You understand that conservative Catholicism is on the rise when you read news like this one.
There was a liberal Catholic parish in Berkeley, California (yes, that Berkeley). Their “social activities” included not only interfaith meetings (we know what kind of ecumenism is that, particularly coming from the lefties), but anti-war protests to boot. You can imagine from this the rest of the parish life.
Two years ago a new priest arrives, Fr Direen, and he is not a retiring wallflower. The parish council is disbanded (shock!), the finance council too (Horror!), even their spanish counterpart, the Consejo Latino *, meets the same destiny (Racism! Fascism!). Furthermore, the “meeting space” is put to some use with the installation of a religious gift store (also good for personal devotion and piety, and an excellent way to raise funds), and Fr Direen obtains the removal of a “respected” (read: very liberal) priest.
This is not all: the parish website now links to “courage” and other conservative, orthodox Catholic organisations. This is, clearly, too much.
Therefore, when Bishop Cordileone arrived to celebrate Mass, there was the predictable group of hippies ready to protest. Fat chance they have, as Cordileone is pretty much of a tough guy.
It is now clear that Catholic restoration is now advancing in the very heartland of liberal madness.
One needs news like this one, every now and then. They allow him to keep his sight on the big picture.
* In Europe, we have official languages everywhere. One of the reasons why we have them is to make clear that the immigrants must adopt the ways of the locals. I live in England and speak – and work, and deal – in English. When I lived in Germany, I did the same in German.
The concept should be introduced, methinks, to the Unites States.
Reasonably high turnout in Malta for the divorce referendum.
It would appear, says Times Of Malta, that
a low turnout among younger voters was noted throughout the day, while the elderly and the religious community appeared to be out in numbers, thus potentially giving the ‘no’ vote the upper hand.
This is certainly a reaction to the appeal of the bishops, cleverly made en masse and in force on the last sunday before the vote, about which I have reported here.
I will probably not be able to report about the result of the referendum until tomorrow. What I notice is the fact that one of only two countries still banning divorce allows a referendum on it, and the result is uncertain to say the least. This seems to me a highly relevant result irrespective of the definitive outcome of the referendum. It means that it is possible, even in the middle of Europe, to build a society whose perception of real values is strong enough as to have a real grip on the population’s decisions.
This is not a coincidence of course. You have seen from the previous blog post mentioned above that the Maltese bishops are committed, outspoken shepherds. They show that if the shepherds are good, there will be enough sheep to give the goats a fight for their money. But this doesn’t happen overnight and is, surely, the result of constant work.
Picture now such a referendum in England, where the local hierarchy seems unable to talk about anything else than social and environmental issues and, when they really talk about embarrassing things like Jesus, they do everything possible to let you understand that they do it because they are supposed to, but you shouldn’t feel offended because they are oh so “inclusive”. Imagine what influence can such a cowardly stance have over a Catholic population already surrounded by a secular and protestant influence, and very often needing clear words to recognise the truth.
Whatever the outcome, this battle in Malta (and the one in Italy about euthanasia, I add) shows that if the Church leaders are committed to the fight, a Catholic army will, in time, be formed; disciplined and well-equipped enough to be a danger for every politicians wanting to stop its march.
If you live in England, you may occasionally wonder when it was the last time that you heard a bishop say that Protestantism is a heresy.
You would also be very much embarrassed at having to answer to the question of when has your bishop last told that every effort to minimise major differences with the Protestants is like unleashing a wrecking ball against the edifice of the Catholic faith.
I also can’t remember any English bishop ever saying that the difference between Catholicism and protestant is huge, that no other religion was founded by Christ, and that Catholicism is the only way to salvation.
Finally, I do not recall ever knowing of an English Bishop posing Catholic Truth as the basis of every exercise in ecumenism, and that this truth will, like it or not, forcibly require sacrifices in matters of unity.
Obvious concepts, all of them. You just don’t hear them. Instead, you hear the usual convenient social(ist) waffle about social justice, or the even more populist bollocks about global warming.
This is why it is always good to listen to Michael Voris.
I woke up very early this morning (a festivity here in England, and apparently a fine day too) to hear the news that is now going round the world: Osama Bin Laden is dead, killed by a US Navy SEAL commando of 40 in Pakistan.
I won’t do anything to hide from you my sense of satisfaction, of a job well done, and of gratitude and admiration for the brave soldiers who executed this brilliant operation without even a casualty.
A short time later, in front of my hot caffellatte, I wondered how probable it was that the bastard now rots in hell. Rather probable, I would say. Nay, make it very probable. The idea that he would, on his last seconds (and we do not know the details, but from what has transpired it would appear that he has seen it coming; which again doesn’t make me sad, at all), manage to get a perfect contrition is, how should I put it, not entirely believable.
And so I was there, looking into my caffellatte in this glorious sunny morning of victory and justice, and wondering whether I should… pray for Osama Bin Laden’s soul. I pray for the dead (particularly for my dead, I admit; but for all the dead anyway) every day and this prayer is to me not only the compliance with a religious duty but a tender link to beloved people not here with me anymore; moments in which I detach myself from the cares of this world and connect in spirit to the other part of my family, those who are now past those cares, and in which I give back in a small way the endless prayers that – I am sure – several of them have prayed for me and for all those I love. Therefore, praying for the dead is something I love to come back to again and again, just because it is a tender moment.
Should I therefore, now, expressly pray for…… such a bastard? For the epitome of senseless cruelty and fanaticism? Should I pray for him, even if I am almost sure that he rots in hell and the seventy-two virgins might have – more or less metaphorically speaking – turned out to be something like, say, seventy-two angry feminists or seventy-two extremely horny sodomites?
I tried, and I failed. It seemed insincere to pray for someone you feel is in hell. It seemed like I was just making a stupid attempt at “feeling good” (I hate these things, having experienced that people who try to be good and people trying to feel good are two completely different sets of people) with utter disregard for the reality on the ground.
Still – I thought – I do pray every day the Lord that he may “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of [His] mercy”. But this is a generic embrace of suffering humanity and, most importantly, refers to a salvation that is still possible to every one of them. I was, therefore, very unsure.
But then I reflected a bit more, and I realised (always looking at my caffellatte, still too hot to drink) that Jesus must have loved this soul as much as everyone else’s, and that his salvation was as important to him as the one of the greatest of his saints. Seen in this perspective, things changed and I could now envisage praying for him not because I think that he is probably in purgatory (which I don’t), but because after the Holy Ghost has made an effort to recover him for so many years, I can at least put an effort of mercy for a short minute.
I therefore made the sign of the cross and started: “Eterno riposo dona loro, Signore…….“; feeling at the beginning – I admit – slightly stupid in the process but going on the best I could, and repeating the exercise three times.
At the end of the prayer, a strange sensation came to me: not the one of “feeling good” (which I hate), but of a little obstacle that I had overcome: the one of not only knowing, but feeling that the person I despised most on earth was still a beloved child of Christ, a soul of infinite importance. It seemed to me that I had done my duty of forgiveness for the improbable case he has escaped hell, and that I had paid my little homage to his long-suffering Guardian Angel and to the Holy Ghost who both have, I am sure, made so many efforts to save him.
Dear readers, you know that I am absolutely allergic to good-ism and similar bollocks, and that I think that there is a time for peace and a time for war.
Still, there is also a time to tear and a time to mend; a time to kill, and a time to heal.
In this glorious day of victory and justice you may want to try, if you can, to pray for Osama Bin Laden.
It probably won’t do any good to him.
It certainly won’t do any harm to you.
This time, we have an added fun factor as our Mr. Nutting debates against… GK Chesterton, who at least to these foreign ears has been even provided with an admirable, very posh English accent.
Mr. Nutting is, as always, pure Nutting and Mr. Chesterton is, well …… 100% authentic GK Chesterton.
Enjoy this short video and let us hope that others, hopefully on the GK theme, will follow.
The recent events about the so-called “civil partnerships” give me the occasion to explain why I think that the Church in England is culpably marching toward complete irrelevance even on the rare occasions when she seems to show a couple of milk teeth.
Archbishop Peter Smith has criticised, in unusually (for him) strong words, the plans of this pagan Government to allow so-called “civil partnership” ceremonies to be held in churches. This would seem all in order, if the intervention of Archbishop Smith weren’t the signal that the Church is simply not doing enough, not even remotely, and that she is constantly shooting herself in the foot in the process.
What Archbishop Smith seems not to get (or doesn’t seem interested in getting) is that in a democracy religious freedom is never abolished overnight, but always through a process of continual erosion by which the last concession to the pagan world becomes the basis for the next one.
Take the so-called “civil partnerships”. If homosexuality is not criticised by the Church in the strongest terms, it is no surprise that calls for civil partnerships will, in time, emerge from this or that corner. Basically, the average politician is an institutional coward easily bullied by pressure groups and it is in the nature of democracy that he will tend to represent the opinion of these groups, however little numerically, unless he can expect equal or worse troubles from their opponents. It is only when the Christian mainstream starts occupying the ground and showing readiness for combat at an early stage, that the combat becomes superfluous.
But Peter Smith doesn’t declare war on active and militant homosexual behaviour (remember: less than half a percent of the population) and as a result he gets the so-called “civil partnerships”. These are the fruits of cowardice and in the bishops’ expectations – that to be silent on this problem wouldn’t create bigger ones – we see all the incompetence and naiveté of a Neville Chamberlain.
When you cave in once, it will go on. Once the homos have obtained so-called “civil partnerships”, they’ll start to make pressure to be allowed to have them performed in a church. But this will not be compulsory, they say now. You’ll be allowed to say “no”, they say now, so why be upset?
Then, it will go on. Once the principle has been accepted that two perverts have the opportunity to legally “unite” in a church (as it has previously been accepted that they may form “unions”; as it has even before being accepted that sodomy is all right), how simple must one be not to realise that it is only a question of time before the homos will cry “discrimination” against anyone who does not allow them to?
Then, it will go on. If homos are allowed to have a statutory recognition of their “union”, and to have this performed in a Church, why shouldn’t they be allowed to call this “marriage”? And why shouldn’t they think that it is their right to have this marriage performed wherever they please in order not to be “discriminated against”?
If you think that this is political fiction, think again. Our not-very-esteemed Prime Minister already talks of civil partnership as if they were families, as he has explicitly stated that his defence of family includes civil partnerships. He clearly even seems to consider abominations like sodomy and civil partnerships part and parcel of Western values. He has lost long ago the very notion of what Christianity is, of what it means to be a Christian, of what the Commandments are, of what the Sacraments are. The man is a pagan, full stop.
We see this pattern everywhere. Abortion legislation didn’t start as abortion on demand. Divorce was allowed only in limited cases. Homosexual behaviour was, at the beginning, merely decriminalised. You give the Pagans one finger, and you expect that they’ll not try to take the entire hand?
Therefore, Peter Smith has it all wrong even when it would seem that he has it right. He can’t hope that it be allowed to him to remain silent about the so-called “civil partnerships” and get away with it. His cowardice will persecute him by forcing him to fight later the battles that he didn’t have the guts to fight sooner.
More in general, the Church in England can’t hope – if the bishops really are in good faith, which can be legitimately questioned and which must be questioned at least in the case of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols – that to cave in to the popular mood about civil partnership will save them from the necessity to fight. The fight will come on them anyway, but in worse terms, on a more unfavourable battleground and with a rearguard battle. This is what happens to you when you think that you can betray Catholicism and get away with it and all the English bishops, bar none, are culpable of this cowardice (or worse, of this malice). Christian values must be defended loud and clear, on every possible occasion, from the start, and the bishop is the man for it.
Archbishop Peter Smith should spend his time continuously and vocally asking for the repeal of the legislation about civil partnerships. He should start to talk publicly and strongly about the abomination of homosexuality. He should wish for legislation criminalising sodomy to be reintroduced and boldly say so. He should say this loud and clear, insistently and without fear. A couple of years of the “Padre Pio treatment” and Cameron & Co. (cowards, remember, because politicians) would not even think of titillating themselves with proposals like the last one. The awakening of just one tenth of the Catholic population would be enough to have Cameron & Co. running for cover faster than a Taliban vehicle under the fire of a Gatling gun and swearing that he never, ever approved of homosexual behaviour.
Archbishop Peter Smith has, like all his colleagues bar none, shut up for too long. The time is coming when he will not be able to shut up any more, but at that point the Church will already be under siege by a pagan society it has appeased for too long, and forced to a battle that has not been prepared because there was no courage to choose to fight. At the same time when he – semel in anno – spends some words in defence of Catholic values he shows all the incompetence of the lukewarm, indifferent, cowardly but permanently smiling shepherds that four decades of institutionalised appeasement of secularism have given us.
The battle is clearly coming but you can’t fight a good battle with the Neville Chamberlains of the world. Let us hope that starting with the next Papacy (about this I have already lost every hope of meaningful improvement in the average quality of our bishops) new appointments will give us the leaders we need to fight the good fight against the dark forces of secularism.
We don’t need cowardly bishops. We need people willing to take out the Gatling gun, and use it every day.
A parallelism has been made from some quarters between the usual strong opposition of the liberals to everything Vatican and justified with the “spirit of Vatican II” on the one side, and the fact that the new translation of the Mass will be implemented without major traumas (or better said, without overt opposition: how many priests will implement the new mass perfectly on time is another cup of tea) on the other side. The implication here is that the “spirit of Vatican II” is slowly going out of fashion.
I would like to comment on this as follows:
1) I so wish journalists would refrain from the temptation of seeing “trends” everywhere, or inflating things out of proportion for the sake or an article, or of a headline.
2) Priests will implement the new Mass just because they have to, open refusal to obey leading to serious consequences for their livelihood. As (supposed) martyrdom has never been a speciality of the liberal priest, there is no overt opposition to be awaited.
3) The “spirit of Vatican II” is being taken care of by the professional category of the undertakers. Their action will become more and more incisive in the years to come, but I can’t notice old sixty-eighters becoming any less sixty-eighters or just more tired of being obnoxious morons, let alone rediscovering the beauty of a reverent Mass.
Such “movements” usually end because they land in the same place as their promoters: six feet under.
4) If anything, the British clergy is more heretical today than it was twenty or thirty years ago. No English bishop would have, decades ago, publicly declared that he “doesn’t know” whether the Church will accept the “reality of gay partnerships” and no bishop would have dreamt of ever saying that he is “nuanced” and does not oppose civil partnership. Actually not even people in open revolt to the authority of Rome like Henry VIII would have ever dreamt of saying such absurdities.
Nowadays even an Archbishop of Westminster is allowed to say such things and remain unpunished.
The “Spirit of Vatican II” is alive and kicking. It goes together with dissent or open heresy of all sorts and – in the absence of any strong action from the Vatican, nowhere to be seen at the time – it will die only as its proponents kick the bucket in increasingly larger numbers.
This is the sad (but encouraging in a sense, as the undertakers are clearly on our side) reality of the Church in England. Supposed trends out of thin air do not help to deal with the many, serious problems.
Oh well, today it is really one of those days one doesn’t forget so soon…..
The very first Ordinariate for former Anglicans is there. You can read the details on the “Reluctant Sinner” blog.
My first reflections as it is very late now:
1) The Ordinariate is dedicated to Our Lady. This is a clear link to England as it was before a couple of bastard kings and their gravely deluded helpers made a mess of everything. It seems to me almost as if the Vatican would say to heretics of every sort “you are nothing more than a passing embarrassment for the Only Church”.
England, the recovering Dowry of Mary. Beautiful.
2) The Ordinariate is under the patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman. This is another choice that isn’t casual in the least. Newman clearly paved the way historically – and will pave the way spiritually – for those who decide to come back to the Only Church.
3) As I have already written here, the way will not be an easy one for those who sincerely want to convert and become true Catholics. Prayer, reflection and in case time will be needed. As for ourselves, let us remember them in our daily prayers.
4) Congratulations and best wishes to father Newton, the first Ordinary after Anglicanorum Coetibus. Rome clearly signals a great deal of trust in him and in his doctrinal orthodoxy.
At the same time, it is obvious that the (largely expected) appointment of a former Anglican to the head of the Ordinariate will give a certain amount of comfort to many disaffected and perhaps suffering still-Anglicans. What Father Newton has done – and Blessed John Henry Newman has done before him – they can do too. Whatever hard decisions he had to take, they were taken by a man many ordinary Anglicans esteem and respect. This will give them reason to think harder about where they see their future.
Again, it is very late now and in the next days more reflections and news will follow as the picture becomes clearer.
I am not one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Ordinariate. I see a real danger that the Ordinariate may attract chaps like this one.
But I must say that today I feel rather excited.
As reported in a clearly festive and non-judgmental mood by what is becoming the most lavender-reeking newspaper in England, the once great “Daily Telegraph”, Sir (or should I say: Dame) Elton John has now – probably tired of other extravagancies – hired a uterus and procured a baby to be adopted by his lady-male-friend and himself.
The fact that this symbol of perversion is now 63 does not add anything to the monstrosity of the matter (men, and I mean real ones, have had children at old age in all ages past, particularly if they had the need to ensure descendants to family or kingdom), but helps one to understand to what extent the perversion of modern times makes a god of every ego-driven whim.
The man is not only old. He is homosexual to boot. His desire to “adopt a child” is not due to his thinking that Golden Retriever puppies are not original enough, or that – after Madonna’s episode – taking a black child away from his father and enlarged family is not so cool anymore. No, his uterus-hiring exercise is the product of the same militant poofdom which prompted him to have a so-called civil partnership contracted on the first day of this becoming legal in what was once a great Empire and has now become a laboratory for perversion experiments.
Dame Elton has an agenda. His decision is not about a man wanting to become a father, but about a fag wanting to show that he can become a father. For this, Labrador puppies are not good enough.
No doubt, this latest monstrosity (which would have terrified the most rabid feminists of 100, or even 50 years ago and would have been considered an absurdity even by homos themselves until very recent times) will be saluted by Satanic England as the newest achievement in the march toward “equality” and celebration of “diversity”.
These are the times we live in and even the supposedly conservative “Telegraph” sees it fitting to make of this just another “celebrity” article.
Time to wake up, folks.
Interesting video of the always inspiring Michael Voris*, based on the concept of oath.
Think of it, one is surprised of how many people take an oath. Civil servants; military men; judges; jurors; witnesses…..
You would think that of all people, Catholics would be the one with the least difficulties in taking an oath. The granitic nature of Catholic teaching should make this so banal as to not even be matter of discussion, right? Unfortunately, we all know that this is not the case. This is not the case because heterodoxy has spread in many quarters of the Church; has been encouraged to spread by the very people who were in charge of avoiding its diffusion; and has now spread to the point that many Catholics do not even know that they have been fed with superficial common places in the best case and with heresy in the worst.
Yes, I do think that a demand of Pope Benedict to all the clergy to take an oath stating in no uncertain terms their total obedience to the Magisterium would create great difficulties. But this is not the reason to avoid it. In my eyes, the fact that it would create such an outrage is the reason why it should be done in the first place!
Alas: good as he is, Pope Benedict is no St. Pius X and we will not have any oaths during his pontificate; rather, we’ll have a mixture of admirable liturgical restoration – and great courage in starting to spreading the truth rather than politically correct soundbites – and accommodating episcopal appointments which help to perpetuate the grave situation we have today.
Until the situation improves – and it will be a long time before it does – the duty of spreading orthodoxy will fall, to a not little extent, on the shoulders of the laity. The more so in those countries (like England or France) where the clergy is – on average – below an acceptable level of decency.
Let us be prepared, then, and let us pay attention not only to the Magisterium, but to the news and debates surrounding the Church. It will make it more easy – when the occasion invariably occurs – to refute the lies, defend the truth and perhaps help the one or other soul on her way to conversion.
* al always, you might have to log in, which is fast and free.
In another sign that perhaps, just perhaps, somethign is startin gto change and the Church on the British island is starting to become a bit more aggressive in Her defence of Catholic value, it is to be noted that the opposition to a congress of abortionists held in England (and comprising the usual murderous “chariteees”) peeves the liberal press enough to be mentioned with less than neutral tones in articles like this one, with the author amusingly concerned about the costs of going abroad to do what is a criminal offence in his own country and some of the commenters launching themselves in the usual absurd reasoning of the “if you have killed heretics you can’t tell us not to kill babies”-sort.
I though it fitting to give notice of this because it seems to me that the tones are getting at times a bit more similar to what they should always have been. To denounce the conference as “clearly designed to undermine the rights and welfare of children in the womb and the consistently pro-life position of the majority of people on this island” cannot be defined (thank God) a very diplomatic statement and the appeal “to all those who cherish the inherent dignity of human life in all its stages to join us in expressing opposition to this event” is also a nice piece of clear communication.
I concede that this is Ireland and that it is easy to speak the truth when one has a majority behind one, but it is still clear that on this occasion there is no fear of a fight.
Let us hope that this commendable behaviour will find more and more imitators also in the UK.
This delicious snippet from the excellent “Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister” TV series (possibly the best TV series ever produced, certainly the favourite of Baroness Thatcher) is, as almost every word in this series, perceptive and profound whilst always managing to be suavely entertaining.
A quarter of a century after the episode, and with two of their three main actors going to their eternal (hopefully) reward, we can reflect that on the one hand the so-called church of England was already in an advanced state of decay and – more worryingly – that there is almost no sentence coming from the wise mind of Sir Humphrey (a hero of our times, and still underestimated…..) which could not – to an extent, if not always literally – be applied to the Catholic hierarchy here in Blighty.
“The word modernist is code for non-believer”
“When they stop believing in God they call themselves modernists”
“The c of England is primarily a social organisation, not a religious one”
“….significant religious events, like the Royal Garden Party”
” the Church is trying to be more relevant”. “To God?”. “No, of course not, Prime Minister!”
One listens to this refined dialogue and understands that it is not the fruit of parody or comic exaggeration, but acute and critical reflection of everyday reality. I would love to tell you that such devastating criticism does not apply to the men currently leading the Catholic church in England and Wales but if we are honest, this just doesn’t seem to be the case.
Say a prayer, if you want, for Nigel Hawthorne, the unforgettable “Sir Humphrey”. I do hope he managed to save his soul in the end.
Surfing around in Anglican pastures I have found an interesting article from Mr. Michael Gollop, an Anglican Vicar writing on a blog called The Anglo-Catholic.
The entry is very interesting because its author seems to guide the reluctant convert (and there must be many out there, torn between the fidelity to the church of their fathers and the growing, unpleasant awareness of ……. those fathers being actually wrong all the time) toward conversion in a way which is gentle and absolutely honest at the same time.
The main arguments of the author seem to me the following:
1) so-called Anglo-Catholicism has in the past been useful to maintain at least a part of Catholic thinking within Anglicanism, but this is now not the case anymore. He quotes the prophetic words of Cardinal Newman, that “the Nation drags down its Church to its own level…” . More than 100 years later, these words seem prophetic in a way that Newman would have considered not even possible, the so-called c of E of today not even Christian anymore.
2) It is an illusion to think that the process may be reversed. The so-called church of England is now firmly in the end of the liberals and this is not going to change. The liberals will soon finish to massacre its theology and whatever Christianity is going to remain in the form of rebel evangelical provinces is clearly not going to be after the taste of those with catholic tendencies.
3) The experience of the past brings the author to see what he sums up, again, with the words of Cardinal Newman. These words are charitable and hard at the same time (better said: they are charitable because they are hard):
“…and, unwilling as I am to give offence to religious Anglicans, I am bound to confess that I felt a great change in my view of the Church of England. I cannot tell how soon there came on me,—but very soon,—an extreme astonishment that I had ever imagined it to be a portion of the Catholic Church. For the first time, I looked at it from without, and (as I should myself say) saw it as it was. Forthwith I could not get myself to see in it any thing else, than what I had so long fearfully suspected, from as far back as 1836,—a mere national institution
This is so beautiful that I had to re-read it several times. Newman’s words leave in no doubt as to who is in error and he makes no mystery of his astonishment at having ever thought that he could be a Catholic whilst an Anglican. But his beautiful words also beautifully express the serenity now attained, the safe haven from which he sees his past errors but also knows that the he has now found Truth, and peace.
The truth is hard, but liberating. And the hard truth is that one can’t be Anglo-Catholic more than he could be Capitalo-Communist or Buddho-Christian. One thing excludes the other and the desire to remain in a place of comfortable illusion is now (providentially, I’d almost say) smashed under the ruins of the crumbling edifice of what is rapidly becoming the former so-called church of England.
Newman expresses this certainty with the usual lucidity, powerfully expressing the correct perception of Anglicanism born of the now acquired Truth. His words are hard, but they are serene. To every Anglican torn by doubts they must sound as a blow; but with a glimpse of the serenity to be found on the other side of the doubts and the promise of the serenity being attainable by him too, if he is but ready to take this merciful blow.
I wouldn’t want to have been one of the many conservative Anglicans probably looking at the Pope on TV, comparing him with their funny bearded muppet believing everything and its contrary and being suddenly struck by the acute and painful feeling that they belong to the wrong shop.
Still, the discomfort coming from such a realisation can lead to a future of safety and serenity in the Truth. The same serenity so beautifully expressed by Blessed John Henry Newman.
And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.
Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.
This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.
Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.
As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.
At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:
“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”
If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:
1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.
3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)
Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.
4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!
I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.
To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.
As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?
It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!
Nichols expresses himself with the following words:
“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”
I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.
Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.
The address where to write your complaint is
You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.
Beautiful blog entry on the Holy Post blog (motto: “get down on your knees and blog”) about the Papal visit.
Instead of (excessively) focusing on the popularity of the Pontiff and the unexpected (and the more remarkable) success of the visit the post’s author, Father R.J. de Souza, points out to the fact that in the end it is not about what the press calls “success”, at all.
On the aeroplane to England, Pope Benedict was asked what he could do to make the Church more attractive. The Pontiff answered:
“One might say that a church which seeks above all to be attractive would already be on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for itself, does not work to increase its numbers so as to have more power” [...]. The Church does not seek to be attractive, but rather to make herself transparent for Jesus Christ.”
Father de Souza wonders how many pastors – Catholic as well – take these words to heart and everyone living in England knows how right he is. “Attractiveness” and “popularity” are the main drivers of the British clergy’s actions and are what has emptied not only the pews, but the people’s minds after the systematic destruction of proper catechesis.
Father de Souza again:
“Consider the relentless pressure on all churches to trim ancient doctrine or adapt moral teaching to something more in tune with — well, what exactly? The latest shifting sands of public opinion? There have been churches that have changed wholesale their teaching in such efforts, now celebrating as holy what they previously taught was sinful. Should they be considered more or less successful for making themselves attractive?”
And are they really? Or are they not dying, all of them? I’d very much like to see how many English Anglicans or Methodist would call their churches “successful”. “Terminally ill”, more like.
Further, one might ask attractive to whom? The British visit occasioned many people who wish the Catholic Church nothing but ill to advise her on how to conduct herself. Why should Catholics measure their own success on the criteria of their enemies? Or consider the judgment of mass culture; should the Church seek to appeal more to the same people who choose, for entertainment purposes, to watch in large numbers people embarrass and degrade themselves on reality television?
I admit that I loathe reality television, so I liked this in a special way; I also notice the use of the small “c” in “churches”, always a welcome token or orthodoxy. But what I liked the most is that Fr de Souza points out to the fact that people who hate the Church must never be allowed to influence it. Not when it is about defining “success” nor, I hasten to add, when it is about their sensitive “feelings”.
Success is not about how many people were there. Nor about whether one had flowers or stones thrown at him. Success is about why the stones (or the flowers) were thrown.
Pope Benedict has put the right accents on his visit and struck the right cords. He has been diplomatic, but not accommodating and has shown a clarity of thought and decisiveness of action that Brits had forgotten a long time ago.
This is the real measure of his success.
Another brilliant article by Stephen Glover on the Daily Mail.
Glover points out, with great clarity, to some striking facts:
1) Benedict’s authority eclipses Rowan Williams’
2) Irrespective of authority, Benedict has the guts to say things straight and Rowan Williams hasn’t.
3) There is a thirst for religious values. The coE can’t satisfy it. It doesn’t even want.
4) The atheist crowd has been silenced and exposed for what they are: haters. But they hate Benedict, not RW, because the latter is no threat at all.
Let us read some of the most striking passages of this eye-opening article.
“In a manner wholly unlike our home-grown clerics, the Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid”.
“Pope Benedict’s declarations over the past few days have been remarkable and, in modern Britain, virtually unprecedented”.
It is almost a shock to hear a religious leader speak in so blunt a way, so inured are we to our own religious leaders, particularly Church of England bishops, accommodating themselves to secular values.
(I would add here: Catholic bishops are not bad at accommodating secular values, either)
“The tragedy is that Dr Williams and Anglican bishops probably agree with almost everything Pope Benedict said about the dangers of secularism – and yet they do not have the courage, or whatever it takes, to say it”.
And whereas the Pope speaks clearly in English, which is his third or fourth language, Dr Williams often speaks opaquely or in riddles in the language that is his own.
In his concluding address, Pope Benedict said that he had discovered ‘how deep a thirst there is among the British people for the good news of Jesus Christ’. He is right. And yet how often our national Church – the Church of England – fails to proclaim this good news.
In large parts of the Anglican Church there is a sense of defeatism in the face of the incoming tide of secularism, as congregations dwindle and parish churches close. But look at the young people in Hyde Park or those lining Princes Street in Edinburgh or those standing outside Westminster Cathedral. They yearn for the good news, and they invite moral certainty. Would it be too much to hope that Anglican bishops might learn something from the fearless commitment of the Pope?
Speaking of the aggressive anti-Catholic atheists, Glover writes:
Their foaming and often unbalanced denunciations of the Pope reveal their fear. They fear him because he adheres so strongly to traditional Christian teaching and champions principles they abhor. They fear him because the values he reiterates commend themselves to millions of people and, above all, to millions of young people. They do not trouble to vent their spite and vitriol on the Archbishop of Canterbury because Dr Williams has been so cowed by the forces of secularism that he no longer poses any threat to their bleak vision.
In invoking the heritage of our Christian past, and suggesting we might still have a principled Christian future, Benedict XVI has achieved more than the Church of England over many years. The lesson of the past few days is that Britain is not quite the deeply un-Christian country that the BBC and other parts of the media would have us believe.
Of course, Mr. Glover doesn’t get it completely right. He describes papal infallibility as “bizarre” and doesn’t even stop to reflect what be so “bizarre” in it, or to wonder whether he has perchance not just assisted to infallibility at work.
Still, this is a remarkably outspoken article making clear that the country can recover its values and that a courageous Pope, not the so-called church of England is the one able to do the job.
I imagine that a good part of the Daily Mail reader, whilst not Catholic, feel an instinctive sympathy not only for the courage of the man Benedict, but for the courage of an institution not ready to accommodate her principles to those of the world. One can only hope that in time, this vague perception may become in many a more profound feeling and identification with Christian values and the acknowledgment that those values cannot be adequately defended by imitations, but only by the Original.
Now that the four day-marathon has ended and the Holy Father has come back to his warmer and less aggressively atheist climates, it is perhaps fitting to compare what has happened with the exaggerated fears preceding the visit.
For months we have heard dire predictions about arrests and disorders. Once again, I must point out to the fact that the uncritical reading of whatever the press says leads to a vision of things which has not much in common with reality.
Foreign Head of States are not arrested when they visit a country. Not even in Zimbabwe, let alone in the United Kingdom. Adequate security is precondition to every State Visit. The idea that the man sitting in the pew be so concerned about the security of the Holy Father, but the vast security apparatus in charge of these visits has forgotten to adequately deal with the matter is just plain ridiculous.
What has, once again, happened is that the media – always desperate for the next bout of collective hysteria, because it sells – have given vast publicity to the deluded rants of spoiled children and that as a result millions have believed that these fantasies had a basis in reality. Peter Tatchell’s threat of arresting the Pope has never been more credible than the tantrums of a small child in need of physical correction. It was, in fact, just a matter of courtesy from the police to invite Tatchell beforehand and to make clear to him that every “attempt” would be a serious criminal offence; but I suppose that you try to be patient with small children.
Summa Summarum, the fact that the visit has not been plagued by any security concern whatever (the episode with the road sweepers was more a confirmation of the efficiency of the measures and the excellent work done by them than any indication of inefficiency or threat) should lead us to be, in future, more cynical as regard to various claims made by the press and expected to be swallowed by the readers/viewers without posing questions.
There has never been a security “threat”. This is not a tin-pot African country. It is even possible to organise an absolutely safe Football World Championship in one of the most corrupt, criminality-plagued countries of the world, how can it be difficult to organise a safe visit of the Pope in England.
Don’t believe what the press says. Not even half of it.
What the press publishes has no bearing with reality, but merely with the possibility to cause sensation.
This is the last day of the Papal visit; the great day of the Beatification Mass – the main reason for the visit – and of the farewell; obviously, this is also the day for some reflections.
We have, in the last days, seen a lot of people (many more than expected, actually) on the roadside, cheering and waving flags or just showing sympathy for a man of whom they perceive, more or less dimly, the intellectual and spiritual stature. We have listened to people saying what a beautiful experience it was to see the Pope, share this moment & Co.
I wonder, though, how many people have experienced not only an exciting moment, but a change; how many people have thought, during these days, at least once that if the man is spiritual and a good chap and firmly opposed to abortion, perhaps one should need to give some thought as to whether legal abortion is really fine; if the Church is an important spiritual instance operating for the good of men, whether Her opposition to contraception and divorce is really so wrong; if the Church is still the moral guide of our civilisation, if homosexuality is compatible with it.
I wouldn’t expect a radical change, but at least a moment of reflection; a pause in which uncomfortable questions are posed to one’s own internal tribunal; to be hastily cast aside perhaps but – once the seed has been planted – ready to germinate when more opportune times come (which sadly often means: bereavement, disease or some other minor or major life’s earthquake).
Allow me to say that I am not very confident that this, or any other papal visit, will have a lasting effect. The vast majority of the people on the roadside, and watching TV, will deal with the Pope as they deal with any other media entertainment: something used for the excitement or interest of the moment and to be rapidly cast aside to follow the next excitement. Hence the oceanic masses greeting John Paul II whilst the pews kept emptying; hence the vast number of people who have “seen the Pope”, but haven’t accepted one word more of what he says than they already did; hence the usual “but” mentality (as in “I am a Catholic, but…” ) we will so often hear from, I am sorry to say, the vast majority of those on the roadside.
The age of the media induces people to confuse media events with reality; journalists are – interestedly, and for obvious ego reasons – particularly prone to this mistake. The truth is that media don’t change people, Papal visits don’t change people, “historic speeches” don’t change people and all those talk of a visit which would “energise” a community is merely empty talk of cowardly bishops who do not want to do their job.
People change with constant effort, repeated daily; with the good and sincere (and truthful, and uncomfortable) homily delivered every sunday; with the trust slowly building in an institution perceived to fight for what is right instead of pandering to common prejudices and conveniences; with the relentless hammering of the unpopular truths no one wants to hear. People change if there is a serious, daily effort on the ground with our friends, our families, our colleagues whenever possible. Media events come and go and in two months’ time no one will talk of this visit anymore. A good priest, a good friend, a courageous bishop are there all the time.
It would be extremely dangerous, I think, to take refuge in the numbers of people cheering the Pope, or assisting at the Papal Masses, to conclude that Catholicism in England is on the right way; it isn’t. It is plagued by amateur (or cowardly, or outright atheists) Bishops, by feeble priests preaching the Gospel of the Easy Platitudes, by distracted sheep for whom dissent is a way of showing intelligence and a critical mind.
These are real issues, and they will not change with a Papal visit.
Let us, therefore, remember this visit for what it is: the joyous occasion of an important Beatification, with some entertainment thrown in (a bit of Popemobile here; a bit of Susan Boyle there). Bet let us not be under the delusion that this visit will change absolutely anything as long as the work on the ground is – as it certainly is today – so evidently deficient.
If anyone had ever been in doubt about the 1) incompetence and 2) lack of basic Christianity dominating the E&W Hierarchy, here is a further example.
You can read on St. Mary Magdalen Blog the latest piece of ridicule with which our bishops have covered themselves.
In order for non-Catholics to better “understand” what is going on at papal events, our geniuses have prepared a small, portable “translator” of commonly used words.
We are therefore informed that “Liturgy”, Celebration”, “Mass”, “Benediction” have as similar terms often used “Event, Show,Gig”.
I can vividly picture Archbishop Vincent Nichols asked to tell a non-Catholic what a Mass is and answering “it is something similar to an event, or a show, or gig“.
One understands why he still allows Homo Masses: Soho is part of Theatreland.
It goes on: “Blessed Sacrament”, “Holy Communion” have, as similar terms often used, “Bread, Wine”. This really makes one cringe. One wonders whether this is too stupid to be blasphemous or just plain blasphemous, but I doubt our heroes in Ecclestone Square will see any problem with that. It is just so inclusive, and hopefully the readers are not complete morons and can even understand what it is really meant.
If they do are complete morons, an email is provided.
It goes on, with “liturgist” as “performers, artists” and “sanctuary” as “stage”.
Someone is being really, really blasphemous or really, really stupid here. Or someone is being both, or most probably our Bishops and the people they employ just do not know anymore what a Mass is, what the Eucharist is, and so on.
No private company would ever be run in such a way. Not even British Leyland, or British Steel. This is beyond parody. I seriously needed some time to realise this was not a joke.
This shop is full of utterly incompetent people completely oblivious of what Catholicism is, and only bent on making themselves agreeable to society.
As the fish always stinks from the head down, the prince of the incompetent is Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who would be sacked this very day if he weren’t allowed to abuse the patience of people much better than him and get away with every kind of show (similar terms often used by him: Mass, Liturgy).
Quo usque tandem……..
Interesting article on the national Catholic Register. The article puts England in a European context on occasion of the Papal visit.
If you read the article you will notice that some of the most recognisable traits (abortion numbers; stem cell research; sex education for children) fully reflect a country where not only secular values are aggressively espoused by a good part of the population, but where the pursue of aggressive secularist issues is declared policy of both the old and the new government.
Albeit with differences from the past Labour government, the new “Brokeback Coalition” (David Davies) is not going to change anything substantial on Labour’s policy on civil partnership, abortion, sex education to mention just a few. The only thing that changes is the spin: Conservatives say they want to protect “families”, but then for them two homos or two lesbians in a civil partnership are, well, a “family”, in an utter perversion of common sense meant to deceive the gullible (and rather successful at that, one must add).
The idea that the new coalition be socially more conservative than the old government is, in my eyes, illusory.
The only way to change this situation is for the people to slowly start to wake up to the threat to Catholic values represented by these allegedly so open-minded people and start making their opposition felt with email to the major parties, with drumming the right policies among friends and family, with examining voting for a candidate with Christian values even if this means “wasting” one’s vote and in general to start building the heat for those thinking the Christian vote is a given, so they can woo the secular vote at will.
It is a long process, the more so if the Church hierarchy sleeps and is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. But it can be done. As I have often stated, you don’t need great numbers to change a government’s policies, you merely need a determined minority clearly linking their vote with satisfaction on their issues. Look at the sexually deviant: probably not more than half a percent of the voting population, but vocal and determined (or perceived to be determined, which is exactly the same) to make their voting decision depending on their issues.
We see in the US that the landscape is slowly changing; not driven exclusively by Christian values of course, but also driven by them. This trend might (and I think, most probably will) intensify in the next years as Christians (and more specifically: Catholics) become aware of the immense power they’d have if only just a minority of them would become “one-issue voters” and as the US hierarchy progressively improves in orthodoxy and defence of Catholic values. By us it will be longer and more difficult, but by no means impossible.
Some of you might remember a Michael Voris video posted some weeks ago about two bishops rebuking one of their own priests, one for being a heretic and the other for being a … Catholic.
The same has happened now in England, where none less than the Homo Mass Supremo, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has distanced himself from declarations made from Mr. Edmund Adamus, one of his own aides.
Let us see the content of Mr. Adamus’ declarations:
1) “Gay rights” and the commercialisation of sex have turned Britain into a “selfish, hedonistic wasteland” and “the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death”
Fair enough, says I. As far as the hedonism is concerned, this is actually the same stuff people like Nichols go around saying all the time, though they’d never dare to say it in a way that offends perverts. What is different here is that whilst Archbishop Nichols and his ilk always formulate their criticisms in a way that makes clear that they do not want to pick a fight with anyone and are perfectly happy with not being heard, Adamus actually cares for Catholic values and for human life and therefore expresses himself with great charity. It is not surprising that this charity be not liked by Nichols. Archbishop Nichols does niceness a lot, but charity is not one of his strenghts.
2) There is an “aggressive anti-Catholic bias towards the church and the pontiff”
In general, this is as clear as the sun and everyone with a bit of understanding can easily realise that the English Bishops not only don’t do anything to counter the bias, but are rather happy to leave the Pontiff alone when the rabid feminists and homo groups at the BBC and elsewhere fire from all cannons. It is rather fair to say that large sectors of the Catholic hierarchy look with pleasure at criticisms to the Pope, seen as an ally of the traditionalists/conservatives.
As to the matter itself, I’d say the bias in the country is primarily anti-Christian rather than specifically anti-Catholic. The attacks against the Catholic Church are particularly virulent because the Catholic Church still has a much better grip on his faithful than the Anglicans & Co. and because the forces of secularism clearly recognise in Her the biggest enemy. Therefore whatever anti-Catholicism there is, is in my eyes rather a reflection of Catholics being Christians than – as in the past – of their being Catholic. The Anglicans themselves are able to largely escape criticism because they largely shun Christian values.
3) He urges Catholics to “exhibit counter-cultural signals against the selfish, hedonistic wasteland”
Please help me because I am lost here. To spread such a message should be the job of the bishops from the Angelus in the morning to the Compline in the evening and in every moment in between. This is the reason Mr. Nichols’ exalted (and, let us not forget, rather privileged) job exists in the first place. This is what the English clergy should be shouting from the pulpits Sunday in and Sunday out. Unless I am missing something and the Church’s task is not to upset the world. Or where does the Archbishop thinks abortions, broken families and neglected children come from?
Still, we are informed from a spokesman of the Archbishop that Adamus’ comments “do not reflect his opinion”. From a sponsor of homo masses, one is not surprised at all.
If we want to fight against the culture of death and of sexual perversion, a good start would be to have bishops who are truly Catholic and truly charitable instead of being cowardly “diplomatic” and relentlessly “nice” as the present Archbishop of Westminster.
Those who have been reading yours truly for some time are probably aware of his clear, willingly politically incorrect, very Southern-European call to real masculinity and to the end of the effeminate “look at how feminist I am”-metrosexual attitude of our time.
Today I stumbled upon this Michael Voris Video and I thought – as I do rather often – that the chap has actually already said everything I wanted to express.
The only reflection I’d like to add is that, seen from a European/Italian perspective, it would appear that cars and role of the husband have gone in opposite directions. In the Fifties and Sixties – when “the world was still in order” and the roles within the family well-defined – cars had a gentle appearance and, generally speaking, delicate colours. The pastel blues, greens and beiges dominated the automotive landscape and the cars themselves were rather gentle in their appearance (think of the autos of the Fifties, with their rounded and almost feminine forms and theirs, as stated, always delicate colours).
Nowadays we have an abundance of aggressive-looking, huge, “metallic black” metal monsters (up there to the extreme cases, like the Hummer in its various incarnations) which are driven by men who were never able to take the leading role in their family. This is a reflection I have had for some years now (cue the frequent office discussions where there is always the colleague who considers cars like a Mercedes SLK something “for girlies” and obviously nothing less than a BMW M will do, but you perfectly well know he’d never be able to stand up to his girlfriend) and has been awakened by the Hummer in Michael Voris’ video.
“The bigger the car, the weaker the man”? Certainly not, as big cars do have their beauty and their rationale. But “the weaker the man, the bigger the need to compensate with an aggressive-looking car” might get nearer to the truth.
Enjoy the video.