Melania Trump refused to wear a headscarf in Saudi Arabia, but she wore a veil in the presence of the Pope. Good girl.
Less good are the rants of those idiots on Twitter who took scandal for this, as if if was some kind of hypocrisy or double standard to follow your religion but not the religion of others. This, apart from the fact that, apparently, Melania follows the right religion anyway. Bad losers.
But what is truly ugly is that Francis blessed Melania's rosary. From the man who mocks those who “count their rosaries”, I wonder how much this blessing is worth. The man does not even kneel in front of the Tabernacle. If I were Trump, I would suggest to Melania's that she throws away the thing immediately.
Pope Francis heaped insults on Donald Trump when… he thought he would lose.
Sadly for him, Donald Trump won. Bergoglio, who is just as good at bullying the weak as he is incapable of opposing the strong, had to readjust to reality and decide whether he wanted to part of the “resistance” (outing himself as a damn Sixty-Eighter for the last of Cathokic Trump voters, who are an awful lot) or limit himself to the useful trite common place that do not frontally attack anyone of the really powerful and popular.
Trump, on the other hand, keeps being his usual self. Trump would screw someone multiple times whilst smiling telling the world what a wonderful person the screwed one is. He has done it with Romney, he is doing it with Francis. Today we had another example: Trump beaming, Francis grumpy. It was clear who of the two has bent the other to doing what he has to do.
The Wall with come. Francis will look and whine, but the Wall will still come. Trump will sport a radiant smile as he swears how much he likes the Francis, and forces everyone to acknowledge him as the POTUS and just live with it. It will be mighty fine to watch. Today, Francis has contributed to make America great again by being too cowardly to risk an open confrontation with Trump.
But again, this is what the man always does. A bit of pressure, and he will cave in. No pressure, and he will eat you alive.
A last word about the gifts. Trump to Francis: Martin Luther King. Francis to Trump: (as always) his own crappy writings. Francis is so full of himself he thinks he is the best thing anyone could read.
What a humble Pope we have.
Not without surprise, I sometimes read the one or other Rad Trad blog (not excluding mine, I must very immodestly say; then my critics seem to read me more than I read them, and I notice their criticism only by way of a limited number of blog referrals, which in turn do not indicate a huge readership) called “insignificant”. As if, in the great battle between Right and Wrong, this had any importance.
Let us say you bravely defend Catholic Truth among friends and relatives, and no one heeds you. Is your effort insignificant? Certainly not! It is very significant, in fact, to the Angels looking on you from heaven. It is very significant for your own salvation. And, last but not least, it is significant because it is right.
But let us say, now, that you have a blog, and this blog reaches thirty people, who read you three times a week and draw some benefit from it. Thirty people who actually think that you make a difference in their spiritual life, or in their view of Catholicism, or in helping them not to drown in a sea of confusion; and, therefore, come back to your blog again and again. Is this insignificant? Certainly not! You are, in fact, already exercising a bigger influence than most teachers, bar the very best, have on their pupils! And all this, in most cases, gratis et amore Dei. No, it is certainly not insignificant. It is, in fact, a notable achievement.
However, it must be clear to all of us that, in the great scheme of things, we are all insignificant, in that none of us will ever, alone, change the course of history or be a leader of nations. This is true both for our insignificant blogs, and for those still insignificant Catholic publications who call us insignificant, and I doubt if they ever properly strengthen the faith of anyone, rather than leading them towards indifference or perdition.
But then again I wonder: how insignificant is insignificant, if it is mentioned among countless blog to one’s own readership as an example of lack of significance? Does not this deny, in itself, the premise? Still, they are right in the essence: in the great scheme of things, insignificant we all are, together with our detractors.
How should, therefore, each faithful Catholic (mother and father, friend and colleague) see ourselves? We should see ourselves, I think, as warrior ants.
Each one of us, taken individually, is certainly insignificant in the great scheme of things (albeit what he does is most significant for his own salvation, which in itself is infinitely important). However, warrior ants are a frightful force when they march together. Does the individual warrior ant care about how much “significant” she is? I have never asked one, but most probably not. The warrior ant cares, in her own way, about what she can do exactly as insignificant, expendable warrior ant, and that is the beginning and the end of it.
When we die we will not be asked whether we have “changed the world”. We will not be asked how “significant” we were. We will not be asked how many readers our blog used to have. We will be asked whether we have kept defending Truth when no one listened to us; when we were mocked and insulted; when we were, in fact, being – exactly – insignificant to the world. And by the way: be afraid of when the world calls you “relevant”: you might just have become like it.
I have started this blog hoping to reach sixty or seventy people every day: two to three school classes. My thinking was that this kind of readership would allow me to help my fellow Catholics in a comparable way as, say, a deeply Catholic high school history or philosophy teacher who has the ability to, as they say, “touch the life” of a comparable number of people every day with his own solid faith. Every blogger who is inclined to write and perseveres in his aim can, I think, reach this goal (and compensate for a non-existent Catholic philosophy or history teacher) obviously for no pay. Call it insignificant as much as you want, but I think it already counts a lot, both in this world and in the next.
This little effort – insignificant, of course, in the great scheme of things – reaches around 1500 unique users every day, and it is sailing towards five millions page views. You can call it, if you wish, a very fat and very angry warrior ant, but a warrior ant it still is. Few good history or philosophy teachers reach as many lives as this warrior ant does. You can also call it fifty philosophy classes, or three healthy parishes (apart from the fact, of course, that your fat warrior ant is not a priest). But you see, I do not start writing a blog post thinking of the fifteen hundred people my blog post might reach. I start writing for this blog because I want to be one of the Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. Small. Expendable. Utterly insignificant. But still there, marching together with many other warrior ants, and not caring about this world’s or his battle’s outcome. A single warrior ant can be easily squashed, but an army of them is a devastating force.
One of the reasons I write this blog is to encourage every one of my readers to be, in his little sphere of influence, Blessed Virgin’s Warrior Ants. I encourage you to be warrior ants – with the due prudence; we aren’t like those Proddie in Oxford Street crying around: “repent!” – when no one seems open to you, when everyone considers you that very strange guy. One day, with God’s grace, the one or other may well remember your words, start to connect the dots and, in time, start to finally understand.
In order to do this, the warrior ant must bite. Fluff is easily forgotten after two days, strong words will be remembered in fifty years. By God’s grace, the words your atheist relative resents today might be the words God uses to save his soul on his deathbed in, say, 2055; with Pope Francis V very unhappily reigning , and Catholic ruins everywhere.
Yes, we are – taken individually – utterly insignificant. Expendable warrior ants. Not even a small nuisance to the world.
May we die that way, all of us, and what a blessing!
I read around other blogs comments which ask what would be the use of the correction, seen that Francis will not change his mind or his policy afterwards.
This is tantamount to asking what good it was to condemn Luther's heresies, seen that Luther did not change his mind or policy afterwards.
Truth must be defended irrespective of immediate consequences. It must be defended to encourage the faithful of this generation, and to serve as a witness to faithful of all generations to come.
In the present times, countless good Catholic will feel a great consolation in knowing that they have not been left entirely alone by their clergy. In future centuries, it will be known that, when the rot within the Church was so deep that even Popes were not ashamed to support – if not openly proclaim – heresy, at least some of the Princes of the Church had the guts to stand up for Truth.
There is in the history of the Church a period that is given little attention, but in my opinion was absolutely devastating at the time: the period between Pope Honorius' heretical statement and his death first, and the condemnation of his heresies second. Honorius had given support to the heresy of Monothelitism in 635, with a letter clearly intended to be circulated and to end a controversy. Heresy was, at this point, openly defended. A materially heretical Pope was, at that time, sitting on the throne of Peter.
To my knowledge there was, at the time, not only no convocation of a council to depose the Pope, but also no open confrontation with him and refusal to accept his authority in everything pertaining to his heresy. There was, in short, not only no ecumenical council, but even no Athanasius willing to go against the flow of acquiescence to papal heresy. This went on for three years.
This situation (of a heretical Pope not officially censured) did not end in 638, when the Pope died unchallenged und en-deposed. In fact, the official condemnation of the man as heretic only came more than four decades later, in 680. However, between 638 and 680 we know of continued confrontations between the promoters of the heresy and Rome, with all Popes after Honorius firmly on the side of truth.
Still, the fact remains: a Pope intervenes in a controversy openly supporting a heretical position, and he neither deposed nor (for what I know) denounced as heretic. What a stunning challenge to the faith, what shockingly turbulent times, and without an Athanasius to challenge his Pope Liberius!
We need our Athanasius. We need witnesses for Truth among our Bishops and Cardinals. It does not matter much (though I would love it) if Francis is or is not deposed by an ecumenical council in the end. But it matters that all faithful of this and all future generations know that when the going got tough, tough bishops and cardinals got going.
Today, we cannot mention Liberius without remembering Athanasius. Athanasius stands tall as the man who exposed error not forty years later, but whilst it was happening. As the heresy reared its ugly head, the hero arose to challenge it. But we have no Athanasius for the time of Honorius. Honorius lived three years after his letter, and I have no knowledge of any Athanasius. What a shame.
We are now repeating the situation in the times of Honorius: a Pope (at least materially) promotes heretical positions and we have no more than rumblings, rumblings which must certainly have existed also in the time of Honorius because they aren't dangerous. But those willing to stand up and openly proclaim the faith against papal sponsored heresy, we do not have them.
Cardinal Burke & Co. are in front of a choice: to be the Athanasius of our time or to remain silent in a time of heresy openly proclaimed and shamelessly spread. They have failed all of us up to now. They actually give the impression that they would have liked to be like Athanasius if it could have been done without risk, but have decided to revert to the behaviour of Honorius' bishops when it became clear they do not have the support they thought they had. Paper tigers, the four of them.
Athanasius did not wonder how many would follow him. His famous contra mundum statement is the most glorious example of faith defended no matter what the consequences. Athanasius was a giant.
Do we live in times of Giants or Dwarves?
I fear I know the answer, but I would love to be proved wrong.
Turns out white collar natives are responsible for almost all of the violent crimes in Sweden.
Mainly accountants, bankers and lawyers. The percentage of crimes committed by dentist and medical doctors is also clearly on the rise.
The figures back up veteran Swedish police officer Peter Springare’s assertion that crimes he processed, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Bjorn” or a variation of that name and the culprits were invariably from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danemark or Iceland.
If you don't believe me, click the link above and check for yourself.
I really think that we should do something against these people.
The attack in Manchester does have an element of novelty: that the Manchester Arena terrorists targeted children and teenagers. The Religion of Peace never ceases to surprise.
All the rest is identical: a tidal wave of sugary common places, always the same phrases, always the same official statements, always the same nonsense. As I write here, an idiot on Sky states “it does not matter who did it”. Go figure.
The root cause of the problem is not being addressed. Therefore, the problem will remain.
This time the dead are (for now) 22, and this is not only stolen lives, but broken families. Who knows how many they will be next time. That there will be a next time, there can be no doubt.
I look at all this not only with sadness, but with a clear perception of the historical processes that are happening: our Western institution have invited this cancer within themselves, and this cancer is now developing as it is designed to do.
Meanwhile, the praise of the multicultural society goes on unabated on all the major UK channels. It truly beggars belief.
Please follow this link and, among the documents therein contained, isolate and read (at least) these:
1. The one dated 7 April 2012 (Three Bishops to General Council).
2. The one dated 14 April 2012( General Council to Three Bishops) .
I have – not for the first time – read both documents and found myself – not for the first time – in full agreement with Fellay & Co.
However, I point out to the following. I will present this as a series of short points in an effort to make my thought linear and easy to digest in short pills. What I lose in prose I hope to gain in clarity and brevity.
1. You could have said that Ratzinger was sincerely interested in healing the riff with the SSPX. You cannot say that Bergoglio is sincerely interested in anything Catholic, at all.
2. This being the situation, mistrust toward any ouverture from the Vatican is more justified, and must be taken more seriously, than this was the case in 2012.
3. There can be no doubt that every agreement, every agreement at all which leads to a big fracture within the SSPX is not worth pursuing, as it is far more important that the SSPX remains a visible instrument of help to faithful Catholics in a time of crisis; a crisis which we see becoming deeper and deeper.
4. From what I can see up to now, the Vatican has laid no obvious traps. The independence of the Order is not threatened. The Order will maintain its own autonomy. The agreement seems to be no – legal – Trojan Horse.
5. However, Bishop Fellay's interview (about which I have written yesterday) indicates that a different price is being requested: the softening of tones against the Conciliar Church. This is extremely grave in light of the fact that this is most certainly not the time to soften any tone.
6. In turn, this softer attitude – now officially proclaimed by Bishop Fellay – reinforces the suspicion, certainly present inside the Society, that this embrace will prove deadly, albeit in several instalments. The recent removal of the eight French SSPX priests, though obviously connected to other controversies, does nothing to assuage the fear that some bullying not from Francis, but from the inside of the Society, in order to make it more agreeable to Francis and thus “deserving” of reconciliation, is in fact happening.
7. This is a destructive way to go at things. Archbishop Fellay should never put the reconciliation with the Vatican in front of the danger of a division within the SSPX. If he did so he would allow the enemies of Tradition to celebrate the tearing in two of the Society. Any reconciliation that causes such a bad outcome can most certainly wait for better times, when more orthodox Popes will allow a rapprochement in a different spirit and with far less divisions. No serious Catholic considers the SSPX one iota less Catholic without reconciliation. The reconciliation in itself is a lesser good than the continuation of the work of the SSPX in favour of tradition, her prestige and powerful voice speaking for orthodox Catholic in a time of heretical Popes.
8. Alternatively – and as others and myself have suggested in the past – a much better way is open to Bishop Fellay: a brutal defence of Catholic Truth, against the Pope and his minions, day in and day out. This would assuage fears that the SSPX is “going native”, which is the most important result. From this position of strength, every proposal of reconciliation – without any do ut des – could be discussed within the Society in a completely different atmosphere. And if, in consequence of this vigorous defence of Truth, no offer of reconciliation comes, so be it. This would be the obvious evidence that the reconciliation had only one aim: emasculate the SSPX and make of it a shark without teeth.
Bishop Fellay undermines the very mission of the SSPX when he states that, in consideration of the process of reconciliation, the SSPX will get softer. He is doing the work of Francis. This attitude can only have as a result a self-imposed obligation to be either silent or very hushed in the denunciation of the thousand evils of the Church. Even if the authority and autonomy of the SSPX should remain complete and unchallenged, this attitude would still be tantamount to a half self-castration for the sake of… what exactly? The approval of the biggest rascal ever elected Pope?
Fellay 2017 seems much different to me from Fellay 2012. I do not trust the motives of anyone who, in the face of unprecedented attack on Christ, invites to be less incisive in its condemnation. The SSPX must go to war full scale against Francis and his heresies, and leave Francis with the choices of whether to play the “inclusive card” for his own motives (which he has, as he could claim a non-judgmental attitude towards both extremes of the spectrum) or go wherever he pleases, sharpish.
What is happening is, if you ask me, very wrong. I hope that this line does not prevail. It would cause immense damage to the cause of Traditionalism exactly in a time of emergency. I would prefer for Bishop Fellay to be made to go first.
Astonishing words from an unrecognisable Bishop Fellay reported by Gloria TV.
“We may be a little less controversial in attacking the persons”, the man said. He also added, in purest V II style, that “sometimes” ones get more with “a simple argument” than “by barking”.
When Bishop Fellay's “simple argument” leads to the Vatican reneging on Amoris Laetitia and substituting it with a document Archbishop Lefebvre would have approved in toto I will agree with him.
As it is, I cannot but be very alarmed at reading that the head of the only major ecclesiastical bastion against heresy starts talking like a damn V II sellout.
I cannot avoid wondering whether the danger for the SSPX does not come from the heretics outside, but from the careerists inside.
In this moment of extreme gravity in the history of the Church we must all bark more, not less; and we must bark like very angry mastiffs.
I never thought I'd see the day when I read Fellay spout such nonsense. This is very, very alarming and it behooves every good Catholic to denounce appeasement wherever it comes from.
Good Lord, if even the SSPX is devoured from the cancer of promises of appointments (a red hat for Fellay perhaps?) the only one remained will be honest laymen and isolated priests in micro-SSPX organisations. A real blow.
What is wrong with this man? Does he not realise that if he says “there is no trap” and in the same interview says “but we will go soft on the enemies of Truth”, then most certainly he is the trap?
The Catholic Blogosphere seems very excited about Cardinal Burke now (suddenly) advocating for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
If memory serves, this is the same Cardinal who announced a correction of Amoris Laetitia (or of Pope Francis directly) now around eight months ago, for the case that the Pope does not answer the Dubia posed to him.
You can make a baby in eight months. In the same time frame, Cardinal Burke has not managed – together with his paper tiger colleagues – to write three or four well-written sentences of condemnation of, at the very least, Amoris Laetitia and in fact, logically, of Francis' own pontificate and mindset.
I can't say I am impressed by this man. The entire planet is waiting for him to show some balls, and he reacts by doing nothing on the matter and… opening another front instead.
If he thinks we will forget what he has to do, he is sadly mistaken.
Cardinal Burke's dereliction of duty is ongoing. It becomes more scandalous every day that passes. No amount of deflections will let us forget that this here is one who can (almost) bark, but can't bite at all.
And please spare me the elaborate excuses for this man's and his confreres' utter lack of action. This is not the XVI Century anymore. In the age of Twitter, eight months are the equivalent of a geological era of the past. Also, it is clear that the four Cardinals were told in no uncertain terms that Francis will not answer the Dubia. There is no reason at all to wait one minute longer. Actually, at this point there would not be even if Francis had stated he intends to answer.
The man should just do his job, instead of trying to invent more ways to get an easy approval for his sheer dereliction of duty.
Callista Gingrich is slated to be appointed ambassador of the US to the Holy Sea.
From the linked article we know that she is active in the usual charitable activities, authors books about rediscovering God and writes stories for children. I am moved to tears, I tell you.
We also know she was in an adulterous relationship with Gingrich for years, so I wonder what the children would think about that. I have never run a chariteee, but I have never run an adulterous relationship for years, either, so this makes me too boring to write a book called Rediscovering God In Other Men’s Marital Beds. Actually, in my experience a lot of these charitee people are either appeasing their conscience, of they are managing to look good with other people’s money, or they use their activity to network and make a lot of extremely useful contacts.
Callista means, in old Greek, “the most beautiful” or “extremely beautiful”. In this case, nomen non est omen.
So no, we are not in front of a role model here. However, this post is not about this. This post is about the role of the Catholic Callista Gingrich as the wife of the Catholic Newt Gingrich.
The wife should stay at the side of her husband and be submissive to him. By marrying Newt Gingrich this is the role she, a Catholic woman, chose for herself. Instead, we have another case of “emancipated” aged Catholic who sends the message that it is fine to leave her husband one ocean behind, because feminism. If this is Catholicism, I am an elephant.
This is wrong. The place of the wife is at the side of her husband, and the place of a prominent Catholic wife is at the side of her husband whilst she proclaims that it it should be so. Who does she think she is, Nancy “Botox” Pelosi?
Don’t tell me that Newt has certainly approved. It does only make two wrong, but the wife who goes away from her husband the more so. However, this makes Newt a cuck, too. A man who does not even have her wife under control should not be allowed to run for President.
This is another example of modern secular culture running counter to our traditional values, amidst the applause of the more or less Catholic press. Catholic values are defended by having wives in public positions publicly espousing and defending their Catholic role, not running the rat race.
Callista Gingrich should have publicly stated that, as a Catholic wife, her role is at the side of her husband. This would have sent a beautiful message and would have contributed to have her less than exemplary past seen in the light of a reformed woman. But what I see here is not this; what I see here is arrivism, power grab, and feminist attitude. This is, in fact, the same attitude that leads a woman in the bed of a married man and reach a position of prestige and eminence through this adulterous relationship.
Callista Gingrich reminds me of Nilde Iotti. A smart woman for sure, she was a collaborator of Palmiro Togliatti, the head of the Italian Communist Party, and his mistress before Togliatti publicly ditched his wife for her. Nilde Iotti managed to make a prestigious political career for herself, but smart people always remembered what stood at the beginning of it all: the marital bed of a powerful man. But she was a Communist at least.
One day, Callista Gingrich will run for senator.
I wonder if we will, then, get another book about “rediscovering God in Italy”.
Breitbart has a very funny (though tragic at the same time) story about a hoax study passing peer review with flying colours.
The story just shows to what extremes madness is carried in the world of “social science”. There is, of course, nothing scientific in any of that. There is a rabid hate of everything that is traditional morality, pushed by people either living in very strong opposition to this morality of too afraid to oppose it in any way. In this particular case, the “peers” who reviewed the bogus document managed to dig themselves into an even deeper hole and make themselves even more ridiculous in the process.
Will the “peers” lose their job because of manifest incompetence, pathological bias and congenital stupidity? Don’t bet your pint. In a world that revels in its fanaticism there is no point at which fanaticism become excessive, or sanity and competence required.
Still, this little episode will contribute to opening the eyes of a number of people. The same, by the way, can be said for the other sectors in which bogus science is peddled everywhere: from global warming to the destruction of the forest, to the imminent death of the polar bear.
Enjoy the article.
The funny blog post published on Father Z’s site prompts me to some not so obvious, not so politically correct, and not so kind considerations. Read the post first if you want to avoid the spoiler below.
The particular building mentioned in Father’s post was built after a public appeal. The money collected was such that there was a lot to spare, which led to the extensive alabaster decoration inside. Put it simply, the Archbishop only had to ask, and it was given to him much more than he had asked. Even, I add, for the godless monster he then built to show the world how godless he was (and is, because the man still lives). You will also remember Cardinal Dolan mobilising around $140 millions in no time to restore the roof of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan.
Moral of the stories: the Church has limitless resources. It’s not about how much money is in the bank account. It is about how much money can be received just for the asking.
What does this tell us? That you don’t need to be afraid that good priests will ever starve, or there will be no money for the restoration of Catholic patrimony. However, this does not mean that you should finance a monster like the Los Angeles Cathedral, or atheists like Cardinal Mahony.
My suggestion is this: starve the bad parishes and give your money to the good causes. The good causes may well be distant, the bad parish may well be near. It doesn’t matter. You help what is right, not what is near.
The way a Catholic should react to the current confusion is to cause the closure of bad parishes and the thriving of good ones. Yes, up to a point wealthy donors will keep bad parishes alive; but only up to a point, as we keep seeing that whilst it is very easy to mobilise big money for big or prestigious projects, parishes out in the “peripheries” keep being closed.
There is, obviously, no guarantee this will end well. A bad bishop might be so stupid that he closes the thriving parish to keep the bad one open; but I bet most of them aren’t as dumb as that, because they understand the risks this involves. They know that in the modern world a Catholic will not hesitate to send his money to worthy Catholic causes in other nations, even on the other end of the earth, but punish him for closing down the good parishes. Not will he be able to mobilise his rich donors in every circumstance. For the Cathedral, easy. For the ugly Sixties church with no bell tower, not so much.
The faithful do that (and you should do that) because the traditional idea that your parish should be helped first cannot stand in an age when your parish sabotages, rather than helping, Catholicism. Do they starve you of sensible, sane Catholicism? Starve them of their means of survival. Again: Cathedrals always find rich donors. Ugly parishes in the suburbs, not so much.
Let your money talk. Do not be afraid that the Church might ever remain without money for the roof of the cathedrals, or for the restoration of old, beautiful churches. There will always be money for the indispensable, the very beautiful and the very visible. Give your money ad hoc as much as you can to minimise the risk of misdirection (e.g. money for single, nominated projects: the new traditional vestments for the priests; for sanctuary renovations bringing them back to the old glory; for the new monstrance or tabernacle, etc.).
But starve the horrible parish with the horrible liturgy. Make the bad priests unemployed (yes, a priest can be unemployed). Vote against V II with your wallet. Make the parish go down in flames. In time, the unavoidable shrinking of the Church will see more sane parishes surviving and a more than proportional extinction of the bad ones.
Your cathedrals will not crumble. But you will contribute to the regeneration of the Church by voting with your wallet.
Do not be impressed by the whining of your V II priests that the parish is dying. He had it coming, and so did the army of lecturer, assistants of the assistants, busybodies of all sorts, and their applauding (in church) smug audience.
Let them go the way of the Dodo. Make them see that their own stupidity has ended in self-extinction.
Church of Stupid must die. It is better to have less parishes, but with a greater content of Catholicism, than help V II to survive;
and your local dumbo priest be damned.
The Rome Life Forum that is about to begin will be centred not only on the protection of the unborn life, but on the current crisis in the Church. This is good, as there can never be too much discussion about a Church that seems to have forgotten Her role and mission.
However, it gives one pause when one reads that among the participants will be some of those of whom concrete actions has been awaited for many months now, and who seem intentioned to renounce to it in favour of … more words. These two are, to wit, Cardinals Burke and Caffarra: two of those who, after announcing that they would defend the faith, have preferred to just wait for… no one knows exactly what reason.
A Cardinal's (and bishop's) job is not to participate to discussions about generic church problems, but to denounce them loud and clear with all the necessary consequences.
To see Cardinals who not only should have acted months ago, but who have announced that they would so just limit themselves to discussion rounds as if they were journalists or activists is extremely saddening, and gives you a clear picture of the scale of the crisis currently plaguing the Church.
It reminds me of “Life of Brian”, where the members of the revolutionary committee issue a resolution protesting the arrest of their member. However, in that case there was at least a resolution. In this case, the resolution was announced but never put in place.
Cardinal Caffarra and Cardinal Burke are gravely in arrears. More words will not wash. They must now do the right thing and openly condemn the heresies in Amoris Laetitia, accusing the Pope of dereliction of duty and promotion of heresy for refusing to answer the Dubia.
This and only this, not more abstract words of dissatisfaction and diffused clerical whining, is what is required of them. It is required of all bishops and Cardinals of course; but it is required of the Four Cardinals in the first place, as they have made themselves beautiful with the faithful announcing a vigorous defence of Church teaching whose concrete exercise we are still awaiting.
It's like someone announcing he would challenge the school bully and then doing nothing about it. He will probably be despised more than those who shut up from the start.
The time to participate to fora has now passed, at least for the Cardinals. They should remember why they dress in red and act accordingly.
Perhaps we will hear something about when the Cardinals are planning to act, but I will not hold my breath. At this point, I think the plan is to let the matter of the Dubia be quietly forgotten, with some lame excuse about the Pope not answering them, or the like.
Pray for the Cardinals, that they should not flee in front of the wolves.
As they have most certainly been doing up to now.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
We are not told if the Disciples were carrying open or concealed. I suspect they did both according to the occasion. On this particular occasion, only two out of eleven (Judas already gone, and he would not count anyway) were actually carrying. On other occasions they must have been more, because it is obvious that the Disciples here count the armed ones among them on that particular day.
Of these two, one would make a defensive use of his sword before long.
These swords were, methinks, like the Roman gladius: a short but lethal sword, easy to carry and to use for short quarters combat, and therefore very apt for a defensive urban use. They clearly weren’t daggers, either. The word sword is not equivocal.
Our Lord does not object to his disciples’ carrying in the least. Actually, he says to them they should carry more. No, actually I think he says all of them should carry. Their right to keep and bear arms should, very obviously, not be infringed. The Second Amendment is so very evangelical.
Thought I would mention this blatant disregard of Our Lord for any form of arm control and, in fact, strong encouragement to defensive carry.
I am sure Hillary & Co. are very disappointed.
In his catechesis during today’s Wednesday audience Pope Francis called God in the grammatical present “a dreamer who dreams about the transformation of the world”. At the same time he claimed that God “has realised the transformation of the world in the mystery of the resurrection.”
This is drunk nonsense even for the standard of The Francis.
God in His Providence has made the world in the way the world it is supposed to be made. Whatever sinfulness there is in it, God has providentially allowed it in order to make a greater good emerge out of it. God has not created a faulty toy of which He dreams it would work properly. God does not sighs about a perfect world whilst he listens to John Lennon’s “Imagine”. God is not only Omniscient, but Omnipotent. There is no “dreaming” in Him. There is no separation between what things are and what He would have them to be, if He only could. God has allowed the Fall as He has allowed all the rest, from the Holocaust to… Pope Francis.
The Death and Resurrection of Our Lord, which the man mentions without having any idea of what he is talking about, is exactly the way through which this faulty existence and fallen nature – which is by no means meant to go away – is given the possibility of redemption. It isn’t the shaping of a new earth. It isn’t a promise of an earth in which hounds and foxes say “good night” to each other before going to sleep. It isn’t the promise of a paradise on earth. On the contrary, Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life we must follow exactly because of the fundamental flaw we had since birth: Original Sin. The reality of Original Sin is not going to change. Therefore, the reality of evil is not going to go away, either.
The reality of sinfulness due to the Fall has been, once again, allowed by God, with all the consequences and all the sins, all the injustices and all the atrocities; not only from the beginning to the end of time, but from all eternity.
Dreams of fundamental transformation of this world are the most obvious indication of lack of faith in the next one.
What we once again see here is a stupid, ignorant old bloke who never understood jack of anything Catholic and keeps going around spreading sugary nonsense for adolescent cretins like, no doubt, he once was (I mean by that that he is not an adolescent anymore).
There is in him no concept whatsoever of Providence. There is clearly no belief in the Original Sin. Therefore, there is no explanation for the evil in the world. On the contrary, there is this completely bonkers idea of God standing there like a spot-plagued teenager, dreaming of a better world. This is part of the humanisation and banalisation of absolutely everything that has been a trademark of this disgraceful Papacy.
“Imagine” was an openly atheist song. It had to be, as the Christian vision of the world and of the fallen human nature is radically opposed to Lennon’s and Francis’ idea of radical transformation of the human being, and of the possibility of creating a paradise of social justice and harmony on earth, if he only behave. There will always be injustice, there will always be conflict, there will always be evil in the world. At the root of the evil is not human laziness, but the serpent.
The reality of the Fall will be part of the human condition for as long as the world exists. All this escapes Francis. He is aligned with John Lennon instead.
Francis is not only stupid. He is clearly either an atheist or a person so confused about God that he thinks Him a sort of Dalai Lama In The Sky, prisoner of all sort of sentimental rubbish.
The ignorance of this man should be an embarrassment to every Catholic. Unfortunately, it seems that around 6000 bishops prefers to keep schtum about it, lest their career should suffer.