As we all know, everyone can perform a baptism in case of emergency. As we also all know, the Church is already beset by the sad phenomenon of women in the sanctuary, uncaring of what St Paul said about how they have to behave in the church.
If Fra’ Cristoforo is right, the Vatican is planning something of the sort with the future female “Deaconesses”. Basically, this would be what the Germans call “Etikettenschwindel” (a fraud based on false labelling): the “Deaconette” would have nowhere near (as it is unavoidable) Holy Orders, nor would she have any of the privileges and faculties linked exclusively to those. However, you can bet that this fundamental difference will be more or less lost – or at least willfully ignored – by the ignorant and the dumb out there, who would end up perceiving the Deaconette for what she is not, and she will never be: a sort of deacon in petticoat. Also, you can be sure FrancisPriests will do all they can to carve for their “Deaconettes” as broad a role as possible, possibly hoping said “deaconettes” do not notice the way they look at young boys. Sudeenly, the priest will be too busy with his social work to find the time to baptise. But don’t worry, “Deacon Fatty” will be there for you.
If the Church becomes as stupid as this, one wonders what prevents Pope Francis II Tagle to do the same with the priesthood: creating “wymyn priests” who aren’t priests, but are called that way so that the faithful may be confused. At this point, the way for the Bishopess and the Papess, who would appear together with their “male counterparts” by all kind of ceremonies, would be wide open.
Let us pretend Francis had never been born, and we lived in an age of orthodox Popes. If we were having a conversation asking ourselves, in a pure hypothetical manner, what could a Pope do to undermine Catholicism without becoming officially heretical, this one with the fake deaconettes (to be followed by fake priestettes) would be very much at the top of the list, albeit it would – in an age of orthodox Popes – sound somewhere between absurd, impious and comical. This is exactly what this rapscallion is doing: undermining Catholicism in any way he can, without (at least in this case) touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but damaging it from the outside as much as he can.
This is how sad our times have become. I suggest you stop giving even one penny to your Novus Ordo parish (and direct it to other worthy Catholic institutions, like the SSPX) as soon as this one here with the “Deaconettes” comes out.
I doubt most “Deaconettes” will run the risk of dying of starvation anyway.
Read on the Eponymous Flower about the new real estate purchases of the SSPX in the Esquilino hill (this is one of the seven hills, a very central and prestigious location, though yours truly prefers the Aventino by far). As always, I read these news for signs of “ceased alarm” (it’s not that I am really worried; it’s that we live in times when even organisation endowed with Sovereignty poop their pants at the first sign of FrancisAnger). The translated article has two messages for me, one good and one bad.
The good one is that the SSPX is buying the real estate. This is clear sign of, cough, independence from a rich and self-assured order. Instead of asking the Vatican “could you allow me to rent, for a very low price, some nice structure?” the approach seem to be “hhmmm, the agreement is approaching. We’ll need a pad in Rome with all the accoutrements. Let’s go shopping!”
The less good one is that Matzuzzi seems to consider it a given that there will be a cost in the form of “painful losses” among his “faithful and priests”, and I wonder what this means.
Firstly, is this a generic expression of things that might happen, or direct knowledge of things that will happen? Of course some isolated Williamson-style hardliner will walk, but does this qualify as “painful”?
Secondly, last time I looked the situation was that any agreement would have to be approved by the General Chapter of the SSPX. Not only this is an extremely strong guarantee that the order will not be sold, as you can’t this is also a strong indication that the agreement will be approved by a vast majority of the priests, it being inconceivable that a cabal of, say, 21 or 22 people decides to split the SSPX into two on this. Rather, the 40 voters will only support the agreement if they are aware of vast support among the ranks and files. I even seem to remember Bishop Fellay promised a direct vote on this, but I might be wrong.
A last point that I think should mention: whether the SSPX is incardinated in the Vatican hierarchy as a Personal Prelature or Apostolic Administration is not as important as the actual legal situation the SSPX will find itself in. It would appear a Personal Prelature would give the SSPX complete freedom from the authority of the bishops, but this is a moot point as every Personal Prelature could be shaped as the Vatican sees fit.
The important thing is to keep the control of a) the hierarchy and b) the assets. This way, in case of bullying the SSPX could walk away from the paws of the Pope en bloc, intact, and with the coffers full.
The news that a Personal Prelature in Opus Dei style would have been offered, and the Vatican’s demand that the V II documents be considered intrinsically “dogmatic”, or in any way binding, to all Catholics in all their aspects now set aside, clearly show that the controversy – at least the official one – is not about doctrine anymore.
Here is a big Vatican spider, inviting the fly to take place in the inclusive, very merciful net prepared for it, and perhaps expecting the fly to make itself at home in the net in the name of, I don’t know, “unity” or “reconciliation”, or however you want to call the fly’s assured destruction.
Not going to happen, says the SSPX. We are going to talk to the spider, and all; we are going to even hover near the spider if the spider has this desire. But we are not going to fly in any net, thank you very much.
This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.
As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment’s notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.
The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope’s ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.
If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually. They are already subject to the Pope in everything that does not undermine Catholicism or their own proper function. Therefore, if the SSPX would become “institutionally” subject to the Pope without losing control of their assets and chain of command, it would be impossible for Francis or any of his successors to subvert the organisation by, say, deposing their leaders, changing their statutes, and taking control of their assets.
Most people forget that the SSPX was, in fact, recognised and in perfect standing for several years, and became “rebellious” only when they were ordered to close their (at that time, only) seminary and – having control of their assets – plainly refused. This episode is far more enlightening than the more famous episode of “disobedience” with the appointment of the bishops, because it shows that if you have control over your chain of command and assets you have nothing to fear from the spider: you can walk away, intact, anytime.
This has happened once, and can happen again. Let the SSPX be formally subject to the Pope, and let them have the factual and legal ability to disobey if the Pope gives wrong orders; for example rescinding their organisational autonomy, ordering them to hand assets to the Vatican, deposing their leaders and so on.
Vatican saves face. SSPX saves autonomy and safety from the spider’s net. Everyone is happy.
Or at least, they should be.
Well, there is no good way to convey this.
The terrible news is here.
Vennari is (with Ferrara, Matt and Verrecchio), one of my Four Musketeers. One had a selfish hope he would stay with us for many years more.
It was a selfish hope. It appears the Lord has sent the message, that He wants Vennari with him at some point in the, alas, not too distant future.
Sad as the news is, one tries to see it from a broader perspective. A life of such beauty that goes now slowly towards its end should fill our hearts with consolation, not sadness. We will all be called one day, and I wish so ardently I could, if it came for me today, take the call with the serenity Mr Vennari shows in his post, and with the same quiet assurance of a life well spent.
God calls the good and faithful servants to him, that he may have them near. We, wretched sinners, will have to fight for who knows how long still, and I doubt we will go to our judgment with the same confident serenity of this good man.
John Vennari requests our prayers. Let us do for him a tiny fraction of the good he has done to all of us.
And let us pray that, one day, we may go to our Lord with the same strong faith he has graced us with, with the same serenity he shows in this hour, and with the same chances of salvation with which he will present himself to His Judge.
Please pray for John Vennari.
There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.
The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.
I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells.
The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking.
Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling.
And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”.
Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.
Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.
It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.
There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort.
Pope Francis had, with usual hypocrisy (I do not call him The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, or TMAHICH, for nothing) pretended he was on the sidelines during the synod, allowing the “debate” (including perversion, and sacrilegious undermining of Sacraments) and then intervening at the end like the good uncle who cares for orthodoxy.
Well, that was another blatant lie, as we all knew but is now officially official.
You must notice a couple of revealing elements here. Emphases mine:
1) Cardinal Baldisseri’s bomb: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence,” “Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
2) The reason Cardinal Baldisseri gives for dropping the bomb: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease,”
I can see a clear pattern here. Baldisseri is feeling the heat for his scandalous behaviour at the Synod. He is more or less fed up of being identified with it by all the mainstream Catholics (the informed Catholics know Francis was behind everything, because they think). He then separates his responsibility from the one of the Unholy Father, and lets the bomb drop: “don’t blame me”, he says, “this is Francis’ work”.
Baldisseri is obviously the little lapdog of Francis, but it is true that in this case the responsibility for the text lies entirely by Francis. Francis is in charge, Francis read, Francis green lighted the text, Francis answers for it.
Another difficult day for the Pollyannas, then.
But don’t worry. They are stupid enough. They will swallow new excuses.
The text of the relatio, and the scandalous events happened before and after, do demand that we pose the question: is this Pope homosexual?
The relatio post disceptationem was a piece of clearly homoerotic rubbish. It cannot have come from the mind of a normal, healthy, straight man because normal, healthy, straight men are disgusted by homosexuality.
Therefore, even Francis has such a dirty mind that he has some sort of lewd sexual excitement by mixing with sexual perverts (as the latest example of the Trannie has proved once again), or he is homosexual himself, and promotes the homo agenda at every step.
Either very lewd, or outright pervert. Tertium non datur.
I continue to pray for both his immortal soul, and the end of this pontificate.
Tomorrow 22nd February is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Whilst St. Peter’s feast day is the 29th June, the feast of the 22nd February is more directly aimed at celebrating the Petrine Office. This feast is, therefore, as Catholic as they come.
This feast day might be an occasion to explain to some non-Catholic in your circle of acquaintances why you are Catholic. When requested, I proceed more or less in this way:
1) And I say to thee: that Thou are Peter…. Jesus doesn’t say to Simon that he is a nice chap; or that he is very perceptive; or that he himself is surprised that among the apostles Simon was the only one to give the right answer to his question “Who do people say that I am?”. No, he changes his name and calls him a rock.
2) and upon this rock I will build my Church…. Jesus doesn’t say “I will build my first church”, nor does he say “I will build my provisional church”. Jesus picks a rock, and builds upon him One (1, Una, Eine, Une) Church.
3) and the gates of Hell shall not previal against it….. It, that is: the very same Church built on Peter, the “rock”. That one, and no other. Jesus doesn’t say “the Gates of hell shall, in around fifteen centuries, prevail against the Church I built on you”, nor does he say “the Gates of Hell shall prevail against the Church built on you but hey, let us be happy with a generic term of “church” so it can work even when yours goes astray”. He is very specific: he builds one Church upon one man and gives his promise of indefectibility to this – and no other – organisation.
4) And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven….. This is also dumb-proof: keys are a very obvious symbol of power and authority and it is clear here that Jesus is speaking with extreme solemnity. He doesn’t say to Peter: “Peter, you keep the key for the moment” or “look mate, gotta go; keep the keys until I find you or yours unworthy, will ya?”. No, this is a solemn promise evidently made for all times, as his just pronounced promise about indefectibility must make clear to the dumbest intellect.
5) ….and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For those who should at this point still not have gotten what is going on, Jesus becomes even more explicit: Peter has the keys, and the keys mean authority upon the faithful now and forever; an authority given in the most emphatic terms possible.
The meaning of these phrases; the clear solemnity Jesus gives to his words; the crescendo of emphatic declarations of such a broad and clear scope do not leave room for any possible doubt and as a result, Protestants have nowhere to hide. Whoever reads Jesus’ words with a minimum of intellectual honesty cannot avoid to recognise that the Only Church of Peter’s time (and of the following fifteen centuries) is the Only Church of today and that as a result whatever grievance against the men who run the Church does not change a iota concerning the position of authority of the Church. As to the complaint that some Popes were oh-so-bad (not much worse than many a tv-preacher I’d say, but laissons tomber….), Peter wasn’t immaculate either, but his shortcomings didn’t prevent Jesus from promoting him to rock of His Church.
To believe anything different from the fact that the Only Church founded by Jesus is.. the Only Church means to believe one or more of the following:
1) that Jesus made a mistake in founding His Church on Peter;
2) that Jesus was mistakenly persuaded that Peter’s successors would be good chaps, but had his toy ruined by the baddies who succeeded Peter;
3) that Jesus couldn’t count;
4) that Jesus’ words had a sell-by date, or
5) that Jesus made his promise of indefectibility without taking it seriously.
Or perhaps one could decide to read and understand the only possible meaning of such emphatically worded statements, as Jesus repeatedly made.
There is only One Church, folks. It’s the only one founded by Jesus. Simple, really.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Evil Clown “celebrates” the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter.
- The people, or actually the almost total absence of them. The Romans have more sensus catholicus than this old, lewd idiot.
- The nudity and revealing outfits, and the moves of the young women.
- The music. Again, this is the feast of the chair of Saint Peter. Please, Lord, make the man die soon.
- The prelates. Embarrassed and embarrassing. I think they were thinking point 3 above.
- The old creep wants to kiss the little girl at the end. Someone call the police.
This is what this lewd idiot has reduced the papacy to.
Can’t wait for the one below.
I used to be very angry when the Evil Clown used to spit his social justice fake gospel to the masses. In time, I started to notice the following:
- The man has lost the novelty factor
- He is so verbose, not even his atheist and communist friends will bother to read him
- He has now lost all prudence, further decreasing the danger caused by his propaganda
At this point even as an abortionist, atheist, drug addict “transgendered” Black Lives Matter activist you just wake up in the morning and expect from Francis this kind of crap just like people expect the sun to rise: an obvious event without any special significance.
Francis is mightily angry that after his many messages to the American people (and in particular American Catholics, whom in his stupidity he thought he could influence) inviting them to ditch Trump, his own sheep have decided this shepherd is either on drugs or in the hands of Satan, sending Trump to the White House instead. Actually, I suspect Francis might be even angrier because he realises that with his shameless abandonment of reason and common sense he has, in fact, directly contributed to Trump’s victory. The Lord has the finest sense of humour.
This shameless clown has become not only the joke of every Christian with a head on his shoulder; but he is rapidly tiring even those he so desperately wants to help.
The half time period of an Alinskyite Pope is rather short. The novelty wears fast, and what you are left with is an old commie idiot in white whom the mainstream media increasingly neglect, or mentions in connection with the anger he is causing to real Catholics.
You can be a decent Pope and you can be an Alinskyite one. What you can’t do is to be the latter and be considered the former.
Francis can keep vomiting Alinskyite crap as much as he wants. The game is up and he knows it, which is why he reacts losing all sense of decency.
I think Satan will punish people in hell by ordering them to stay near him, and forcing them to listen to him reading Amoris Laetitia.
It appears John Vennari’s health is rapidly deteriorating and the last rites have been received.
What a blessing it is to approach judgment after a life of literally fighting the good fight.
Please pray for him.
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!
After the unfortunate (or rather disgraceful) piece published by the SSPX with the public condemnation of the anonymous critics of the Pope, yours truly has published some old but, I think, valid considerations about the reasons for anonymity. It seems to me that whoever does not get the very simple concepts I have therein explained is being very naive in the best of cases, and very bad in the worst.
Also, please mind that my blog post was not meant as a defense of this little effort. I doubt the SSPX is even aware of my existence. However, the SSPX is certainly aware of the epic, but absolutely justified anti-Francis pranks in the last weeks (the posters and the fake Osservatore page), as well as of the well informed, anonymous, very critical posts published on Rorate Caeli in the past and signed by Don Pio Pace (an example is here. Every respectable search engine will give you others). In the last days we also had more explosive commentary from the excellent, anonymous Fra’ Cristoforo (this, dear readers, is Manzoni again!), who blogs in Italian in the aptly named site Anonimi della Croce. (“Anonymous Ones of the Cross”). All of them have intervened to target one man: the Evil Clown.
It is utterly amazing that after the Holy Ghost allowed Trump’s great victory in part through anonymous revelations to Assange’s WikiLeaks and even more anonymous hacking of John Podesta’s emails, there should be people who still prefer – when this is at no cost and no risk to them – to accuse of “cowardice” people who are giving an extremely precious service to Christianity. Would the anonymous author of the SSPX article have preferred that the “cowardly”, anonymous WikiLeaks hacker had never penetrated John Podesta’s emails? Words fail me.
Even more persuading is the argument appeared on Non Veni Pacem. : the organisation that justifies her own disobedience to the Pope in the name of the state of necessity is unable to understand, condone, or even not insult the in comparison extremely harmless disobedience of critics of probably the most Satan-friendly Pope in history? Really? Is the anonymous writer of the SSPX article unable to understand that we are living every day in a state of necessity the like of which Archbishop Lefebvre could only imagine in a very hypothetical way?
But there is more. The SSPX is, many say, about to be “reconciled” with the Vatican. Am I the only one who thinks that such initiatives should be avoided now more carefully than ever, in order to avoid even the suspicion that the SSPX may be trying to ingratiate themselves to Francis?
Not saying that this is the case, of course. But I do think that the SSPX should be above suspicion. I am sorry to say this, but right now they aren’t; at least some corners within them.
It would be smart to let that disgraceful article disappear. It would be even smarter to let it follow with the most brutal indictment of Amoris Laetitia, in a condemnation even worse than the comparison to the boat with a hole in its bottom. It would be smartest to accuse Francis of being a heretic again, renewing the accusation that he is a genuine Modernist , just in case anyone might be forgetting. Think of the words Bishop Fellay used on that occasion:
“Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”
Pretty clear, uh? This is the attitude we want to see from the SSPX, not the third-rate politicking at the expense of perfectly decent Catholics. We don’t need this kind of attitude from the SSPX. If they don’t like the anonymity of the pranks and the accusations, they should be decent enough to shut up about it.
I know, it’s the Proddie version. But I will take it every day in preference to Gay Mulatto expunging God from his speeches and working, now doubt also under the influence of Chewbacca, towards the eradication of Christianity from the U S of A.
I sense eight (and hopefully more) years of partial return to sanity. May the Lord guide and protect the First Man of the West, and his Christian wife.
It’s good to watch videos like the one above. They tell you there are still Catholics around. Actually, they tell you there will always be Catholics around. To paraphrase St Athanasius, the heretics may occupy our churches, but we will keep our faith.
In this matter of so-called communion for adulterers, there are a couple of things that always give me a light case of nettle-rash. Not saying they are both happening in this video. I just want to get this out of my system.
The first is describing the teaching of the Church as if had been created, or at least clearly affirmed for the first time, in Familiaris Consortio. I think I will scream next time I read that Familiaris Consortio is mentioned in this regard. As evidence of what the Church teaches, Familiaris Consortio is neither here nor there. The prohibition of communion for adulterers is based on the constant teaching of the Church, it is based directly on the words of Our Lord and has always been considered part and parcel of the Depositum Fidei. If, therefore, Familiaris Consortio introduced a novelty, then this novelty could be a heresy or a quasi-heresy like several other novelties introduced in V II-times encyclicals. If (as it is most certainly the case) JP II based his very words in Familiaris Consortio on the constant teaching of the Church, then it is this last element that must be constantly stressed, as it is infinitely more decisive than what one of the at times very bad, and at all times more or less questionable, V II encyclicals states.
Let the V II people try to explain everything with documents of the V II era. We should simply ignore them. Everything that is right and has a solid foundation in Catholicism can be explained without mentioning them, and everything that cannot be founded in pre-existing Church teaching is very probably wrong and in any way never to be trusted unconditionally. The only innovation not suspect of heresy or watering down of the faith introduced by V II I can think of is the invitation to the faithful to denounce heresy. But this is a logical consequence of the rise in education and literacy. Educated laymen were never requested to shut up when confronted with heresy.
Our (sound) Catholicism is based on what the Church has always believed, not on what JP II (rightly or wrongly) stated. If JP II alone can be the foundation of Church doctrine, than Francis can be it, too.
For this reason (and this is my second nettle-rush trigger), the mention from the man in the video that Francis might, in theory, announce a “change in discipline” is just plain wrong. Discipline cannot contradict doctrine. Therefore, Francis could never change discipline in such a matter. The only thing he could do is to proclaim heresy. This is something that I would like to see stressed more in the public discourse. Truths are immutable facts that can never be changed by way of “discipline”. They can only be attacked by way of heresy.
We are in a de facto schism, in which the Pope willingly allows cardinal to contradict cardinal and bishop to contradict bishop in matters that every child old enough to know what “adultery” is would understand without any difficulty.
Francis and Satan observe this happening without any meaningful reaction, and laugh.
At least for now.
In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.
1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.
2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.
3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.
4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.
5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.
6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.
7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).
8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.
9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.
10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.
This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.
Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.