionally considered a sign of respect, but I can’t remember it being used in preference to kneeling in matters regarding the religious sphere.
When the Headmaster enters the class, everybody stands up. When women enter the room, everybody stands up (unless the lady in question is a feminist, in which case the standing men sit down). You are supposed not to sit unless asked, and so on.
But note that this does not happen in the religious sphere. For centuries, Communion has been received in the West by kneeling and not by standing. There can be no sign that more eloquently shows the difference between respect in front of human authority and reverence for the Divine one. To ignore this means to willingly and willfully want to reduce the Divine to the rank of the human. It is surprising – not to say, scandalous – that an Archbishop would pretend not to know these simple facts.
Those who approach communion in standing are invited not to kneel, in order to be sensitive to those who can’t. This is not only plain stupid, but stupid in the most arrogant of ways: the passive-aggressive manipulation under the blanket of the protection of the old. Hostage-taking of the slimiest sort.
If we followed the genial train of thought of the Archbishop, we shouldn’t jog in the park in order to be sensitive to those who can’t; we shouldn’t drive a motorbike in traffic, out of respect for those who can’t ride their BSA anymore; we shouldn’t, actually, even go to Mass in order to be sensitive to the countless faithful who every Sunday, actually, can’t. I could go on, but you get my drift.
This arrogant manipulation and hostage-taking of old people – who certainly, for the most part, wouldn’t even dream of asking the congregation not to kneel just because they themselves can’t; and if they did, would deserve to see people kneeling particularly deep and for very long – is not heard by me for the first time and, stupid as it is, risks to become a leitmotiv of the liberal battle against kneeling by communion. I know that you think that this is too idiotic to ever take hold, but you never know what people end up believing – or not daring to contradict – if it is repeated long and often enough. Particularly if some high-value hostages are taken: the old, the children, the “environment”.
I do hope that this mentality doesn’t take hold. If it does, I’ll immediately suggest to take communion by kneeling in order to give some relief to the older members of the congregation, whom it would be insensitive to let be standing when they can get some moment of rest. Or I would suggest that everyone who can kneel also does it in a particular reverent way, offering his kneeling to the older members of the congregation, who are thus specially remembered and honoured.
As you see, the PC-whining and fake-considerate manipulation is a game everyone can play.
Brilliant piece of sober, reasoned thinking from Frank Turek on TownHall.com.
Telling about the usual homo calling him – as usual for homos – “bigot”, he says among other things (emphases always mine):
That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?
And in fact it never persuaded me how you can have boundaries, but I can’t. How you can claim to have a moral compass, but I cannot. How you can have a sexual perversion, and say that the ill person – the homophobic one – am I.
Then comes the debunking of the idea of having to be sympathetic to sodomites:
According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destruction—if a truck is about to run over you—the only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that road—that I celebrate the road you’re on—how could I hate you more?
I like the argument, but I personally do not think that medical behaviour should be the reason for condemning homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong because – besides being utterly disgusting, in such a way that only a depraved generation can choose to overlook the sheer horror of such a behaviour – it’s forbidden by God in a very special way. It has made it into an extremely exclusive list of sins – that countless generations have learned by heart and many contemporary “Christians” wouldn’t even know what it is about – and it has been explicitly been condemned by Christ Himself, who used Sodom as the epitome and paragon of evildoing when condemning the inhabitants of Capernaum.
“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day”. Matthew 11:23
It needs a very, very thick reader not to comprehend that here Jesus is saying “even those perverts who were so astonishingly bad that they had to be destroyed in their entirety might have seen the light in time, if they had had the privilege of seeing me accomplishing such mighty works as I did for you”.
But no, nowadays people prefer to believe that “Jesus does not take position on homosexuality” (no? Really? So he did came to subvert the Law after all? Or am I missing something here?), as yours truly had the adrenaline-laden privilege of reading in that oh so balanced loudspeaker of modern faggotry, the “Daily Telegraph”.
Turek’s treatment of the “born that way” is highly entertaining, and I will report it in its entirety:
First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because homosexual unions don’t reproduce.
Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.
Third, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important— they were also born with a specific anatomy. We can’t know if our desires are inborn since we can’t remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.
Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.
I liked that with the “don’t blame me” as in fact could be used to justify every kind of behaviour, ever the one homos define as “homophobic”.
The author concludes with two very perceptive statements:
a) in nowadays political climate, calling your opponent ” bigot” might win the day even if you don’t have any argument at all. The senseless and ceaseless whining of the homos is proof of that. Play the victim, and you’ll look good even if you are the real nazi.
b) In order to put an end to this circus, the only thing that must happen is that people start thinking again, getting rid of the politically correct blinkers and starting to apply simple logic to life’s situations.
We are not there yet, but something is starting to move.
Absolutely brilliant blog post from the “Little Catholic Bubble” about misguided compassion.
The author of the blog first describes her observation that
The culture has quickly moved from complete aversion to gay “marriage” (which was unthinkable even fifteen years ago) to the beginnings of real acceptance. I’ve noticed that most who have moved towards acceptance have done so out of a misguided sense of compassion.
We see here the poisoned fruits of a culture that has substituted Christianity with a wooly “let us feel good” mentality, where too many believe that, provided one “doesn’t harm anyone” (I didn’t know sodomy doesn’t harm, by the way), then it is all fine because we are oh sooo charitable.
When you have to explain to anyone that a sin is harmful because it offends God, you know that Christianity is in trouble.
But the fact is, the author continues, that such misguided compassion harms Christianity (and Catholicism) in a very direct way, by being used as a weapon to attack Catholic institutions: this is what we are seeing in several American states regarding adoption agencies, a story seen in similar ways in the United Kingdom and that has relevance for everyone of us in his daily life (try being a bad-and-breakfast owner and have to accept pervert in the house you live, and then tell me….).
A second, but crucial issue is the one of “discrimination”: if it is accepted that perversion is all right, then calling perversion as it is suddenly becomes discrimination, and hate speech; and the person must be very stupid who believes that liberals will be anywhere near “liberal” with everyone disagreeing with them. The author puts it, again, brilliantly:
when grave sin is re-categorized as a societal virtue and a civil right, then you and your Church are suddenly the ones in violation and will be penalized for speaking or acting in opposition.
The fact is, very simply, that the liberal is the enemy of the Church. To try to appease him is a feat of Chamberlain-like stupidity. It is the foolish idea that you can live together with those who want to get rid of you, and will have them as friends if you help them to do so. To say it again with the words of the author:
And so I implore you, fellow Catholics: Stop trying to “get along” with the world. The world hates you as it hated Christ, an assurance we have from Our Lord Himself. The new age of secularism is upon us, and its endless drone of “tolerance” does not apply to you.
It is time to wake up and realise that we are living a new, if not less dramatic than the old one, clash of civilisations: the Christian world against the new secular/liberal Nazism. This Nazism has already made vast inroads into our Christian societies, with abortion, euthanasia, and sexual perversions being just some example. Having being allowed to go as far, it is now moving toward the destruction of Christianity, which they – make no mistake on this, or you’ll pay the price – rightly see as in total opposition to their ideology and world vision.
It is perfectly coherent for a secularist to want to destroy Christianity. But it is perfectly stupid for a Christian to help them do so and feel good in the process.
We need a war cry to get out loud and clear from the Christian ranks. We need to realise that this is not about tolerance, or compassion. This is about the survival of Christian civilisation or its transformation in a world dominated by Nazi poofs. The cry that should go up from the Christian world is the one you hear above, courtesy of the genius of Giuseppe Verdi:
Guerra! Guerra! Guerra, guerra, guerra!
The photo you see above depicts Renato Bertelli’s Profilo Continuo, a then extremely celebrated and, still today, rather admired work of modern art.
The work represents, as the name suggests, the profile of the Duce over a 360 degree rotation.
Whilst the profile of the Duce is very marked and, so to speak, fitting for the role, what counts here is the impression of strenght, daring innovation, and even speed suggested by the work.
Bertelli’s inspiration didn’t go unnoticed. Mussolini was so pleased with it that he allowed its use as official portrait, and the work gave birth to reproduction that lovers of art (and, presumably, of Fascism) could install in their own reception rooms.
You see here, if I may say so, modern art at its best. You see what the work is aimed at, you visually and instinctively “get” the message of the work: the representation of Mussolini’s traits as the embodiment of a new era, a brave and daring, but breathtakingly modern one. Whilst very modern and with the Duce almost not recognisable, it still defines him in a brilliant way.
Fast forward to 2011. A new statue is revealed in Piazza dei Cinquecento, in Rome. The statue represents the late Pope, John Paul II.
It is, undoubtedly, a piece of modern art. There is a huge cavity, strongly resembling a device for the relief of gentlemen’s bladder urges and therefore fittingly called, by the vox populi, orinale. Apparently, said urinal-shaped cavity represents the desire of the late Pope to be inclusive, and accept everyone. It still looks like a urinal, though.
Over this strange device, a head is placed. A heavy, square, hard one. A head which, coincidentally, looks pretty much like the Duce’s head – it is astonishing how certain things remain in the collective imagination of a country – but is supposed to be the head of the late Pope instead. One looks at the “work” and thinks that whatever the artist has been smoking, it should be taken away from him at once.
Note that Bertelli didn’t need any modification to his work; and that his work actually wouldn’t have tolerated any, so beautiful it is in its purity of lines and clarity of purpose. This doesn’t seem to be the case of the artist of (degenerate) art who created the urinal, because said (degenerate) artist has now promised to modify the work so that people, at least, stop thinking that it is a monument to Mussolini with the wrong name.
One wonders what will happen, then, to this “masterwork with second thoughts”. Will the head be so modified as to make it more similar to the one of the late Pope? Will we get a profilo continuo of the said pope above the orinale? Will the Pope miraculously get things like… arms? Will the urinal be actually replaced with something at least vaguely resembling a body?
In the same weeks of the inauguration of the orinale, a statue to Ronald Reagan was unveiled in front of the American Embassy in London. It looks like – you wouldn’t believe it – Ronald Reagan. One wonders how the Americans could be so unbearably unimaginative as to commission something resembling the person it is meant to remember!
I do not know you, but I am fed up with idiots squandering public money and wanting to be cretinous at all costs, purely out of fear of not being considered intellectual and unconventional enough. Cretins is what they’ll be considered, both those who made the “work” and those who commissioned and approved it.
I am waiting to see what “modifications” are going to be unveiled. I’m afraid we haven’t stopped laughing yet.
Slowly but surely, the idea starts to enter in some non-Catholic heads.
Take the Tory propaganda, for example. The defence of the family has always been a mainstay of Tory ideology, at least in words. If you live in the UK, you might a noticed an ever so slight tendency to upheld traditional values even among the faggoty, hoodie-hugging, chameleons Tories of these days. In their confusion, they can’t even see what a family is, but at least they start to see more or less confusedly that divorce isn’t all good. I know, Cameron is an idiot who would sell his mother to whoredom for the sake of a fringe minority of voters, but at least he gets some vague glimpse of the truth.
From the University of Virginia comes now a study telling us something for which actually no study has ever been necessary: a divorce is highly expensive, highly disruptive, and the cause of high social costs. The idea would seem to start thinking about making divorce less easy: people would then feel motivated to make the step only when they are rather persuaded, and in general a more solid approach to marriage and a happier generation of children would result.
All very sound, say I. But then one wonders why what is right should be right only when taken in the half dose, and would stop to be right if things are done, well, entirely right.
Believe this Italian-born blogger: nothing creates solid families so much as the inability to divorce. When children grow up in a world where they know that they only have one go, they will mostly grow up into adults who will make responsible choices, will go into a marriage without thinking that it must be an erotic paradise (him) and endless romance (her), and most of all they will go into their new life without a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it, permanently looking at them from the kitchen. Several other things will happen, like the stigma against divorced couples. Say what you will, but this will certainly work and help couples to stay together and work on their problems rather than slam the door with “emergency exit” written over it.
It is astonishing that a country can ask a person to, say, lock himself in a deal with the Army for several years, but doesn’t even feel able to ask them to lock themselves into the matrimonial deal for, say, six or seven years. It doesn’t even square that a sovereign country can ask a person (nowadays, of both sexes in practice) to be drafted and land into a trench in a totally involuntary way, but can’t ask them to stick to the decisions that they themselves have taken.
Slowly, someone begins to open his eyes. The university of Virginia starts to say that divorce might have to be made more difficult. Granted, the taboo of individual happiness at all costs – which then leads to serial divorces and serial unhappiness, only more expensive – is not touched yet, but even Protestant should start to wonder whether – in their opinion – the Holy Ghost was being so wrong when He allowed them to divorce only in a very limited number of cases, and whether He is so right now that it allows them – or “inspires” – them to divorce so rapidly.
But the real crux of the matter is that, once again, the rightness of the Catholic truth starts to slowly filter through increasingly vaster strata of the population; in a confused way for now, but one that already starts to give the right Catholic solution to an entirely secular and Protestant-made problem.
In case anyone should still think that RU486 is a contraceptive, please read here what the National Right To Life has to say on the matter:
RU 486 is an artificial steroid that interferes with the action of progesterone, a hormone crucial to the early progress of pregnancy. Progesterone stimulates the proliferation of the uterine lining which nourishes the developing child. It also suppresses normal uterine contractions which could dislodge the child implanted and growing on the wall of the mother’s womb.
RU 486 fills the chemical receptor sites normally reserved for progesterone, but does not transmit the progesterone signal. Failing to receive that signal, a woman’s body shuts down the preparation of the uterus and initiates the normal menstrual process. The child, deprived of necessary nutrients, starves to death. The baby detaches and is swept out of the body along with the decayed uterine lining.
Contraception, my aunt. Outright killing more likely.
Of course, people like Adolf Hussein Obama who don’t even have problems with leaving a child to die of cold after birth – and call it “late-term abortion” – will not see the “subtleties” between contraception and killing. But hopefully many others will, particularly among Protestants.
The unfortunate resignation of Steve Jobs as Apple’s CEO (he is now chairman, but clearly not with the same impact on the company and, I am very much afraid, not for long anyway) has reignited the old controversy whether Apple be Catholic and the PC world protestant.
I would, in the half-serious, half-joking spirit in which these comparisons are made, wholeheartedly agree.
I see the similarities as follows:
1) Apple is based on the leadership of one man. What made Apple such a wonderful weapon is the total commitment to what Steve Jobs thought right. Whilst you cannot make any serious comparison with a Pope, the contrast with the atomised PC-World is undoubtedly there.
2) Apple had a, as far as I know, unique product politics; that – following Steve Job’s creed again – you got an extremely limited palette of products.
There is only one iPhone. Granted, you can buy the old one, but basically your type choice is limited to the choice between the old one and the new one. Even in the choice of colour you are very much constrained. Compare with Nokia & Co., or with the PC producers. Apple didn’t try to please you. It brought its new product on the market and shouted: “Convert yourselves!”
The masses obliged, and believed.
3) Apple had a “love it or hate it approach”. There were no compromises. You had to accept the entire creed. Once bought an iPhone you were locked into the world of Apple apps, once again following the idea that what Jobs thinks is right, and it must be right because it’s what Jobs thinks. An entirely different planet from the anarchic, extremely fragmented world of, say, android.
4) Apple wasn’t easy. Jobs didn’t do things halfway, and he always did things his way. Consequently, he spent mind-boggling amounts in R&D, for which his clients were obviously called to foot the bill. And he gave the world extremely sleek products, for which the same clients were asked to separate themselves from an additional, substantial chunk of cash. Like the Church, Apple offered you a world of uncompromising beauty and superior intelligence, for which there is a heavy price to pay. But with Apple you couldn’t even try to dodge the unpleasant bits; you couldn’t be an apple-follower” in name only”: the phone or other device you had in your hand showed which creed you subscribed to.
Yes, there are some similarities in the comparison.
It is sad to say that – Jobs’ health problem notwithstanding – Apple seems to be in much better shape and to have a much more dedicated following than the Church. It clearly shows that the Church has no Steve Jobs around.
But on the other hand, who has…
P.s. and, obviously, one more thing. Steve Jobs is dying. I hope he uses what probably are his last weeks wisely. I will pray for him.
I don’t know anything about Justin Bieber. I mean, I really couldn’t care a straw. I barely know he exists, and I assure you the last circumstance is merely due to the fact, alas, not being really avoidable.
It’s astonishing to me that people still fighting against their acne might be considered the carrier of any form of message (let alone wisdom) whatsoever. It tells something about the state of our society. Add to this that the young man looks like a …. oh well, let’s not say that, poor chap.
It would appear that whatever this chap says, makes waves. Crucially, he appears to be, in a way, “pro life”. At least as much as one can be whose clarity of thought doesn’t go beyond saying “whatever they have in North Korea, that’s bad”. Whatever? If you don’t even know what it is they have, how can you….. ? But I’m getting excited, and in the day of Gaddafi’s fall I do not want to get nervous.
It would also appear that the young chap has made a video looked at 600 million times, which poses the question whether all this popularity couldn’t be put to a good use, for example trying to condemn genocide. Adolf Hussein Obama wouldn’t be pleased for sure; at least for the duration of a golf game.
It seems easy, but it isn’t. In my eyes, the problems are as follows:
1. This is a teenager. Teenagers do change their mind. If you start supporting him now that he says what you like, you run the risk of a huge problem the day he will start saying things you don’t. The probability is not small.
2. This is a teenager who can only influence teenagers. People who – looking at reality for what it is for once instead of drinking the kool-aid of youth rhetoric – don’t vote and, basically, don’t count. People who will grow out of their infatuation with a pop idol and will soon start thinking with their own head, provided they have one. It is a delusion to think that a pop idol can influence a generation, much less a generation of teenagers into their adult years. Teenagers change rather rapidly and many will be ashamed in five years’ time – nay, make it two – of having ever told themselves fans of their idol of yesteryear.
3. Beware of those who are popular. Truth is not spread through those who are popular. On the contrary, popularity (as in pop-ularity) doesn’t really make great inroads. If the religious opinions of famous people had a real relevance, Scientology would make no prisoners. The reality is that people – even when stupid, and even when teenagers; which all too often is the same thing – can well separate their musical preferences from their values. My impression is that people “follow” their idols when the latter do what they want to do in the first place; their idol is one who took drugs because they want to take drugs, etc. Pop idols don’t change people, for sure, much less change adolescents into different adults. Thank God for that, by the way.
4. If we want to really fight against abortion, we need something with a bit more weight than a walking Clearasil ad. We need brave priests and bishops saying it as it is. Serious advancement for Truth is effected by serious people being taken seriously by serious people, not by teenagers expressing some broken idea in broken English to other barely literate teenagers.
Bieber can do whatever he pleases. It doesn’t really count. What counts is, primarily, priests and bishops, and they are the ones who must begin to seriously wake up.
It’s not that people become conservative because, say, they like Beyonce’s voice (a lot else to like, anyway….). They become conservative because they develop that conviction.
Like millions of others, I spent countless hours listening to Simon & Garfunkel. Never could give a straw what their political opinions are.
Read here on The Deacon’s bench a rather enjoyable blog post about, well, what can go wrong.
Truly delicious at time (the reference to the mother is probably the best, and gives plenty of background), this entertaining piece of bloggery might, particularly from some wannabe priestess, be seen as typical of the chauvinistic culture reigning among the clergy.
For this reason, the blog post is linked here.
Wisely, Deacon Kandra has closed the comment box.
Every now and then, some archbishop forgets bishopese and start talking like a bishop.
This time, Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis reminds us of the importance of praying for the dead.
Archbishop Carlson is politically incorrect for several reasons:
1) he reminds us of a typical Catholic teaching, the communion of saints. One wonders how many young Catholics – yes, even those in Madrid – would, when asked, be able to answer correctly as to what it is;
2) he reminds us of the importance of prayer;
3) he reminds us of the value that we as Catholics put on works of mercy;
4) he reminds us that our relatives and beloved in Purgatory need our prayers.
This clearly goes against a certain liberal, tambourine-armed mentality according to which canonisation by acclamation follows death and we shouldn’t do things so much differently than our brothers in Christ, the Proddies, lest they are offended and/or “hurt”.
Slowly but surely, a certain orthodoxy seems to timidly reappear in the way bishops present themselves and present Catholicism to their sheep. A long way to go for sure, but one registers such interventions with a certain satisfaction and optimism.
I am trying to remember how often I have heard such news in my past years in Italy. I can’t remember a single episode. OK, the Internet was not really there, but the only things one could hear were the usual sugary talks about The Young, peace ‘ n love, and The Young (I am forgetting something. Oh yes.. The Young).
Some twenty years later, I think we can say that at least the sprouts of a new orthodoxy are clearly visible.
Twenty years ago, who would have even mentioned the works of mercy….
Michael Voris will soon be in London again; and again, he will polarise and cause controversy with his, well, rather outspoken communication style.
This is not after many people’s taste, particularly in England. There are certainly many who consider him too outspoken, too explicit, too harsh in his criticism – directed at clergy as well as non-Catholics – and, basically, not nice. Therefore, they don’t like him.
The key to understanding Voris – and, I think, many of the more outspoken bloggers out there – is that not being English, they don’t give a damn about being liked. In times of scandalous corruption within and without the Church, you can’t say things in a halfway effective way and be liked. You’ll have to choose whether to be liked – and largely ineffective – or making an impact and being disliked by very many and called many names – “uncharitable” being my favourite, closely followed by “homophobic” -.
Voris gets it. He seems blessedly immune from this (very British, but rather Anglo-Saxon, too) idea that one must be “nice” in order to be taken seriously or, more importantly for some, being invited to afternoon tea, which is then called being “relevant”. His message is simple, straight, brutal. It gets actually – and fortunately – more brutal as the months go by, with the language getting more explicit (note how the word “gay” has been in the last months largely replaced by the vastly more correct “homos”).
In my eyes, Voris has laid bare the root of the diseases that has almost killed the Church in the last fifty or so years: niceness, and desire to be accepted. If you want to be nice you’ll have to accommodate to the whims and desires of the world, and you’ll end up bowing to its ideology whilst you pretend to want to reform it. I have pointed out to this very recently, speaking about the bishop who feels obliged to say that opposition to so-called same-sex marriage is “his opinion”.
His opinion, my aunt. truly, what has the world come to.
It might well be that in former times, when the Church had a stronger grip on society, one could – perhaps! – afford the luxury of being a bit softer, and still being listened to. But we can’t compare. In a society where most people consider abortion a given – and, make no mistake, most bishops too, may God have mercy on their souls, as well as on mine whilst he’s there – you’ll not make many inroads by gently whispering your – if you may say so, in your opinion, and present company excepted – polite disagreement with it. You must call abortion for what it is: genocide, and you must call those who stay silent accessory to a genocide.
The same argument goes for the rest of Christian life: I had written very recently that it is high time to start stigmatising divorced people again. I expected a load of insults of the British sort: “you can’t say this, because I am divorced”; “harsh”, “uncharitable” or the like.
Nothing happened. I blame the summer.
Yes, this attitude means having to spread adrenaline around instead of saccharine, but the saccharine is what almost killed the Church and so the adrenaline seems rather welcome.
How Voris reaches the heart of the problem is demonstrated by the vast number of personal attacks you can read against him on the Internet: from the alleged toupet to “the way he rotates his pen”, his detractors show a great attention for irrelevant details.
All this doesn’t mean to say that I always approve of what he says. I remember some questionable “vortex” videos about homosexuality, forms of government, or Father Corapi that in my eyes would have profited from a bit more of reflection and rephrasing. But no one can be always right, or approved by everyone.
Still, I think it is fair to say that Voris’ first sin in the eyes of most of his detractors consists in his basic policies of not giving a damn for being liked, and not giving a damn for being nice.
Oh for bishops and priests like him! Oh for bishops and priests speaking with half his directness!
It there had been more Vorises around in the past decades, particularly but not only among the clergy, we wouldn’t need this debate about Voris now.
He is around, because they weren’t.