Oh, the irony! The pope who, more than anyone else, seeks approval among the people is the one who is most ignored by Catholics, non-Catholics and… tourists alike!
The attendance figures from 2013 to 2015 are here, and they are shocking. The figures shop a drop almost as big as the drop in donation for the Clinton foundations. The people of the peripheries just can’t stand this man.
From 50,000 to 16,000 in two short years until 2015 (with the novelty effect built-in at least in the 2013 figures) already speak a clear language. The figures for 2016 are told to be around 10,000, only 20% of the first Francisyear. This 2017 which now goes to an end was very probably even worse.
No one is interested in a Pope who “doesn’t pope”. It’s full of comedians on TV and they at least are funny. A clown with a dour face and a hypocrisy that can be smelled one mile away is of no interest but to those who go for circus attractions and freak shows. Heck, by the numbers of tourists visiting Rome at pretty much every time of the year, one wonders how the figures can be so low.
But then one knows Francis, so this is par for the course.
It is, perhaps, fitting to add my two cents to what has already been written about Pope “Evil Clown” Francis approving a modified version of the Our Father for the poor French.
As pretty much always, the problem with Francis is that he does not believe in God. Not believing in God, he thinks that the church is a purely human construct. He also clearly believes that this human construct has done pretty much everything wrong before electing him Pope. Therefore, he proceeds to “improve” on her by proposing alternative teachings, and trying to shape her in the image and likeness of the only god he recognises: comrade Jorge Bergoglio. He did so already concerning communion, marriage, homosexuality, war, poverty, climate change, death penalty, illegal immigration, and countless other matters. Again: it is clear that this man thinks that the Church did everything wrong, from her very beginnings, until he appeared on the scene. This is the clear mark of the atheist.
It is, therefore, no surprise that not even the Our Lord should be spared by this unspeakable scoundrel.
Other have entered into more or less erudite conversations about the exegesis of the word “temptation” and the ways in which ne nos inducas in tentationem can be understood. I frankly don’t care.
What was good for my grandma, and for her grandma before her, is good enough for me. What the Church and the centuries have hallowed, no dirty Argentinian scoundrel is allowed to manipulate. The very idea that the Church may have got the very words of our Lord wrong for centuries is the most obvious evidence of unbelief that can be given.
Like every unbeliever, Francis hides behind various very small and very crooked fingers: historical “research”, literal meaning which “might be misunderstood” (heavens, what a cretin…), a feigned desire to do good, and such like rubbish. This is what every fake believer does as he discusses with you about what “research” tell them about, say, deaconesses, or the role of the priest, or the church’s attitude towards adulterers or homos. Fake research and fake science are always the refuge of true unbelievers.
A Pope tampering with the English translation of dogmatic statements accepted for many generations is a Pope showing that he simply does not believe that the Church has any function at all, and that God would allow the entire Western Christianity to be misled concerning his words; he shows, therefore, that he does not believe in God, as it is absurd to believe in such a mickey mouse god: clearly plagued with communication problems, not even able to make himself understood when he talks to his creatures, and obviously unable to enforce the most elementary standards concerning himself.
Pope Francis is clearly a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, and an extremely arrogant man. But he is also extremely stupid, as he is clearly unable to understand how his vanity and arrogance expose him as a boor, and a miserable ass dressed in white, for everyone who has any trace of sensus catholicus left in him.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
please free us from this scourge.
This blog post addresses some of the causes of the diminished authority of the priest in the Western world.
I for myself would add my two pence: what makes most of the credibility problem of priests nowadays is that very many of them are as fake as a six pound note, clearly ashamed of their own profession and – generally speaking and forgetting for a moment that they can consecrate the host – a waste of space.
A priest who is not afraid of being a Catholic priest can be criticised, berated or even insulted. But everyone, even his own enemies, will know he is authentic.
On the other hand, no one has any use for a priest who speaks like a snake oil salesman, never disagrees with anyone if it costs even a shade of conflict, and limits himself to the most useless, trite banalities about social justice (for which we already have bad politicians galore), or “the joy of Christ” which strangely seems to exclude the fear of the Lord, or to the flattery of his own parishioners in the most sugary, cheesy, stupid way (“thank you for being you!” is one I will never forget).
Then of course the one or other is suspected of being a homo, or does not give any sign of testosterone ownership at all. They have suspiciously high-pitched voices, and an affected gentleness of ways unbecoming a man. When people are left wondering whether everything is in order with him, Father has already lost.
In order to be respected, a Catholic priest must be, in this order, a) a man and b) a Catholic. If the one or other component is lacking, the public (not only the Pewsitter) will see the guy for what he is: a fake, a pretense, an excuse of a priest. As a result, no one will respect him. Not the real Catholics, and not those outside the Church. Fake vocations have a way of stinking from very far away and in the same way as true revolutionaries can easily spot the fake revolutionary, true Catholics can easily spot the modern priest as a fraud.
No, I don’t think it has to do with education, as priests used to be respected by illiterate peasants and extremely well educated people alike. It has to do with the fact that Church has become almost unable to produce respectable priests, and produces instead unmanly social justice whinos no one would want to be identified with and whom no youth would take as a model.
Priests are often despised because they are often despicable. When the average quality improves the respect and reputation will grow, too.
Funny, isn’t it?
The Religion Of Man-Made Global Warming says the polar bears are dying. But the polar bears don’t know it, and they keep multiplying.
The fact-free, empty heads of the Liberals will surely find some reason to keep believing in their false religion.
Sane people – people who get up early in the morning, go to work, care for their home and family, cook for their children and teach them to pray – keep living in the normal world, which keeps going on in its normal way whilst good-for-nothing failed students and future failures in life keep obsessing about various stupidities, making profiteers a’ la Al Gore very rich in the process.
You just can’t eliminate stupidity.
One can’t avoid having sympathy for Padre Minutella, who – in the usual, pleasantly emotional Italian way, see the video above – has no timidity and, in fact, great courage in resisting to the heresies of our time.
However, there is a fundamental problem in father Minutella’s thinking. Whilst he has a traditional mindset, he is not – as he states (in English) here – a Traditionalist.
He is not a Traditionalist because he refuses to see in the very spirit, in the very idea of Vatican II the origin of the problem.
Padre Minutella is, in a way, an emotional version of Cardinal Ratzinger; sharing with him the belief that the problem is not the Second Vatican Council, but various manipulations or misrepresentations that followed it.
This is a big problem and I think that, in time, Father Minutella will understand it himself. Every “Ratzingerian” conservative is trying to sit between two chairs, of which one has rotten legs, all the while maintaining that the position is comfortable and, in fact, the only fitting one.
Best wishes to this courageous priest. But heavens, it is high time that he realises where all the problem originated, and stops thinking that the problem started in, say, 2013.
Please follow this link first and read the news about the (of course) anonymous Argentine theologian saying that what is wrong is wrong even if the Evil Clown says it’s right.
After that, let us reflect on the sorry state of the Church after 60 years of V II.
- The need to even state that a Catholic is not allowed to follow a teaching that does not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church is depressing. I do not blame the theologian. I blame the Argentinian (and all other V II) priests who have practiced Papolatry all these years.
- Just as depressing is the fact that the theologian feels the need to clarify that it is absolutely false to think that “they must now endorse the Buenos Aires approach under pain of heresy”. Apparently, some people think that being a heretic, nowadays, is not endorsing heresy.
- Francis’ Amoris Laetitia statements are called “novel teaching”. Would you call 2+2=5 a “novel teaching?” I would call it rubbish, not novel teaching. Francis spreads and defends heresy and it is time that theologians, anonymous or otherwise, start calling an evil clown an evil clown
Lack of clarity leads to confusion. To say to a confused (and very ignorant, and sorely in need of instruction) Catholic that Francis is proposing a “novel teaching” is very dangerous, because it gives to heresy the dignity of teaching.
Let our yea be yea. let us heresy by its proper name. Enough with walking on eggshells.
The Age of Confusion will only end when clarity of speaking take its place.
I am now imagining what would happen if the Evil Clown were to, say, officially declare Consubstantiation the official truth of the church, with “no other interpretation”. Say, with a letter to a Protestant leader published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Some would say that this is a publicly stated private opinion, and therefore does not really matter.
Others would state that Francis must be somewhat right, because there must be something that has been divinely revealed to Francis alone.
Some more still would say that Francis does not want to undermine the doctrine about Transubstatiation, but merely offer a pastoral interpretation of it.
Some others would say that the Sweet Peter on Earth is being badly advised by “the wolves”, profiting from his kindness of heart. He, himself, must be free of blame.
More still would say that the Pope was, really, talking off the cuff, though due to his advanced age he forgot to let us know.
We would be treated to “ten things to know and share”, at the end of which we would discover that everything is fine but the Pope should work on his syntaxis.
All the above would, obviously, call themselves “Conservatives”.
Cardinal Burke would give interview #327, stating that the end must be very, very near now; and doing, as always, nothing.