I will leave the duckduckgo-ing to you, but in the last days three news have emerged: the French justice system has rejected the ban on the “burkini”. In Britain, a proposed ban on Friday prayer in jails has been abandoned. Lastly, in Germany it has been pointed out that a ban on full-face cover might trigger a ban on Father Christmas costumes (the extreme ones, which cover all the face behind a very thick fake beard).
The reasons for this are all too obvious: taken in isolation, the Western system of freedoms opens the door very wide to an – ultimately always – aggressive Muslim invasion. Our Western democracies have no legal antibodies protecting them from the infection of Islam. The bacteria are actually invited to enter the body, in the name of freedom.
Mind, I do think that, at some point, the body will react. When the fever breaks out in earnest, the body of Western democracies will, in fact, start to produce the necessary antibodies all right. This must be so because – as we have seen all too clearly in the past in Germany, in Spain, and in Italy with the RAF, the ETA and the Brigate Rosse respectively – European democracies have a successful record of “bending the freedoms” with overt or covert operations meant to – not to put too fine a point on it – “do what you gotta do”. I have read of these “adaptations” concerning Germany (Stammheim anyone?) and Spain (with the covert ETA killings). I have lived them directly, concerning Italy, in many ways.
However, I do not think that this reaction will happen until a point has been reached where the pain is substantial and widespread. A pity, because there is a much simpler way to stop this cancer from exploding.
The way is to recognise the special place owned by Christianity in the West. Nay, the acknowledgment of Christianity as not only religious, but cultural matrix of the West. This special role would, without a doubt, justify a special treatment without this causing the cherished principles of freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc being imperiled.
The realm of applications would be vast: for example, it is allowed to dress as Father Christmas (thus completing covering one’s face in public) but not to wear a burka. It is allowed to wear a catholic veil on one’s head, but not a chador. It is allowed to build monumental churches, but it is not allowed to build purpose-built mosques. It is allowed to have Sunday laws, but it is not allowed to have “Friday laws”. There are Christian public holidays, but no Muslim ones. There is no right to interrupt work for Muslim prayer times. Halal meat is forbidden because of the cruelty to the slaughtered animal.
The list is very, very long.
All this would stem, in a perfectly reasonable way, from a fundamental principle: the West recognises traditional Christian customs as its cultural blueprint, and protects them accordingly. This is what many Countries did in the past both when they had Catholicism as State Religion (Italy) or they hadn’t (the German Halal ban in the Nineties). They did this without anyone questioning their democratic credentials. They did this following one of those thinking principles which might be unspoken, but are deeply felt; that are, in fact, unspoken exactly because they are deeply felt.
There would be no need to kick out anyone per se. But there would be need to enforce these rules whatever the noise – or worse – made by the Muslims. When enough perverts and atheists have been massacred, I think there would be a number of them actually ready to embrace this thinking without hesitation.
Also, the same rules would have to apply to every non-Christian religion: Hindu, Sikh, the whole lot.
The West is Christian. Get on with it, or leave.
Will it happen? Again, at some point the pain will be acute enough to cause something of the sort to happen. The “cultural heritage way” would be the easiest, most peaceful, most efficient way to deal with the cancer of Islam.
The sooner atheists understand this, the better for all of us.
It had to happen at some point.
An incestuous “couple” (mother and son; just so you know why you are vomiting) have just started their very public “human rights battle”.
Can’t say they are wrong.
They are both adult, and willing. Thinking with the stupid XXI century, they are “not doing harm to anyone”. Actually, they are not causing any physical harm, whilst sodomy causes a lot of physical harm (ask any sodomite on the receiving side. Thankfully, I can’t say anything about the other one). So, let me ask stupid England once again: why should they not be allowed to live like Elton?
The truth is this: people have Truth inscribed in their hearts. As they get perverted by strange religions (like the religion of peace, and the church of niceness) they forget the truth inscribed in their hearts, or better said these truths become so faint that they are easily overridden by the prevalent religion of tolerance.
But this does not happen all at the same time, or in one generation. It happens gradually. One generation is “pitiful” of the fags their despise. Their sons think the fags should be able to “marry”, because they “lurv”. Their nephews will think it “lovephobic” than people do not want that a man screws his own mother.
It’s all in these little words, “not doing harm to anyone”, you see. Those who think that way have forgotten what a sin is, what fear of the Lord is, what decency and purity are. They have been so brainwashed by the “lurv” society, that they drift one sin at a time; and every time, they cannot understands why they were resisting to that particular sin in the first way.
The next generation might call you “lovephobic” like this one calls you “homophobic”. The following one will cal you “dogphobic” or “sheepphobic”, and you know why…
The worst thing is that they might dare to call themselves Catholic.
They might even have a Pope, Francis III, who encourages them in this thinking via ambiguous apostolic exhortations and extremely verbous and just as stupid encyclicals.
The good news is: Truth can never change. Unless they repent, those who scream “homophobia” in this generation, “lovephobia” in the next and “dogphobia” in the following one will at death go there, where they get an awful lot of time to reflect about their rebellion.
We keep praying our Rosary, like our grandfathers. Keep believing what our Grandfathers believe. Keep praying, and waiting that this punishment goes to an end.
I am pretty sure you already know about the scandal first unveiled by LifeSiteNews (actually, by Wikileaks). However, I think I might add a reflection or two of my own.
The first reflection is that when an openly evil man like Soros, who is against everything the Church stands for, thinks he can influence Vatican prelates through financial support it is obvious that something very, very wrong is going on within the Vatican walls. This would be true even if neither Cardinal Maradiaga nor Pope Francis were open to such kind of influence. It would be true because of the very fact that the like of George Soros think that they could influence the Vatican. Put in another way, the leaks show how corrupt Francis is even if he does not willingly accept the help of the likes of Soros. He is morally corrupt exactly because he thinks like them without need of monetary corruption.
The second reflection concerns, more directly, Cardinal Maradiaga. In his case the corruption is, more likely than not, monetary besides being moral. This does not mean, of course, that Maradiaga uses such donations to put money in his own pocket (though I want to go on record and say I would not be surprised at all if this were the case: one who thinks so evil can do a lot of evil). Still, it seems to me impossible that Cardinal Maradiaga does not know about such donations, and does not consider them an easy way to maintain a net of people through whom he can distribute favours and exercise influence.
The third and last reflection is, I am sure, in the mind of many: is this not the tip of the iceberg? How many “catholic” organisations are funded, directly or indirectly, by the open, public enemies of the Church? Should not Pope Francis, who always has such a big mouth about transparency, order an impartial review about such “donations”, and force all his bishops to answer about what happens in their own dioceses as well? Not holding my breath…
The smoke of George Soros has entered the Church.
Francis doesn’t seem fazed at all.
I have published parts one and two already.
Now, I would like to spend three words about what we learn from this embarrassing episode. I for myself have drawn the following conclusions:
- Ratzinger has become a mini-me Bergoglio. On the issues he has touched the crap was largely the same. Only the syntax was different. Ratzinger can actually think, and talk. But he has lost face, big time.
- Ratzinger does so because he is, in his deepest soul, a supporting rider, a follower, an order taker. He will bat with the Vatican side. That’s it.
- Ratzinger has become so embarrassing that even the “Frankie ain’t Pope, Benny is” fraction will now be in severe shock. And I don’t think most of them considered him a saint, either. And I still don’t know what their plan is for when Benedict dies, btw.
- Ratzinger was an astonishingly superficial man in his way of seeing the Pontificate. It is now more clear why he got rid of it. A Pope who thinks that being able to fly to Brazil belongs to being Pope should be invited to resign anyway.
A tragic figure. A man who could have done so much, and has ended up doing worse and worse. A man, as it appears clear now, able to equate the Papacy with the ability of clowning around.
What a sad, tragic figure.
The first part of this embarrassed analysis is here.
The horror shows continues:
The moment he was elected I felt, as many others did, a spontaneous sense of gratitude towards Providence. After two Pontiffs from Central Europe, the Lord set his eyes as it were on the universal Church and invited us towards a broader, more Catholic communion.
The “spontaneous sense of gratitude” wasn’t shared by many. The man does not say a word indicating he knew Bergoglio before. It appears to him he was a perfect nobody, known mainly for coming from Argentina. But in the age of Francis a Pope Emeritus is probably expected to say how delighted he is that a flaming heretic was made Pope.
Note, here, that at this point Benedict starts a long encomium of Francis as a nice guy, and does not spend a word about his Pontificate. Methinks, our Ratzi doesn’t think Bergo a great blessing after all. But hey, he will tow the line anyway. That’s what yes-men are for.
Let me now come to the unavoidable reaction of the pro-Ratzingerian conservatives to this, well, downfall.
Unable to see reality for what it is, they will claim one or more of the following:
- The Pontiff Emeritus has not pronounced the words.
- The Pontiff Emeritus never gave the interview
- The Pontiff Emeritus knows nothing about the book.
- The Pontiff Emeritus has been told not to buy “La Repubblica”, because it’s a bad, bad newspaper beloved by his successor.
- The Pontiff Emeritus was in the bathroom when the words were added to the minutes.
- The Pontiff Emeritus has been threatened with, oh I don’t know, being left without the piano if he says those were not his words.
- The Pontiff Emeritus is tied in the basement of Castel Gandolfo
- The Pontiff Emeritus has died years ago. A Duracell-battery-powered mechanical bunny has taken his place since.
- The Pontiff Emeritus is playing a very refined game: around 2026 he will come out and say it was all a joke, and everyone will recognise his genius and great political and spiritual game.
You see, there is a problem with all this: the man has not denied the words. Therefore, he owns them. That’s it [and no, you don’t think he is tied in the basement of Castel Gandolfo, either].
We must treat responsible adults like responsible adults. Ratzinger can dictate interview-books. Therefore, he can answer for what is in them. That he really pronounced those literal words is very hard to believe. That he is OK with having them attributed to himself is obvious. As they say, scripta manent.
The man has nowhere to hide. He is clearly practising mini-me Francis. Can’t imagine it’s because of personal vanity. I think it’s for love of being aligned with the Obrigkeit, and because of the fear of being seen as the difficult one, the party pooper, the “rebel”, the one that does not play for the team. Jesus’ team is irrelevant, of course. What count is to be on the side of the (earthly) authority.
Depressing, I know.
But so freakin’ German.
As of today, I have two twitter accounts (assuming such a thing is allowed in the first place. However, I was not stopped from doing it): @mundabor (the old one, I can’t retrieve the password anymore) and @RealMundabor (the new one, for which I still remember the password because I have set it up just now).
The old account will remain in place, and it will continue to (again, as long as I am allowed to) automatically post all my blog posts. However, there is no chance (unless I should remember the password by some miracle) that I will ever post a tweet on the old account again, whilst I might do it on the new one.
I suggest everyone who is interested to follow my new account, @RealMundabor together with, or instead of, the old one. The way I understand these things, WordPress should now publish every post of mine on both accounts. However, the new account will allow me to follow new people (e.g. The Donald) and add new news outlets (e.g. the excellent @GuidoFawkes). I might post some tweets now and then, but I must say after trying I am not a great fan of the format, which encourages short-term emotional bickering and wastes time I can better employ writing for the blog.
Let’s hope it works.
Apologies for the short disruption. Catholic service will be resumed shortly.
The Pontiff Emeritus is about to release another book, and Repubblica (yes, that one) has some tasty bits of it, meant to awaken the reader’s appetite and to open their wallet.
However, these is not the usual pre-publication snippets. These declaration equate to a complete loss of face for the – we can now safely say – tragic and pathetic figure of the Emeritus.
Let us see the downfall in detail. Emphases are mine, and not made without pain.
“There were numerous commitments which I felt I was no longer able to carry through,” Ratzinger explained. “Notably, the World Youth Day which had been scheduled to take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in the summer of 2013. I was very certain of two things. After the experience of the trip to Mexico and Cuba, I no longer felt able to embark on another very demanding visit. Furthermore, according to the format of these gatherings, which had been established by John Paul II, the Pope’s physical presence there was paramount. A television link or any other such technological solution was out of the question. This was another reason why I saw it as my duty to resign.”
What an embarrassing statement to read.
I had always thought that Pope Benedict had decided to resign because he felt unable to gather the strength necessary to fight the long and brutal fight that announced itself after the famous report about sodomy within the Vatican. I can still understand he might have decided to be too weak for the job tout court (remember he was very frail at the time). But to read from a Pope that he decided to resign because he felt he was now unable to be the main attraction, the chief clown of a worldwide travelling circus is truly beyond the pale. Even more stupid, if possible, is the linked assertion that, since JP II had started the circus, Ratzinger felt it could not be stopped, and he the Pope. What a total lack of leadership. What a total lack of… manliness.
Embarrassing. I am ashamed for him. I am literally red in the face thinking of the way he has put shame on himself.
It goes to show: you scratch the V II Pope and what comes out can only be pus.
Alas, it goes on. Let us see what a Pope Emeritus has to say about an extremely cruel Communist bastard, a prime candidate for Hell and decades long friend of all the wrong causes:
I need scarcely remind you of how impressed I was in Cuba to see the way in which Raul Castro wishes to lead his country onto a new path, without breaking with the immediate past.
Seriously, what is this? A Pope (emeritus) lauding one of the Castro brothers for trying to keep Communism alive for as long as he can? Is this man on drugs? Drunken? Gaga? He can give interviews that become books, so one must infer he is decidedly “there” with his head.
I think the reality is far simpler: Ratzinger is, and always was, a gregarious type; an order-taker; one always ready to fall in line.
This interview will certainly mark the lowest point of Ratzinger’s public career. It is a complete denouement of a little yes-man. It is the embarrassing spectacle of a former Pope now towing the Francis line in a way inconceivable only a few years ago.
I never thought Benedict a hero of orthodoxy. I always thought Benedict was always V II, and Francis is V II on steroids. But this interview here is tantamount to Benedict taking the first dose of steroids himself, and saying to the world how much he likes it.
Let me say it again: a supporting rider, not a leader; an order-taker, not an order-giver.
What a tragic figure.
The Evil Clown has thrown another bomb; and whilst I try not to write only about him, this time it can’t be avoided.
The subversive content of his words spoken in Poland cannot be underestimated. This is man who, not happy with his priests giving sacrilegious communions to adulterers, wants them to betray Christ also in the confessional!
The evil is breathtaking.
The confessional is the place where the priest stages the last line of defence from Satan’s attacks. The poor serious sinner coming to the confessional is – one must suppose – at least fighting a battle and try to extricate himself from his serious sins (I remind you that these sins cannot be cohabitation, much less an adulterous one: the priest would not be allowed to listen to their confession, much less absolve them, until the scandal has ceased). You would think a Pope would want his priests to speak very clearly about the danger of hell, and use the short moments in the confessional to change lives.
No. Of course not. In Francis’ atheist, Christ-hating world such a behaviour only has one effect: the sinner “leaves the confessional disappointed”.
You disappointed the fornicator! How dare you? Don’t you know about the many shades of grey?
Boy: this one is a drunkard, an idiot, or a first-class enemy of Christ.
With sadness (and some anger) I have discovered that even my blog is (was) infested with that pernicious (and perfidious) weed that destroys Christianity whilst it claims to protect it.
The very idea of thinking of not voting Trump in November shows a total contempt for Christian civilisation in the West. It is a self-pleased complaining about the candidate not complying with one’s lofty standards, without giving a damn if after November everything will be under attack, starting from the First and Second Amendment.
The Christian Weed is so pleased with itself, that it revels in its rejection of Trump and even in the contemplation of worse times to come. Hey, who cares if Hillary becomes President . Deus vult! But look at me, I am so good that I will never stop complaining as I help Christianity to crumble!
This is the very definition of “sanctimonious”.
No, you idiot.
God does not want.
You are the one who makes it happen, not God. You are the one who delivers the Country in the hands of the enemies of Christ, not God. You are the one who cowardly refuses to – which is necessary at times – hold his nose if needs be and give the only possible vote, because it would not make it possible for you to feel so holy by proclaiming your moral superiority to Trump.
Weed like this is as much our enemy as our open opponents. And I despise these people even more than the open leftists, because they really should know better. They betray Christ out of their own love of self, their presumption, their supposed moral superiority that is cowardice and betrayal.
Shame on you, Priscilla and Phlogiston. Your children and spouse (if any) should be ashamed of you. You are everything that is wrong with your Country. I have banned you and will pay much attention that you don’t come back with other names and email addresses, because the likes of you haven’t deserved I do not say to comment here, but to scrounge on my time by reading what I write.
I will do this from now on with every comment. This blog will not be sullied by the excrements of these sanctimonious Judases. Every comment even vaguely or indirectly indicating that his author does not support Trump will lead to its author being made persona non grata.
If you don’t side with Trump you side with the devil, and I am the one to tell you.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, Priscilla and Phlogiston. You have been scrounging on the resources of this blog for too long. You are invited to go away and never again come here. You are enemies of Christ, traitors, fifth columns of the enemy.
The sad news about the earthquake in and around Amatrice leaves me with the same feelings I have every time I hear news of this sort.
It seems to me that we do not go at the root of the issue. It seems to me that the well justified desire to pray and to mourn stops short of the most important considerations. It seems to me that everything is very superficial, emotional, filled with feel-goodism.
The secular press is all over it. Death sells.
Certainly, we pray for the dead. But we pray for the dead not because it’s the right thing to do to feel good with ourselves on social network sites. This is something the atheists do. We pray for the dead not because they have been deprived, by some Cosmic Injustice, of some Slice Of Cosmic Cake Due To Them. We pray for the dead exactly because they have gone to their judgment. We pray for the dead because we know that their souls live.
We know that no one really dies. The most important part of him, his soul, will live forever. Therefore, we do not think of their dead in term of loss, though it is certainly such for those they have left behind. We think of the dead in terms of their trial, examination, supreme test. They were tested without warning. Were they found wanting? Would I be found wanting?
Sadly, in days like this one it is very seldom to read such thoughts. From the Pope down, almost everyone drowns in the usual, facile ocean of emotionalism. Francis leads a rosary for people of whom he obviously has no fear that anyone might have been at risk of hell, no matter whether they were, say, living in adultery and unworthily, sacrilegiously receiving communion. It’s completely illogical, it just does not make sense. It’s emotionalism without logic. It’s “je suis Amatrice” (or rather Io sono Amatrice) tosh. It’s all the self-pleasing, feel-good platitudes without any of the real religion.
Earthquakes aren’t there to let us compete to see who writes the most sugary platitude on his facebook wall. Sure, they certainly motivate us to pray for the soul of the dead. But they are also there to remind us that this is a vale of tears, bearing in it all the time the tragic reality of the Fall; and to warn us that even in this very clean, safe, aseptic world of ours, death can knock at anyone’s door at one moment’s notice.
Literally, like a thief in the night. This is how the day of the Lord came for all the poor victims. We, who have not died, should not only pray for the dead, but wonder what would have become of us, if dead had knocked at our door in the very same hour.
Pray for the poor dead. Pray that they may have been prepared when their hour came so unexpectedly. Pray that they may have their purgatory shortened a bit through their prayer, as you hope other people’s prayers will shorten yours. Pray that, through providential help and by fully unmerited grace, God may have disposed that they were prepared when the hour came. But please also reflect on this: that earthquakes and natural catastrophes are there to remind us of the imperfect world following the Fall, and that every story of sudden death is there to make us shudder at the consequences of not being prepared.
The Master came back home unexpected. Were the servants prepared? Would I be prepared? Would you, and those you love?
These are the thoughts that should also – besides praying – occupy us on days like this.
I must say, I struggle to find much of that.
So there, you have it in the blog of the things that few people say.
I have read with some satisfaction that the National Catholic Register has fired two of his worst bloggers/journalists. This is not officially confirmed, but factually sure.
What I dislike in the particular brand of writing of the two (particularly one) is the all-pervasive bending of their (particularly his) own particular brand of leftism until the simple believe that it resembles Catholicism.
Mind, I am not angry at the emotional tone. I am an emotional one myself, though I do not react directly to those who insult and mock me on the blogosphere.
What makes me angry is the utter perversion of Catholicism, in a relentless Jihad against every form of social conservatism under the thinnest of varnish of a pretence of Catholicism. A Jihad made most clear by the insults thrown at conservative Catholicism – and at the very pro-life movement – as a whole.
This is the tone – and the thinking – of those who hate every form of social conservatism first, and try to hide behind the finger of a very stupid, deformed wannabe Catholicism second. Social justice, anti-Conservative Jihad that can’t even see the yearly holocaust of unborn children because hey, all is preferable to Trump becoming President.
The other one – another leftist, for what I can see, and a very vulgar one at that; but I read her even less than the first one – is probably more the victim of her interactive intemperance (and vulgarity) than of a relentless will to wage Jihad on those who fear the Lord and happen not to be SJWs. But when you start cleaning the home, it’s better to do it well.
The Jihad will continue, and it will continue with the same tones. Even after the famous public apologies for the vitriolic style the vitriol kept flowing, so this gives you a good indication of the future.
The best thing to do is, as before, to ignore these people. No links to them, no mention of them on your blog (brings traffic, and makes their name go higher in internet researches), no traffic sent their way in any way whatsoever.
The religion of Social Justice is not Catholicism, even when it camouflages that way.
I have just read a good answer to Archbishop Chaput’s half-hearted blog post about how oh so pretty much the same Hillary and The Donald are. If you follow the link, you will find there the link to the original interview.
In the interview, Chaput showed everything that is wrong with modern, wannabe orthodox, pale V II pretended Conservatism. He throws a sprinkling of pro-life mentality, but he is unable to follow his thinking where it is about what a man (or woman) is born to do in times like these: to make a damn choice.
No, someone who thinks that Trump is “clearly not better than Hillary” is clearly one who either has no idea of what Catholicism is, or knows it all too well but doesn’t want you to realise it for yourself, or would like for you to know but is too afraid of the consequences for himself if he does. I leave it to you which is which.
Mind, in pure clerical style Chaput does throw some snippets indicating to his readership, in a rather oblique way, how they are supposed to vote ( “The right to life undergirds all other rights”). However, this is said en passant, and only after the man has proceeded to undermine his own argument with words he very well know will make the headlines.
This is so V II, so half-assed, so dangerously ambiguous that the man cannot hide behind a finger and claim before God to have done his right by way of mere indirect suggestions. Bishops are there to speak, not to suggest.
The problem with Chaput is that before being a Bishop, he is a careerist. When Benedict was Pope he loved to be considered at the forefront of the (moderate, for us) conservative Catholicism. But now that Francis is in power, the man avoids everything that would make him lean too much out of the window, and is content with a snippet here, a half-suggestion there, and towing the Vatican line on pretty much everything. He has, by the way, done the same with Amoris Laetitia, selling the absurd and, frankly, clearly stupid tale of the orthodox heretical text; just like Burke, but without the snipe at orthodox Catholics.
I wouldn’t call Chaput’s blog entry a betrayal. But it is certainly a dereliction of duty, and I wouldn’t want to be a bishop and go to my judgment with this kind of pussyfooting and meowing on my conscience.
If we want to change things in the West, we need for our archbishops to stop pussyfooting around and grow a pair.
I doubt we will begin with this one.