God knows I think that both Francis and many of his – particularly progressive – Cardinals have no shame. But even I wasn’t prepared for the resignation debacle that we witnessed in Germany.
First, a cultural note. Germans aren’t Argentinians. If you pull a stunt like a resignation when you think you will remain in office, they will think (much) worse of you. “What we say, we must also do” is a liked quote over there.
Cardinal Marx resigned as a “gesture”, and remained in office. This will stay with him forever and he will, forever, be seen as a trombone, at least in Germany and by the people with some morality left, whatever their religious persuasion or lack of it. Something has gone wrong here, because this is not how you do it in Germany. In fact, I have seen third party video commentaries about Marx’s resignation, giving it as a fait accompli. This is how your typical German journalist (and citizen) thinks. You resign when you know your resignation will be accepted, then this is not a pro forma resignation. If this is not the case, you don’t resign.
So, I am thinking what might have happened here, and I have come up with some hypotheses. None of these is flattering for Marx, Francis, or the Vatican at large.
First: Marx wants to move to Rome. There are a couple of appetising Congregations available, and he tries to force Francis’ hand. He stages a grand resignation that makes him appear, after his “courageous” act, oh so suitable to lead from the front, in Rome. In this scenario, Francis ruins the party, as it appears Marx will be forced to stay in the shadow of the Theatinerkirche (and what a beautiful shadow it is!).
Second: Marx wants to go NGO, in order to hobnob with the really powerful of this earth. He will resigns and undergo self-martyrdom, then ask Francis for whatever authorisation and dispensation he needs to jet around the world. Again, if this was the plan, Francis wasn’t in agreement. The guy might have put him a bit in the shadow.
Third: Francis might have had plans for Marx in Rome, but he was peeved that Marx wanted to force his hands. So he decided to make him stay in Munich for as long as he pleases.
Fourth: Francis, who is – emphatically – not a German, does not care about stuff like, you know, doing what you say. Therefore, he suggests to Marx that he makes the grand gesture, in order to strengthen the progressives in the ongoing German Schism Saga. Perhaps Francis leads Marx to believe that he is exactly what is needed in Rome in order to move him to resign. Then he screws the guy, with a stunt that looks very stupid in Germany if Marx does not go, but is probably quite the event in places like South America, or wherever people without integrity live.
I still have the impression that something went wrong here, as this is so cheap it’s even below Francis’ standards.
Still, they have no shame, so you don’t know what they invent if they are bored.
Marx looks, as it stands now, very stupid as if he knew that Francis “needs him at his place” and would make him stay, with whatever excuse, he should not have resigned in the first place.
Francis looks like, well, Francis.
We all look like we can’t wait for these people to go away.
The golden words (also cited by Father Z) in the article (which is long and very instructive, in an alarming way) are:
No one wants to wife a sex expert.
I have written about this several times, and have tried to imprint in the minds of my younger readers (particularly female readers; but also male readers, if they are tragically blue-pilled) the following concepts:
First: every sexual partner of a woman diminishes her value in the eyes of the following partner
Second: the ideal number of sexual partners for a woman is either zero (if unmarried) or one (if married).
Feminists don’t get that, because they are, fundamentally, childish and stupid besides being great, great sluts (more about this later). Feminists are like cats who want to bark because dogs do it. What they don’t understand is that a barking cat is an impossibility, and a cat pitifully attempting to bark (which cats don’t do, being smarter; but feminists do, being dumb) becomes a ridiculous object of pity.
At the root of the issue is this simple fact: that men can sleep with a variety of women and (sinful as it is) feel great, whilst women cannot sleep with a variety of men without feeling cheap, used and, in a word, sluts. That’s the human nature, boys ‘n girls. You can protest as much as you want, you won’t change the basic facts.
Feminism rejects basic facts. The desire to bark (because dogs do it) and the desire to have multiple sexual partners without feeling slutty (because men do it) pushes them towards a promiscuity that they see (because, remember: they are stupid) as a reaction to an oppressive, patriarchal society, and as a prejudice that can be fought against, and conquered, by creating the Age of the Slut.
Once sluttishness has been deprived of its stigma, they reason, Prince Charming will gladly marry Mud Black, happy in the certainty that she is the woke, better version of the Snow White of his ancestors. Alas for them, it does not work in that way, because sex roles and sex differences are in-built and divinely ordained, not the product of a social structure artificially created by religion and “male oppression”.
So, Feminist becomes a big, big slut, and desperately tries to overcome her feelings of sluttishness (which are, clearly, human nature being what it is, still there…) by being more of a slut and condemning slut-shaming.
Here, my friends, lies, if you ask me, the crux of the matter; an issue, in fact, which the author of the linked article has just been unable to see.
Simply put: Feminist slut will introduce her daughter to Xtreme Sluttishness is order to avoid that her daughter realises what a miserable slut she is. She will just not run the risk of her daughter telling her, one day, “dear mum, I want to be the woman of one man and be happy in my monogamous marriage; both because I feel that I was born for it and because I see what a wretch of a woman and a sad, pathetic human being you, yourself, have become”. This is, for every feminist, the horror scenario, the total destruction and demolition of her entire life; made worse by that nagging, unconfessed feeling that, in fact, such a daughter would be right.
This, I think, and no other, is the reason for the early sexualisation of the feminists’ daughters. It’s nothing to do with abortion, because a feminist thinks nothing of an abortion. It’s to do with the total and complete annihilation of her reputation in the eyes of the person they – in their own selfish way -love most.
Therefore, daughter will have to become a big, big slut, the sooner the better. The rising “cock count” (yes, girls: this is how men think; as well they should!) of the younger slut will then bind mother and daughter with a chain of lived feminism and shared filth (for whose feelings of guilt “Patriarchy” and, who knows, “White Supremacy” will be easily blamed) that will last a lifetime.
It’s not abortion. It’s the terror of growing a sane daughter.
One who knows that no one wants to wife a sex expert.
“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous”: Some Reflections On The Imprecatory Psalms
Like the quotation in the title? No?
The one in the picture here above? Neither?
What about this:
Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.
What do you say? Unchristian? You know this is called, and rightly so, “the word of God”, right?
Or perhaps you think these are single statements taken out of context? How about this:
Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: 10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth. 11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna: 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession. 13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. 14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; 15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. 16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD. 17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
You have already understood that I could go on for very long, but I think I have made my point. Any search for Imprecatory Psalms will give you a wealth of quite robustly written, testosterone-laden but, crucially, Divinely ordained and Divinely inspired quotes to impress your friends at a party, if we will ever have parties again.
As you might have noticed, this little effort delights in distributing little Catholic red pills around, and in shocking and scandalising his new readers before it makes them, hopefully, think smartly about Catholicism for the first time in a long while. Therefore, I would like to spend some words on these beautiful, if nowadays studiously avoided, Imprecatory Psalms.
Preliminary consideration: do not think that this is all Old Testament “stuff”, and Jesus started “to do things differently”. The New Testament is the completion of the Old one, it is not in contrast to it. The truth remains the truth, and does not change with the Incarnation. The Old testament is as much the word of God today as it ever was, but now it is inserted in a completed, perfected frame of reference. If you have any doubt, have a thorough read of a Gospel of your choice and looks for the many times Our Lord expresses Himself on several occasions with such brutality, that every milquetoast PC guy of our times would not hesitate in calling him all sorts of vile names, obviously in the name of “lurv”, or “peace”. I have written often about this, so feel free to scour this blog for the fruits of my efforts.
Once made clear that this stuff is not “outdated”, let us reflect on why what we know must be right is, in fact, right. This will require, alas, the ingestion of a number of red pills that I have just here with me, and that I will proceed to give to you now.
You are welcome.
- The Imprecatory Psalms were seen as totally normally, and logical, in manlier times. But we now live in the Age Of The Concerned Man, and this man will look for a shallow “goodness” in all the wrong places. Yes, it’s the lack of testosterone. All that soy milk, and no red meat at all. Terrible. If you suffer from the soy milk affliction, I suggest the introduction in your diet of copious quantities of red meat, fairly rare – actually, dripping blood – for a while. Just for the experience, you know.
- The Imprecatory Psalm caused no scandal in times in which people got angry at those who offend God. Why? because they loved Christ. In modern times, people love themselves first, second, third and 237th, though they call this “tolerance”, “inclusion” and many other fashionable but hollow sounding names. However, they don’t love Christ. Imagine asking your garden variety parish priest around, say, 1931, whether the Imprecatory Psalms have a place in the Bible. Note: those priests didn’t drink soy milk, either.
- As we aren’t Proddies, we read Scripture within the frame of Catholic doctrine. It is obvious that the punishment called upon the wicked is not the fruit of an unguarded moment, or even of a Friday night escapade. It is, rather, the fruit of hardened, insisted, ideological enmity with God. It is, so to speak, what you know is going to happen to Reprobates who are quite bad even as Reprobates go. We pray for our enemies. I pray even for darned Francis. The Imprecatory Psalms describe, evoke and call for what happens when that fails.
- The Imprecatory Psalms are not personal. David is not calling for God’s vengeance upon his dishonest plumber, the mailman who keeps opening and reading his subscriptions, or the guy who stole his smartphone. His (and God’s) anger is (and shall, at the appointed time, be) directed at God’s enemies. Hostility against God makes the good man’s blood boil. See above: red meat. Also see above: love of Christ.
- With their very existence, the Imprecatory Psalms alert us to a simple facts: at times those who seem “rude” or “violent” or “hateful” are, actually, on the side of Christ. Those, on the contrary, who preach their fake gospel of lurv, inclusion and – most popular nowadays – “niceness”, are those who make the work of the devil. This is very interesting, because niceness has now – in parallel with the disappearance of the real article – become a veritable religion, with his very own priests. You have, I am sure, met many of them.
There. Five Red Pills to swallow with some water and digest calmly.
I think they will be very useful.
There is far too much soy milk around.
Pope Francis, without a doubt the most ridiculous piece of work ever to unworthily sit on the throne of Peter, has, once again, piddled outside of the pissoir. We are now informed that “Jesus becomes bread”.
I would like to examine the man behind this utter piece of theological crap from several angles.
First: this man is deeply, profoundly ignorant of everything that has to do with Catholicism. A child of six might buy the “Jesus becomes bread” heresy (“impanation”, I learned today; it’s amazing how many stupid people have preceded us; however, they weren’t Popes); a child of ten would understand that something is deeply wrong with the concept, and a confirmed boy of fifteen would think, probably rightly, that Francis smoked too many illegal substances during his wasted life.
Second: the arrogance. This is a guy who, being Pope, does really not care a straw if he says something deeply heretic concerning the Transubstantiation. It is obvious that he does not allow anybody to correct him, or to check him when he wants to say something that sounds cool to him. Too proud to ask for review of his theological stunts, but also – and very obviously – too arrogant to care anyway.
Third, the heresy: Francis has stated something officially sanctioned as heretical. That’s it. It’s on record. It’s official. Even if the heresy was unintentional (I am persuaded it was due to ignorance, arrogance and stupidity, not the will to spread the heresy of “impanation”), when a Pope expresses himself, unintentionally, in a heretical way (something that would, in a sane world, not ever happen in the first place) he should at least immediately have an unequivocal statement issued, possibly apologising and begging Christ for forgiveness for his appalling mistake, as a Pope. But no. The guy does not believe in “doctrinal rigidity”, you see.
Last: the stupidity. I have said many times, and repeat today, that this man is deeply, profoundly stupid. Even not believing in God, as he certainly doesn’t, and hating the Church, as he certainly does, a man with a better intellect would simply avoid making an ass of himself all the time. Francis isn’t like that. He doesn’t care for what he says, he is too arrogant to ask for help in not looking dumb, and is too stupid to realise he does.
I always have this image of Francis: that it is as if the cranky old man every rural village in Italy has (the godless, arrogant, stupid, ever complaining dumbass giving everyone a piece of his mind and treated with mild, half-amused contempt by the villagers) would suddenly become Pope. Upon becoming Pope, that guy would think, talk and act just like Francis, as countless examples of his boorish stupidity have shown to us.
In Francis case, he has gone, in some mysterious way, through many years of theological studies. At this point, I’d say he has clearly spent them playing cards with some buddy of his, or smoking pot, or doing who knows what else, certainly not caring to learn the first thing about Catholicism.
This guy joined the Jesuits to scrounge an existence. If you still haven’t got it, I wonder how you can go through life without being taken advantage of by everybody, starting with your dog.
Francis has stated the planet only has ten years to avoid catastrophe.
In my mind, the real catastrophe would be ten more years of Francis.
The Evil Clown has given us another example of the completely Catholicism-free way he sees the Church. It seems that for this guy, the Church is a sort of meeting place, where everybody feels good just because nobody is left out.
Like so much that this man spouts, this is claptrap that will likely sound good to non-Christians (like Atheists, or Father Martina), but in the end means absolutely nothing.
So, let’s say we all gather in the same Francisspace. We “celebrate around Christ”. We don’t leave out anyone.
Soon, the issue will arise: what if some celebrate Christ by believing the Creed, and some think they can “celebrate Christ” but don’t? Will we keep “celebrating Christ” with those who, say, reject Christ’s Divinity? Would this not, to any Christian, be an offence to Christ?
It obviously goes on from there to every aspect of life. Shakinna is a transsexual, pansexual Fruitarian betrothed to her female dog, Arafatta. She thinks that Christianity is pure evil, and Christ was very cruel in eating carcasses of dead animals. She also thinks that he was homophobic, transphobic, and pansexualphobic. Still, she demands admission because she thinks that everybody should be included everywhere, in the spirit of Pandyka, the Great Dyke In The Sky, and Francis’ words about not letting anybody out (she obviously likes Francis, as men go) impressed her. What do you have in common with her? Why would you want her to breath the same air you do? Isn’t telling her to to stay the heck out, at least for as long as she keeps her opinions, the Christian things to do?
You see: words like inclusion are very easily said, and never fail to impress those who don’t believe in anything. But it isn’t so easy.
If you love Christ, you will have to exclude. If you don’t want to exclude, you don’t love Christ.
Francis clearly doesn’t love Christ. I actually thinks he does not even believe in Him, or he would be utterly terrified of what happens to him after his death (hopefully, today). I don’t think he is a Satanist, either, though there is nothing, absolutely nothing that would shock me in this human being. The way I see it, he is most of all an ungrateful, atheist scrounger who resents the hand (the Church) from which he got a comfortable, respected, well cared-for existence whilst not believing in anything he was taught about Her. Now, come to the top, he can’t resist grating all those pesky Catholics, whom he hated all his life, just out of spite and evil spirit.
Still, my dear readers, and as tragic as the event is, this guy is, actually, the Pope, whatever fantasies you may want to sooth your pain with.
What we learn from the events of this tragic Century is not that we should, now, all become mini-Popemakers. It is that this state of things must move us to reflect on the cause of the mess, and the cause can be described with one word and one word only: Aggiornamento, the harmless-sounding Trojan Horse of all heresies.
Francis is the vomit meant to make Catholics understand that the poison of Vatican II is not good for them. The more they keep not understanding, the more they will have to vomit and the worse the impulse to vomit will become. At some point, by God’s Grace, things will start to change.
The escape into parallel realities is not the answer. The answer is the lucid examination of what is happening, and the reasoned, sensible, logical conclusion as to why it is happening.
Well, the reading of this article was not as depressing as I had thought. It appears, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, some Jesuits are still Catholic.
They are still ostracised by their organisation, of course, and one wonders what they had to stomach during their formation. Still, and encouragingly so, if the rumour is confirmed not all the new recruits are obvious fairies like that Jemima Martin guy. In fact, the article mentions not one, but several orthodox Jesuits in one go.
Shall we say: unexpected.
But no worries: the place is still a cesspool. Substituting “for God and His Christ” with “men and women for others” only points out to the obvious: the loss of faith means the religious becomes a social worker. At the same time, the faithless “social worker” environment becomes an excellent destination for the Jemima Martin of this world, who get to scrounge an existence at the expense of faithful both dead and alive whilst indulging in their favourite social work: sodomy.
You might ask me how to deal with this. My answer is very simple: abolish the order. Then, set on the calendar the year 2121, or perhaps 2171, to examine whether the order might be started again. But seriously, there is no rush, as the stink spread by these people will take a while to disperse.
Of course, the abolition should be accompanied by a veru close examination of the activity of these people, ending with the fast defrocking of the Jemimas and the slow defrocking of those who are found to have all or some of his afflictions after more careful examination. For example, a guy like this one was clearly born not to turn lives, but to flip burgers.
Let us not forget, by the way, that the toxic Jesuit environment gave us the most toxic Pope, ev-ah. This alone would merit them abolition.
Still: 25 new Jesuits this year in the US and Canada.
Who knows, the majority might be straight?
So you want to write about Catholicism, because you love Christ and His Church and want to give your little contribution in these disturbing times. Congratulations. More power to you. High five, and all that.
I would like, here, to give some little, very personal suggestions about how to make it work. There are people still reading this blog after eleven years, so perhaps I know one thing or two. So there we are:
- Get a day job
Unless you are a priest, or a bishop, I am not sure that living out of your faith is really a good idea. It can work for some, it will not work for most. The fact is: conflicts of interests will be everywhere. Say, Traditionalism goes out of fashion and you have a family to feed. What do you do, start chanting Kumbaya? I would suggest that a day job giving you the authentic independence to write what you want is the best thing to do. Mind, you might make it work the other way, too. But I think you are making your life difficult.
2. Write anonymously
Be smart, young boy (or girl). History goes in cycles, and we might be on a trajectory that leads to persecution. I love history, and have been around the block a couple of times. I think I can spot historical cycles better than many. The danger of being in a persecution cycle was clearly there when I started blogging, and it has certainly increased in the last years. It is already manifesting in several, more or less subtle ways. I am not sure that real, all-out, brick-hard persecution is coming at some point, but the danger is a clear and present one. A good Catholic tries to exercise the virtue of prudence and does not invite persecution. You have decided to follow points 1 and 3 (below), so this one is not an issue anyway.
3. Get your ego out of your blog
Your friends don’t need to know that you are blogging. You don’t need to advertise yourself as a Catholic blogger or writer. In heaven, everybody knows who you are anyway. You don’t need to see your name in print. Your job is to help others, not aggrandize yourself. Point 3 is very important. I lost count of the times I saw this part blatantly ignored. If you follow point 2, point 3 will be so much easier. On your death bed, I think you will be happy of having followed both point 2 and point 3.
4. Get your issues out of your blog
Believe me, young boy (or girl). People really, really don’t care about your back ache, or the flu you had, or the moods of your cat. They don’t relate to your “daily journey”, and don’t want to read tedious accounts about how the quarrel with your dog, Hannibal, made of you a better dog-owner and, by reflection, a better Catholic, teaching you how we can learn from the wisdom God has given to dogs. The same goes, cela va sans dire, for your finances. People click your blog for inspiration, not to hear you whine. Ask for prayers, and let your readers pay you with them. These are the only finances your blog should be worried about.
5. Have a strong and well-formed faith, or avoid wasting your time.
Catholic blogging is for people who, bluntly stated, know what they write and have no doubts. If you have doubts, have the decency of not writing. No doctors prescribed you to write a blog, and everybody has his own calling. If you have doubts, Catholic writing is not your calling. Sorry to burst your bubble, pal, but you are making tiramisu’ with mascarpone gone bad here, so don’t ask other people to eat your dessert. Writing about your doubts is even much, much worse than having them, as it violates points number 3 and number 4, besides helping the devil. This is, to keep the metaphor, making tiramisu’ with dung instead of cocoa, eating it in public, and ask people to give a thought about eating it, too. How some people lack the basic decency of understanding that what counts is the Church, not their damned, ego-driven doubts, is beyond me. Again, every time I read this stuff I think this is the devil at work, leveraging on the writer’s ego. Believe me, points 2 and 3 are very, very smart.
6. Stop caring about your clicks
You follow 2 and 3, so you don’t care about fame or clicks. You have the freedom to write what you want, when you want it, and only when you think there is something that you should say. You don’t need to write a gazillion times about Francis having said something stupid, or worse, for the gazillionth time. Your readers know it. Write for the Blessed Virgin. She is the only reader you need to care about.
7. Keep your blog clean
You are not a newspaper. You are not a discussion forum. You don’t need to answer to everyone. You don’t need to give a voice to anyone. You don’t run a democracy. Cull mercilessly all the pests, the trolls, the doubters, the witches, the professionally offended, and the PC crowd. Your space is not for them. They have no right to be in it. Kick them out and live a relaxed life. Again, you follow points 1,2,3 and 6 already, so this one is quite natural.
There, I think it’s enough. I can’t imagine how a blogger who follows these points can write a blog that is not useful to his readers or well received in heaven. As we are all sinners (God knows I am!), we can all need some deposits in our eternity checking account (or, shall we say, “checking out account”).
So, there it is. If you liked this, it costs you a Hail Mary. If you start a blog because of this, I want the entire Rosary.
Cardinal Marx has happily decided to free the Catholic world of his very un-Catholic presence. I, for myself, will welcome the event, then it seems to me to be an event worthy of celebration that a bad man goes away, irrespective of how bad his successor will be. For this reason, please be informed that a very expensive bottle will be bought when Francis either follows Marx’s example (please, God!) or departs from this vale of tears (please, God!).
We can speculate about the real motives for this decision, aside from the outlandish explanation he has given. One thing that comes to mind is that he had skeletons in the closet and was made to go against the promise of the skeletons remaining there. Another, perhaps more likely, is that the man realised that in the actual climate in Germany he could not escape – the job still being what it is – becoming the bad guy of the people for whom he cares most, and decided that it wasn’t fun anymore. The third is that he wants to do something else that is not compatible with being a Cardinal – say, being involved in more directly political initiatives – and decided to stage a wannabe noble exit. Who knows what the real motives are.
But wait: was the exit, actually, noble? Well, no. Not in the least. It was, in fast, another wordly act of virtue signalling staged by an obviously very worldly man. A man who, if he had been a Catholic, would have considered his duty to stay at the helm until the last, and die in it if needs be, rather than taking on himself the sins of others, by the way in a veiled accusation of cowardice and attachment to power to all, and I mean all, his German colleagues.
In fact, I will go out on a limb and suggest that his example is now followed by all of them. Let all German Bishops resign, in a collective act of purification.
We would not lose many Catholics, and we would get rid of an awful lot of really awful people. Seems a fair deal to me.
Marx is gone.
Today at least, the Church is a better place.
I must apologise to my readers. I must, also, make a very important outing.
I “do” obedience.
Obedience means a couple of things of which I should be, reading around, almost ashamed as backward and bigoted, certainly very low-key. It’s good that I don’t have to write about Catholicism to put some pasta on my table. Boy, I would be in trouble.
Let us, for example, take this “wrestling with God” stuff. I don’t know, it must be Protestant?
In my culture (Catholic Country, you know) this kind of thinking is just not there. God being Infinitely Just and you being Infinitely Small, wrestling with Him makes you, inter alia, Infinitely Dumb.
But then again you see where it comes from. The very idea that one would be entitled to do such a thing for whatever reason that grates his oh so developed sensitivity smells of devil like Francis smells of arrogance and vulgarity. It’s just too obvious to overlook.
We must be, first of all, obedient and submissive. There is nothing cool in questioning this obedience and submission. It does not make you a cool guy. It makes you a cretin.
Then there is the other trope that always riles me up, the “searching for answers” routine. I mean, not the natural reaction of the guy who, upon being told he has incurable cancer, reacts with a “why me, Lord” of understandable, but hopefully temporary, disorientation. No, I mean the searching for answers that, actually, says “why you, Lord”. The questioning of God’s wisdom. The questioning, again, of one’s own duty to obedience.
Forgive me, again, for my naivete. I realise I will never be among the cool guys. But in my simple mindedness, I do think that the Church has already given us all the answers we need, and has given us beautiful Mysteries for the ones we don’t.
My job in this life is not to wrestle, but to serve; and not to question, but to obey.
All the rest, my friends, is of the devil, and the devil will do irreparable damage if we allow him to. The devil will, as I see written around with great waste of pixels, leverage one’s ego and try to slowly turn a soul, which at this point fancies itself so good and deep, against God.
I know that I already have, through the wisdom Holy Mother Church has given us, all the answers I am ready to have, and will have when I die the ones I am, now, not in a position to receive. I also know that I want to die in full obedience to God, and pray that He may give me the grace to never even begin to question His work.
In this, my friends, it’s not only an important ingredient of the cake called Salvation; but great peace, too.
The kind of contentment the devil will never be able to give.
One of the advantages of not writing professionally is that I do not have endless hours to write about how this or that member of the clergy displeased me. Granted, I have been displeased less than others; still…
I see the matter as very simple. The Church is the Bride of Christ, given to us by the Latter to help us in our way towards, hopefully, salvation. If a priest or a bishop, or twenty o them, tried to abuse me in various ways, I love to think that I would not react very kindly to their behaviour; still, I hope that, even after clergyman number twenty tries to abuse me, I would not doubt the sanctity and the truth of the Church.
You see: you can call me a dreamer, or a romantic; but to me, the Church is represented by those thousands of canonised saints – pre- Francis, obviously – and by the countless souls now in heaven or purgatory, not by Francis and the many evil religious currently walking around.
People should never allow anyone to lessen their faith in the Church, because the Church has not been given to us by people.
So, where does this leave me when not even the Our Father is safe from clerical attack? Where it always left everyone who, before me, was confronted with heresy.
Tradidi quod et accepi.
There is, in our little mission, not much more than working on the salvation of ourselves and our beloved one, and defending the truth that we have received.
This truth is as solid as granite. The Traditional Latin Mass is, likely, more solid than Granite. I do not doubt the TLM because the officiating priest is bad. I can and will doubt the bad priest, not the Church inside which it operates.
I am a simple man, mind, and I do not mind a bit of quite banal, but consequential, analysis of what is happening: the Church is getting mad, and this is the challenge of my lifetime. Others had other challenges, from war to pestilence, but I have this one.
It has not been given to me to live in a time of sanity. I have to live, and die, in a time in which people think that a man can be a woman, and dogmas are bad for the Church.
I still prefer this to pestilence, though, so I count my blessings and soldier on, no matter what priests, bishops or Popes do.
One day, if all goes well, I will be admitted to join the saints.
That day, all this madness will be utterly irrelevant.
No, my dear readers. I am not drunk, or drugged, or in any way impaired in my ability to reason. I assure you I feel, actually, quite fine.
The reason I have, today, the extremely unpleasant duty of defending the Evil Clown is the criticism directed towards him after a joke he made.
My take on the joke is as follows:
- I am pretty sure that, in provate, Popes have always made jokes about salvation. It would be sad it they didn’t, but in fact I am pretty sure that every Pope with a sense of humour would joke (operative word is here: joke) about hell. You see, my dear readers: Catholics aren’t Protestants! They are quite relaxed about such things. If you have a problem with that, it’s you who are protestantised, and you need to a) relax more than a bit, and b) stop signaling virtue.
- One might say that Francis was talking to a microphone. Therefore, this wasn’t a private joke among friends. However, as a journalist you can not be OK (as pretty much everybody of these virtue signaling people is) with the “off the cuff” papal remarks, and then complain that you didn’t like a joke.
As always, some people have a complete lack of sense of humour, coupled by the desire to show how good they are. Heavens, Pius X (if memory serves) had himself photographed relaxing in the garden, smoking a pipe (which is not a sin, by the way), and apparently quite satisfied with the moment. In those times, in which the Pope had no public appearance that wasn’t official and solemn, I have no doubt this bunch would have, if they had lived then, expressed the same complaint.
And what to say of that Pope (again, I think it was Pius IX, but don’t quote me on that) who “blessed” the visiting delegation of Anglicans with the words “Ab illo benedicaris in cuius honore cremaberis”, “May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you shall be burned”? I found it a wonderful joke, the more refined because the learned Anglicans appeared not to get it. But yes, a joke, a joke nevertheless.
Francis not only has problems, but – tragically – he is the problem. I think, in him, we have a much bigger issue than a joke about drinking Brazilians.
This professional offence taking needs to stop. Even when Francis is its target.
What Do Miniskirts-Wearing Heretical Women And Priestly Formation Have In Common?
One answer to the question in the title is, obviously, “nothing”.
One other answer is “Cardinal Woelki”, as the man has appointed a miniskirt-wearing, heretic woman to the head of the “Direction of Studies in the Formation of Priests and Deacons”.
The miniskirt-wearing lady will, therefore, have some sort of say, and certainly some sort of influence, in what seminarians study.
You might say: “come on, Mundabor. Don’t be that guy! She might be wearing miniskirts at times, but she is a right-thinking woman, surely?”.
Well, is she? Let us examine this quote from the linked article:
..her answer to the question what beliefs about death she has thrown overboard, “The old doctrine of the separation of body and soul
Let us pay attention here: the interviewer is clearly posing a faux-fashionable question, something that must be quite OK in German “catholic” circles: where is it that you deviate from what all generations before our have believed?
The miniskirt lady does not even think of answering to the interviewer whether he/she feels well, considering that she is a Catholic and she will obviously believe (forgetting miniskirts for a moment) all that all generations before hers have believed. No, she actually feeds the interviewer with something meant to indicate that she is, you see, an independent woman!
The idea that, at death, your souls stays in your coffin, or in your urn, or at the bottom of some ocean is quite in contrast with what the Church has always believed: that at death, a soul goes immediately to its judgment, up or down as they case may be. This is, besides being logical, so foundational that it is a mystery to me how any woman who is not thinking with her legs may disagree.
But hey, these are the people whom Cardinal Woelki think should have a say in how priests are formed.
One thing we know: Germany is in deep, deep doodoo.
I do not even know whether this madness happens in Continental Europe, though I suspect something of the sort might happen, in slow motion, in the UK.
However, it appears that, in the United States, some boy can decide to have his balls cut at eighteen and it will happen pretty fast, and without anyone daring to question the wisdom (or, rather, the sanity) of the decision and of the rapidly following surgery.
The same happens, of course, in the other direction, with breasts being taken away like they are tonsils, and the mad girl then discovering that, would you ever believe it, there’s something missing down (or, rather, up) there.
One of the things that angers me most is when people who are supposed to be conservative import and normalise the insane language of their adversaries. For example, this happens anytime they mention “gender dysphoria” as anything but a manifestation of a grave mental disorder; a disorder which, in past times, was called just being raving mad.
Could, in these cases, a doctor help? Perhaps, sometimes, he could. But make no mistake: as this is the work of the devil, the right cure is prayer, not some alleged medical “science”. “Science” is, in this, just as mad as on many other issues.
A willie makes you a male. A little guitar makes you a female. It’s as clear as the sun. If anybody thinks he can change his sex, to me it’s like asking that the sun be obscured in order to leave more space to the moon.
So we read a pearl of wisdom like this one:
I started to have a really disturbing sense that like a part of my body was missing, almost a ghost limb feeling about being like, there’s something that should be there.
Yeah, well, yeah, like, you should have switched your brains on, like, earlier.
This particular case will, I think, end up in litigation.
It works in this way:
Mad girls wants to be amputated. Doctors doesn’t dare to say anything, because he could be cancelled and find himself unemployed and unemployable in no time. So if doctor dares to oppose mad girl, all the “advocacies” of this world will throw around a lot of adjectives ending in “phobic”. If doctor does not dare to oppose mad girl, girl will, after a while, discover that her madness is not cured with a mad amputation and will, like, yeah, ask to, like, go back to her old madness as far as practicable and, like, sue for the rest.
As a doctor, you can’t win.
As a mad girl (or boy), you will lose every time.
Welcome in the very inclusive, raving lunatic XXI century.
There are alarming rumours about the possible half-castration of the already half-castrated Summorum Pontificum.
I think the SSPX will not be devastated, at all.
Apparently, NuChurch is very scared of the constant increase of SP Masses and its increased adoption by young priests. So, NuChurch does what is always does: it tries to stop the mounting tide with the bucket, like children used to do before they became too busy with their smartphones.
Newsflash: you can’t stop a tide with a bucket. The only thing you can do is to look like a child.
The Church thrives in times of persecution. Tradition cannot hope of a better way to cause it to flourish than some half-thought measures like the ones now rumoured. If these people weren’t children, they would realise why organisations like the FSSP exist in the first place : in order to try to counter the vast rise in popularity of the SSPX.
The same principle will, no doubt, find application here. If these stupid ideas are carried out, they will only result in increased popularity of the traditional orders, increased demand for traditional masses, and increased opposition to this bunch of heretics and perverts daring to tell us that the mass of the ages is not good for us.
I am curious to see how stupid these people really are, nor do I expect any help, apart from the usual meowing, of the usual suspects like Cardinal Burke.
Only a fool thinks he can stop Christ.
The line above, if you copy and paste it on your browser, will lead you to the most shocking video you have ever seen: a video recording of an abortion as it happens; so to speak, “live”. I think from the video you might see more details about the pro-life organisation which posted it on Gloria Tv; I did not manage to embed the video together with the source, apologies to the posters for not getting the credit.
This is, without any doubt, the most shocking video I have seen (just jumping around the video; it truly is unbearable) in my entire, not-so-short life. I thought I was about to vomit. Do not get near this unless you feel up to the task.
No words, no matter how strong, about abortion can match the atrocious reality.
It is, therefore, fitting that the atrocious reality be made available and spread,
lest the delicacy of our palates leads to more deaths of innocents; and what an atrocious death it is.
We live in the middle of a holocaust.
We should not be worrying about delicacy.
Smash this video in the face of your abortionist (not “pro-choice”; abortionist, as “a person who enables abortions) acquaintances.
Quarrel with people!
Obsess about abortion!
Or, as that guy said…
Ah, the giiiiifts of the spiiirit. They are blowing on Francischurch again!
To understand what is about to happen, you need to recall what I have said many times now about the Evil Clown: he hates the Church, wants to disrupt it as much as he can, but will not risk being deposed.
Enter the Two Years Long Synod. This is a process of institutionalised invitation to heresy, by which the dioceses first will be invited to express every heretic opinion and propose every heretical change that the satanical spirit of heresy and enmity with Christ has suggested to them.
Francis will be very happy with the mayhem that follows. Hagan lio!
At the end of the first phase, the results of the blowing of the satanical spirit of rebellion to Christ will be compared with those who, in some ways, are still recognisably Catholic. There will be strong words, (justified) accusations of schism, a mess likely with little precedent in the history of the Church as the Bride of Christ descends into the same huge mud fight that we have been seeing for many years now among Protestants.
Francis will be very happy with the mayhem that follows. Hagan lio!
At the end of the second phase, there will be the third phase. In this phase, the warrying factions will converge on Rome, when Francis (if he still alive, which I truly hope he will not be) will do the usual Francis thing: he will make decisions that cause as much damage as possible to the Church, tamper with the Sacraments, perhaps even sanction some sort of “non-blessing but really, really understanding accompaniment” for perverts, whilst avoiding a mass revolt against him; which, in a world in which Burke is considered anything more than a kitten, is not difficult to achieve.
Francis will be very happy with the fact that he has spoken, is seen as the boss, but a boss that listens to “the spirit”, and his maximum damage policies will then slowly but surely push forward the decay of the Church.
We see month after month the fruits of allowing Francis to go on unchallenged. If the Four Cardinals had had a semblance of guts years ago, we would not be seeing this now. Meanwhile, Burke tells us that the SSPX is outside of the Church. One can’t believe these are the people who are – or so they say – on our side.
The Big Mayhem is about to start. It will plunge the Church into a huge deal of confusion and strife. It will further spread the Protestant concept that truth changes because hey, the spiiirit.
Please, Francis, pretty please!
Do us all a favour, and die today.
I was re-reading Garrigou-Lagrange’s observations about the number of the damned. From a XXI Century’s perspective, a couple of things were striking.
The first: the obvious consideration that, as Christians were, historically and even today, a more or less tiny minority of the world population, and considering the low-to-actually-very-low probability of salvation for a non-Christian, the great majority of the souls born up to now is in, or will go to, hell. I wonder how long it will be before such obvious considerations are branded as “hate” or, at least, considered “unchristian ” by the majority of our bishops.
The second: considering the amount of the saved among Christians- Catholic or not – the argument was made that the number of infant deaths would actually be a big argument in favour of hoping that the majority of Christians are saved. Reflect on this: an event that was, until recent times, so frequent as to possibly tip a big scale in the other direction, and was considered, after all, a big plus in the great scheme of Salvation, would today be considered a cruelty justifying, in the eyes of most, the parents of the deceased child losing the faith.
In both issues, how things have changed in just a couple of generations! Your average pew-sitting Christian would, nowadays, utterly sympathise with the parents advertising their loss of faith, instead of warning them about the reality of hell.
Similarly, I am not surprised that people who have lost the very concept of hell claim for the “blessing” of homosexual relationships. If hell isn’t in the cards, there’s little preventing a constant, ever-escalating game of “we are all ok”, ending with embracing everything that is even remotely to do with “lurv”.
We need to realise this: most people who, nowadays, call themselves “Christian” have a very little idea of what Christianity really is and what consequences the refusal of Christ has. In only two generations, Christianity has been reduced from the pillar of civilised societies to a very thin veneer of social conventions covered by a very thick varnish of do-goodism and political correctness.
This unprecedented catastrophe is, as a whole, the result of the unprecedented assault on Christian values started by the Second Vatican Council.
Do not be surprised if we are, as a result, punished with an unprecedented bad Pope.
Mundaborland, a very recent afternoon, around 17:30.
Your anonymous hero has called a lift (for you Gringos and Gringas out there: “elevator”) and, as the automatic doors open, is about to enter with his usual debonair, but manly stride. Three people are already inside the “elevator”, two women and a biological man. All three are wearing a mask.
Biological man asks me if it is “OK” for me to wait for the next lift.
Well, of course it is. The landlord of the office building where Yours Truly discharges his worldly duties has made it clear that the maximum should be, I think, three (big, big lifts!), and you might have to wait. However, no mask obligation (predictably, your humble correspondent was not wearing a mask) in the “elevator”.
The tone of the biological male, a guy whose ancestors have likely contributed to the building of the British Empire, left no room for mistake. He was not bitchy or aggressive in any way. I think he was sincere. His unspoken words were: “I know that you people are all amply relaxed; particularly in your Company, Mundabor, which is quite notorious for it in the whole big, big building! But as for myself, I will make myself important and show myself concerned to the very last minute, before I go back to making myself important with Global Warming, or the like; because you see, I need it to be seen that I care, or I will feel utterly miserable!”.
No, he did not say that. But at his age, Yours Truly understands unspoken words; or, as in this case, manifestos.
It is so, so sad to see that a Country that once produced empire-builders, now produces concerned mask-wearers.
I can’t wait for total normality to go back again.
It will be beautiful to think about how miserable all these “concerned” fools – including the biological males – must feel.
“Keeping the truth doesn’t mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas, but remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel”,
I don’t know if I have ever read anything as stupid as this.
Sadly, yes, it comes from that guy.
Let us examine the egregious piece of excrement that Francis has just deposited all over Catholicism; enjoying, no doubt, the scandal he creates.
By definition, being a guardian of doctrine and dogmas is (at least for us Christians; and we are talking of truth here, so we are not talking about… Hindus) keeping the truth, because, get this…
the dogmas and doctrines are there exactly so that truth be kept.
In fact, there is no way in which a Christian can better defend the truth than by – you guessed it – becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas. There really isn’t. No amount of mental retardation or senility can ever justify wannabe emotional rubbish like this. This really is Satan at work.
One wonder what kind of filth must inhabit the mind of a person that does not seem able to see the most elementary logic in the religion he is called to, actually, defend; yes, including the dogmas and the doctrines!
The only way to try to give a meaning to the blabbering of this nincompoop is by assuming that what he means is that doctrines and dogmas are not suited to defend the truth, because lurv does it. I really, really cannot find any other explanation for the nonsense that the man spouts.
What this is is, simply put, not Christianity. It is a novel religion in which you “keep the truth” by denying it, as your lurving heart persuades you that being “bound to Christ” and being “devoted to his Gospel” is whatever makes you feel good or, better said, is convenient to you today.
What a piece of work our not-so-holy father is!
He can keep his strange lurv religion.
As for me, I will keep trying to guard the doctrines and dogmas as good as I can.
I have written very recently about the two priests who have, in a relatively short period of time, left the priesthood for a woman *in the same parish*.
It says something about the present state of the Church that it appears that several of my readers have checked very accurately that the priests in questions have not left the priesthood because of falling in lurv with.. each other.
I do not think that this is an exaggerate reaction. I think that it reflects, in the end, a drive to the progressive perversion of the priesthood that we all see happening, albeit in different ways and perhaps – if we are lucky – only through blogs and headlines.
In other words, it seems that many of us have, how should I put it.. that feeling…
Realistically, there is no way that, as I write these lines, the number of perverted priests is not at the maximum of the last several centuries and, very possibly, at a level only seen before in the times of St Peter Damian. Tragic as this is, it also reminds us that, whatever we see happening to our beloved Church, it has likely already happened before. What is different now is that the disease appears in an extremely violent form, a form which in some way has never appeared before; but the disease itself, the Church already knows.
Yes, we have had heretical Popes in the past. Yes, we have had homosexual priests in the past. Yes, whenever you have to deal with homosexual priests, you will have to deal with paedophiles, then most of the latter come from the cohorts of the former. All this has, alas, been experienced before.
How do we react to these times? In the same way our ancestors reacted to the evils of their times.
Prayer and penance. Penance and prayer. A militancy that is as outspoken as prudence allows. The strong desire to never give up our truth. The firm, ferocious intention to die in the religion our forefathers followed, no matter how mad the people (and the priests, the bishops and the popes) around us become.
Look, at this point I have no illusions anymore. I am preparing myself for Francis II “Che”, Francis III “Elton” and, if I am very, very unlucky, Francis IV “Caitlyn”.
“This is madness, Mundabor!”, you will say. “This will never happen!”.
Let’s hope so.
But if the Cardinals are of the same strong fibre and manly disposition as Cardinal “Kitten” Burke, when Francis IV announces that he wants to undergo a hormone treatment, will there be a real reaction? I think that, as per today, we would only have some kitten-like meowing and posturing, followed by… nothing. There is no saying, at this point, what kind of evil the Cardinals would not leave unpunished. It’s good that Francis is too cowardly to test it.
Past periods of Church crisis have gone on, at times, for many decades, or for centuries. We have no right to expect that this time be any different. In fact, as in the past there was, broadly speaking, no betrayal of God that reached the scale of what we have witnessed with the Second Vatican Council, it is not unrealistic to fear that the level of madness that we will see in the next decades will, also, reach an unprecedented scale; then a bigger offence must perforce cause a bigger punishment.
Still, my situation is as binary today as it ever was for everybody else in the past: I will either be saved, or damned. There is, in this, no difference at all with all ages past. Whatever the challenges we are faced, we are given the graces to overcome them.
Pope Francis IV, as he undergoes hormone treatment, still has no power over my salvation.
This is the news of two priest in the same Italian parish, deciding to abandon the priesthood for the (questionable) joys of married life when you should, actually, be a priest.
Basically, it is the decision of living a lie because the truth of one’s choice was hard to bear.
Wait, have I written “too hard to bear”? No. The decision was made , and the two priests had decided to dedicate their lives to the priesthood. Sorry, “father”, but at that point, if you are a man, there is no going back. Do you have any doubt? Pray more. Are you tempted? Fast more. Whatever happens, keep your vows and stay at your post. This is what you promised, as a man, to do.
What grated me most, in the article, was not the fact, enough shameful in itself, of a parish that seems to work as an incubator for the abandonment of the priesthood. It is, once again, the failure of the bishop to offer any leadership.
A bishop who states that he “respects” the “free decision” of the two to betray their vows devalues the priesthood, makes the sacrament cheap, and makes it appear like a temporary life choice that can be discarded when the circumstances change, leaving Father Quitter with the perceived right of being “respected” for his “free choice”; and, oh, isn’t it all so ro-o-o-mantic?
I don’t know: perhaps the two priests though they were Protestant Pastors? Perhaps the Bishop has forgotten what the sacrament of Holy Orders is?
How about a comment along the lines of: “The decision of Father X and Father Y is shameful, a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Christ. However, given the circumstances, I have chosen to defrock the two rather than having such black sheep within the fold, possibly giving scandal, and certainly unable to inspire their sheep to sanctity”, or something along those lines.
I wonder what is next: a nice little “farewell to the priesthood” party – with the priest and his future Signora and the usual accompaniment of boring, sugary speeches about lurv – so that the parishioners can wish him all the best? Will there be a gold watch, I wonder?
What is happening to us? What is happening to the Sacraments? How much has remained of the Catholicism of our forefathers? Which Bishop would, 100 years ago, have chosen the same words as Bishop Cancian now?
Food for thoughts.
Actually, food for prayer and penance, too. Today I will pray the Lord that my Catholicism never (again) becomes so dull that I feel no sense of shame (for him) and scandal (for the others) at a priest abandoning his post.
We will see whether these marriages become beds of roses. Given the circumstances, I am inclined to think, rather, of beds of thorns.
We have recently learned that, if you asked the text writers at the CDF how they call people in favour of killing a baby in his mother’s womb, they would (shrug their shoulders and) call them “pro-choice”.
I would love to ask the same people whether their would call the architects of the Holocaust “pro-final solution”. Because you see, if the wilful murdering of innocents can be called being “pro” something , they would not have a problem, surely?
We are, as always, in front of one of the biggest tragedies of our time: the adoption of the language of the enemy in order to look “moderate”.
The enemy uses words with positive connotations to mean something intrinsically wrong or evil. As a result, in the long run in becomes impossible to effectively criticise with arguments what we cannot even criticise with words.
This is, as I have often written – but I will keep doing this, because it is one of the most important fronts of the culture wars – bound to end up in defeat.
Any criticism of sodomy starting with the word “gay” will not force anyone on the other side of the argumet to think; because, by using the word “gay”, the criticism has been already devalued and made to sound whiny and petty. But use, and explain, the real word, and the argument will suddenly appear to the reader to have a different force, quite a new energy. Similarly, it is utterly senseless to go on around the dangers of having “undocumented” immigrants if you have already castrated your argument from the start.
Now, why does the CDF (or even Breitbart!) use the wrong words? Because they want to appear moderate, or measured. In the meantime, your adversaries will call you racist, white supremacist and all sort of insults for merely disagreeing with them, and they will not care one straw for your attempts to appease them and show them that no, you are quite the reasonable guy.
You know what? They have the better strategy, and you are being a fool.
We need to react to this by ditching all language conventions that are remotely stinking of leftism; from the horrible “they/them” instead of “he/him” when you don’t know the sex (not “gender”) of the person you are talking about, to the use of stupid leftists fake words like gay, polyamorous, transgender, Latinx, undocumented, reproductive rights, pro-choice, and the like.
The Culture War can’t be won when one side keeps bombing, and the other side keeps appeasing.
Also, use liberally those words that actually mean something: bitch, bastard, concubine, illegal, etc. Make them feel the heat. Soon you’ll see more and more will start getting out of the kitchen.
And for heaven’s sake, stop trying to be nice.
They aren’t, and so shouldn’t you.
Predictably, after the decision of the CDF, the German Homonazis and Kirchensteuerwhores are now starting to defy the rules and proceed to their homemade “blessings”; to which, as I have already reported, seems that no-one wants to take part.
Some people may think that Francis is displeased by this, as defying the authority of a Vatican congregation is a slight to him, too or, at least, it makes him look “backward” and “homophobic”. I beg to differ.
Francis isn’t interested in being seen as an enforcer. He is interested in being seen as a disrupter. “Hagan lio” is the best expression of his forma mentis.
A man who deeply hates the Church, Francis has no interest in Her well-being or in Her reputation; whilst, clearly not believing in Christ, he has no issues with the open defiance of His teaching, either. If he is a closeted homo himself, the Germans will please him; if he isn’t, the damage made to the Church will please him anyway.
On the other hand, Francis is, like every bully, a coward. It is not for him to push hard the boundaries of what he can get away with it. Faced with the choice between 50% lio without risk of deposition and 90% lio with risk of deposition, he will always choose the former. In fact, he likes it when other people do the lio-ing for him, allowing him to watch, from a distance, the damage to an institution he clearly hates.
Therefore, the situation in German will not improve as long as Francis is Pope; and even after he dies – no, he will not resign; that was another of his thousand lies – it will take a long time for every Pope who is not a tough guy to set this right.
My advice to all my German readers: get out of the Kirchensteuer now. And no, you will not cease to be a Catholic.
This bunch of Kirchensteuer prostitutes will only get the message when it hurts in their pockets; the Kirchensteuer is an obsolete, un-Catholic system anyway.
Get out now, and let Father Juergen (or Father Wilhelmina, as the case may be) know why you do it.
It was only a small number of years ago (in 2003), that the Presbyterians had their first officially sodomite “bishop”. I can easily imagine that, at that time, a “trannie bish” would have ben unthinkable to the very people who, actually, supported Robinson
However, once you go down the road of “affirming” perversion, where do you end?
Let us see the stages: first “specially ordered” freak show guy in 2006; first mutilated “priest” allowed to remain “such” in 2007; first officially enrolled freak show guy in 2012; and now, in 2021, the 2006 freak show guy is the first “freak bish”.
The link is posted only because, otherwise, you might not believe anything in this blog post; and I must confess that I, myself, who have zero esteem for our proddie non-brothers and non-sisters (also because, these days, you just don’t know) in the faith, had to do a double take and stop at the enormity of the situation.
Also please note – in a further piece of evidence of the degeneracy of modern times – that the author of the linked article, who is very supportive of the novelty, refers to the freak show guy (or girl; whatever that person is) as if they were two people. Which is strange because even a schizophrenic guy, or gal, is, in fact, always only one person.
There was a time when I, in my naivete and inexperienced, was actually angered at such news, because I thought that they would be harming the faith and leading people astray. In the meantime, though, “such news” have become so outlandish that I am persuaded that, rather, they serve to help the good people to stay away from such organisations; it being, at this point, evident that only a person whose heart and mind has been deeply, deeply corrupted can accept this senseless parody of Christianity as the real thing.
Make no mistake: him, and her, and they, and them, and xir, and all that rubbish, will go straight to hell unless they manage to get their pronouns right before they kick the bucket.
I have just written about the obvious justice of hell.
Honestly, this one here is another great example of it.
How many times have we seen it? “Progressive” priests and prelates (what I think about their motivation is here) organise a schismatic event in that most schismatic of Countries, Germany. The homo event is promoted by the Diocese. How many people show up? Frankly, it was clearly only the perverts and their closest accomplices.
This must be atrociously embarrassing, at least for people who are still capable of embarrassment. In fact, it is the natural consequences of Catholic thinking still being, in some way, still present among Germans.
Consider this: the Germans are an extremely, atrociously gregarious people. They don’t really “do” independent thinking. They will, as a whole, go with what other people think, or with what they are told by people they see as in a position of authority. The inability to accept a position that makes one isolated in the group is quite scary, and – besides having been encouraged since the time of the Denazification – has a strong tradition in Germany. Your average Georg Zimmermann has a very, very strong dislike for being, on a hot issue, the only one with a contrary opinion in the room; which is what, for example, would greatly please many Italians.
So, let us look at the ingredients here: the German government, the local parish, even the local Diocese tell you that perversion is good and must be supported if you want to be a good Christian/good human/part of the group. Still, German Catholics refuse to take part to this game. If you have lived in Germany, and know how scarily gregarious Germans are, this gives you all the measure of how much Catholics must feel betrayed by their own priests and Bishops.
Now please mind this: whilst both the parish priest and the bishop might well be homosexuals themselves, in Germany there might be a simpler explanation for this pandering to the public opinion: the notorious Kirchensteuer. These prelates might, as a rule, simply be looking for a paying public for their impious, godless circus, thinking that by being godless more people will want to pay the price of admission. However, it can also be easily said that a priest, or prelate, that reduce himself to such a state is clearly giving Satan a huge opening, and who knows where that will end; in many cases, methinks, it ends in sodomy.
Still, what we keep seeing is this: that even the atrociously gregarious German Catholics refuse to follow their “betters” (the civil and religious authorities) and do not collaborate with the worst of the anti-Christian propaganda pushed by both.
I don’t know how long this will go on. But boy, it is good to see that, as we write the Year of the Lord 2021, the homo agenda of the German Bishops is going absolutely nowhere.
The pertinent question, then, is not whether an empty hell is something desirable—which it obviously is—but rather whether it is something “possible to obtain,” given what we know about human freedom and man’s proclivity to sin.
This statement appears in this article, dealing with the “dare we hope” hoax.
Let us leave the hoax of the empty hell aside. Let us focus, instead, on whether it is desirable that there be an empty hell. Is it desirable – even more: obviously desirable – that hell be empty?
Well, if you ask me: obviously not.
Let me first make a statement that is, I think, pretty much unquestionable. It is our job, whilst here on earth, to try to conform ourselves to God’s will. Once it is evident, and a certainty of the faith, that God considers an empty hell something wrong, why would I think differently? Who am I to decide that it would have been obviously desirable that God had done things differently from the way he did them? Am I getting something right, that God has obviously missed?
Look: call me ignorant, or theologically inadequate, but I am fully persuaded that whenever the Church shows me the truth of something willed by God, it is not my job to decide what my preferences – obvious or not – are. It is clear – actually, obvious – that whatever God has established and willed is perfect in its own way, and could not have been done in any way better.
Yeah, man. I know. We can jokingly say that we wish that fornication wasn’t a sin, or that tiramisu were good for your health and prescribed by the doctor. But we say it in jest. We know that whatever God has established is good and holy. In some ways, we even understand why; and, to stay by the example, the poisonous effect of fornication on marriage, carried out both before and after said marriage, is too evident to even discuss it, if we only stop for a moment and think seriously about it.
When we are serious about it, we know that everything that God has made is good and holy, and that this includes hell, even if – quod Deus avertat! – we, ourselves, were to merit to land down there!
Do you think that the saints, in heaven, think that it would be “obviously good” if hell was empty? Do you think that their full alignment to God’s will makes an exception when it is about their own relatives and friends who have merited to be sent the other way? What do the saints think, “God is such a nice guy, but that thing with Hell was a tad too much, if you ask me”?
This cheap “goodness” at the expense of God is not really good, though it is certainly cheap.
Plus, let us stop and reflect on the desirability of hell, even in what our little minds can understand.
If hell were empty, would not any infinitely grave atrocity (like the infinitely grave offence to God caused by, say, a life of mockery of Him and a death in the refusal of Him) end up in another God’s mockery, inasmuch as the sinner could boast that he ate his cake and had it, and that he mocked God by escaping the Divine punishment he himself has merited?
And if hell were empty, what values would all our sacrifices have? Isn’t the fear of the Lord such a fundamental part of our (God-willed) way of being Christians? If we all end up in Paradise and our good life only makes a difference in our degree of beatitude, why would not only any fornicator, but any child rapist be worried?
Are you the one who will say to the raped child that he should not for a moment think that his rape would deserve – even if the rapist dies in perfect hate for and mockery of God – anything less than heaven for his torturer? It seems to me that this cheap good-ism leads to absurd consequences, and this is what even my little mind can readily understand. Imagine how much, of the goodness and wisdom of hell, my little mind can not even begin to fathom!
No. It is not desirable that hell be empty. It is not desirable that hell be empty because we know that God has willed that it be not, and we know that there be nothing less than desirable in what he has willed.
If we can wish that God had done things differently, where does it end? Should we wish that God had not condemned sodomy? Should we wish that God had allowed concubines to have access to the Sacraments? Do you see the permanent rebellion that this thinking encourages?
Hell is right as it is.
Because God did it so.
You know that feeling, when you read about powerful prelates espousing some strange, distinctly non-Catholic cause, and something inside you knows that things aren’t right?
Yes, I mean those powerful Bishops and Cardinals. The “concerned” ones. The ones who speak “for the poor”. The ones who are always ready to espouse the easy causes.
Then you remember the curas villeros in Argentina, who disappear in the dirty slums of Buenos Aires to get the most disgusting sexual favours from all sorts of desperate perverts. At that point, you start to connect the dots, observing that the advocacy for the “downtrodden” can, very easily, hide a predatory desire for people either already totally corrupted, but which the “social work” gives easy opportunity to approach; or else, the ability to attack the vulnerable and to blackmail them because of the important position the powerful “social worker” slash priest slash prelate has in that already very corrupt environment; a position that can be the difference between, say, getting a decent job or remaining destitute.
There seems to be a common theme, is it not. A lot of these “social workers” appear to have had different motives than simple social work. How many of those corrupted curas villeros has the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires protected? How many are, like that archbishop, zealous apostles of the “social work” of the priest themselves? What is it, that these powerful men are hiding?
Could it be that all that social preaching is just a huge covert operation to allow an entire mafia of perverted priests and prelates to protect each other and climb the ranks of the Church through the net they have created; some of them, in time, becoming powerful and continuing to serve the same mafia-style organisation of which they are part, to which they have been linked all their lives, and which could destroy them if they stopped working for the “group”?
Am I being a conspiracy theorist here?
I don’t know.
I might be right.
I might be wrong.
But then I read this, and I know what to think.
On 2 May of the Year of the Lord 2021, Father Z published a blog post about St Catharine of Siena. I will try to link to the article here, but it seems not to work.
The blog post is, like every other one of the same author, very interesting. It would appear that this saintly woman “travelled widely” and “was enormously influential”.
How does this, pray, square with the usual feminist narrative of women who were treated, more or less, like dirt, and certainly as radically “inferior beings”, before “emancipating” themselves? Well in one word, it doesn’t. Letting aside the issue of the travels (which already demolishes a good part of the narrative), it is the fact of her enormous influence that gives the lie about the role of the woman in the pre-emancipation age. This would never be possible if Catherine had been considered, qua woman, unable to exert influence. You will find no child, bar Jesus, able to exercise such “enormous influence”; and even Jesus chose to exercise his influence later in life.
It appears clear that the, undoubtedly, very manly and very “patriarchal” Christian society of the time was extremely ready, eager even, to be influenced by a woman who was also – besides being woman – very young!
Watch with me the feminist edifice of lies crumble in front of your eyes, leaving behind a huge cloud of smoke and debris everywhere.
It is extremely wrong, and the result of the stupidity of our times, to make women’s position and human dignity directly related to her voting rights, or to her ability to parrot men in this or that activity. It is like thinking that cats will be inferior to dogs until they are finally allowed to bark.
Intelligent women have always been influential. However, their influence was exerted in a different way than the one proper of men, and was used (when a good, positive one) in perfect harmony with the special graces that God has given specifically to women. It appears, as we read in the blog post, that men of the past perfectly understood this. I wonder how many men, today, can think with the same lucidity; though they have, no doubt, smartphones vastly exceeding the computation ability of their ancestors.
Also, it is not known to me that St Catharine of Siena, who was “enormously influential”, ever used her influence to advocate for women’s vote, or women’s emancipation, or the right of women to become part of the Imperial armed forces, or priestesses, or deacons, or lectors at Mass. It is, in fact, not known to me that this saintly woman ever thought that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the societal structures of her time.
But no, we are to listen to Hillary Clinton and (*if* she is a biological female, of course; which is said in jest, but not so much…) Michelle Obama. They clearly know better than St Catherine.
Modern Western societies are deeply, deeply intoxicated with feminist poison. Yes, even many males who think themselves conservative. They might think of themselves in that way, but every quisque de populo in a factually independent, largely self-administered city (“Comune”) in Italy in, say, the XII or XIII Century, would have actually laughed at hearing these people defining themselves as manly, or even “conservative”.
They would, in a word, laugh at people with such smart phones, but unable to get the basics of the God-given order themselves.
The attempt to completely destroy the integrity of the vote on a National scale might be doomed to fail, as Senator Manchin appears to have put another nail in this particular coffin. It’s not the first time he does it, and I can well imagine that his position allows others (like Sinema in AZ) to stay in the shadow without being forced to speak against it, if they want to save their job.
Simply put, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is, at least in some matters, much weaker than the 50+VP official position makes it look.
You know that I, like many in Europe, look at the United States as a luminous example of Western Civilisation and a Country that – still – can teach liberty to everybody else. But there is no denying that this liberty – and, in fact, the very way in which America sees itself – has been under constant, massive attack since Michael Brown at least (very possibly, since Occupy Wall Street; which was different, but equally Marxist), and that this is going to stay with us for some years.
The main issue, as I see it, is education and his cascading issue, language. The Country has allowed a cabal of Marxist to take control of vast part of the education system in the US. In time, this has created a wave of nutcases that are, already, numerous enough to cause trouble. In pure Marxist style, these people do not – in their vats numbers – openly support Marxism (some do; Black Lives Matter before they got smarter is a point in case). What they do, is supporting proxy causes that they can then use to push a covert, Marxist agenda. They use language to push their agenda. They take horrible things and give them a new facade.
Every time that you hear words like “racism”, “social justice”, “oppressed”, “reparations”, and the like, know that these words are pronounced either by a closeted Marxist or by a person to dumb to understand he is working for them.
How have conservative reacted to this? Very badly. Actually, as stupidly as they could.
In their pathetic, effeminate efforts to look “nice”, the milquetoast Conservatives (that is: the majority of them) ended up adopting their enemies language, at which point they make their victory in the issue inevitable. To make a point, “civil partnerships” and so-called same sex “marriage” have started to win when conservatives have started to say “gay” instead of homosexual, sodomite, deviant, or the like. “Perv marriage” doesn’t really sell well.
If you adopt the language of your enemy, you adopt his underlying ideology. When that happens, you will have to cede terrain one bit at a time.
Let us go back to Senator Manchin. He can oppose the prospective legislation because there are enough people calling it a fraud. If Conservatives were to start saying “I hate voter suppression, but…”, this would, in time, be the end of this battle, too. You don’t espouse the narrative of your enemies because you want to look understanding or inclusive. You counter it from the first centimeter, and never give up one inch of ground.
Conservatives need to ban from their vocabulary words – when used in the sense of the enemy – like “gay”, “Lgbt”, “voter suppression”, “of color”, “gender”, “transgender”, and many others.
Gay means debonair, happy. LGBT means assorted perverts. “Voter suppression” means “attempted ballot fraud”. “Of colour” means “non White”. “Gender” means a language tool, or sex. “Transgender” means “transsexual” or “freak show”, and so on.
When our side starts using the language of their opponent, we lose. When they don’t, and call a spade a spade, there is hope.
Banish from your vocabulary any word meant in the wrong way and only use it in the proper way.
“You seem very gay today, Mark!”
“I am not gay!”
“You mean that you are not a sodomite? I know that!”
Let’s take back our values, one word at a time.