Georg Ratzinger, the so-to-speak Brother Emeritus, might be implicated in matters of physical and/or sexual violence against the (in Germany very famous) Regensburger Domspatzen, a bit the equivalent in the German popular imagination of the boys' choir of King's College in Cambridge.
One might think that the man was forced to resign, or decided to resign, against the promise that the scandal would not be made public; or else, when faced with open blackmail.
I don't buy it. Let me explain why.
Firstly, the Emeritus is smart enough to know that scandals like this do not remain uncovered forever. The truth will out. If this was the case he must have known that the shame would have been posthumous at best, and for both of them.
Secondly, the theory is extremely insulting to the Emeritus, depicted as such a puppy that he would resign for personal reasons (avoiding a scandal for his family and, by association, himself) rather than doing what every Pope with some fear of the Lord would have done (keep working as the Pope; heck, no one has ever said a Pope answers for his brother. Reagan's father was a not-too-functional alcoholic, either). There can be nothing noble in dereliction of duty, nor can it ever be said that the immense evil and damage to the Church of a Pope resigning whilst yielding to blackmail can ever be compensated by one or two very old men, and be one of them the Pope, not be besmirched. (Note to those allergic to History: Popes have been besmirched for many centuries; often with very valid reasons to do so).
Thirdly, two men in their Eighties will be more worried about their own final destination than about some discomfort here on earth for, predictably, not very long.
No, I am not a fan of the man, but I seriously struggle to believe that he would be able of such unspeakable, selfish cowardice. And such a stupid cowardice, too.
Therefore, my working option will remain, as always, the one nearest to the reality we can observe and furthest from conspiracy theories of all sorts: a man terrified of the parable he had seen in JP II, aware of the homo Mafia but not strong enough to deal with it, and deciding to resign in order to allow a new and stronger man to tackle the issues at hand. A man, I add, whom he though would be a “heretic light” like Scola, not an atheist madman like Bergoglio. Albeit I am pretty sure Ratzinger still prefers a Bergoglio as Pope to a Fellay.
The man is bad, I know.
But heavens: so bad? I cannot believe it.
I never thought I would write this but yes: I side with Schoenborn on the Emeritus matter.
How anyone can believe that the Emeritus is not deeply, deeply embedded in the V II tragedy just because he preferred a slightly more conservative version of it is beyond me. Ratzinger/Benedict has always been V II through and through.
Now, it is impossible to a sound Catholic to see the Church as a boat nearing capsizing without understanding that V II is at the root of the problem. But the followers of V II are not sound Catholics. They believe, to a bigger or lesser extent, that the Holy Ghost guided the Church to a change. They only differ in the estimation of the extent of it. Benedict is no exception at all.
The Emeritus refused to reconcile with the SSPX unless they accept the principles of V II. Therefore, the Emeritus thinks that V II with its novelties is an indispensable part of what the Church is. As a consequence, the man is squarely on the side of the “innovators”, and – as his recent interviews also show – correctly recognises that the gulf between traditionalists and Modernists is far bigger than any difference of degree in Modernism.
People must start to understand that not only Benedict is part of the problem, but he is deeply committed to it.
He will only throw a hint of criticism here and there, every now and then, in order to get an easy applause from not very attentive “conservative” Catholics.
And once again, the allegedly oh so silent Emeritus has said half a word, possibly only relating the words of another, which might be interpreted as a criticism of the Evil Clown, and the all-forgiving troops of Naive Army canonise him in life and elect him to Dux Maximus of the critics of this disgraceful pontificate.
Oh, ye of little understanding!
Benedict isn't a critic of Francis more than Khrushchev was a critic of Stalin. Not only they have the same cancer, but they like it above all else.
Benedict has gushed praise on Benedict in two interviews (yours truly reported) and there is no way in hell he can smuggle himself as the silent critic and after going on record as a public supporter. Open words are what count, and these sideways remarks are nothing more than the usual way Benedict uses to try to be a hero of conservatives on the cheap.
He has done the same his entire life. His alleged conservatism was nothing more than a less aggressive form of cancer. His position as “moderate heretic” always allowed him to be part of the V II establishment and thrive in it, whilst selling himself as a stalwart of rose water conservatism with rose water Catholics.
As a theologian he pushed – and published – heretical statements, only more moderately than others. As a Cardinal he played with JP II's novelties and innovations – from the belittling of the Capital Punishment to the Assisi gatherings – without a word of open condemnation. As a Pope he applied a varnish of conservatism to the Church (with Summorum Pontificum) whilst keeping the JP II's tradition of appointment of V II pussycats (or worse) as bishops and Cardinals, even having his own Assisi gathering lest the leftists begin to think he is Catholic. He saw the problem of the homo Mafia and did nothing against it but order that an awful lot of words be produced, then he thought he would resign and have the new guy do that for which he did not have the guts. Trust the Pollyannas to think that he is a spotless hero who committed every single act of cowardice to save the Church from some greater evil no one has ever seen.
I am frankly fed up with the way this man seeks the applause of good hearted Catholics after betraying them all his life. By the bye, I am still awaiting for his condemnation of Amoris Laetitia, and I am most certainly not holding my breath.
I do not want to finish this without two words about the “capsizing” itself. Please realise that Bishop Ratzinger spoke of the crisis of the Church several decades ago, but then did almost nothing to work against it. It is fairly obvious that to him the crisis of the Church is something that simply happens, like flu or cancer. That he may be one of the main carcinogen elements of the same disease in the least four decades does not even register with him. He is perfectly happy with gushing praise on Francis whilst lamenting a crisis that, to him, must be like hail: regrettable, unavoidable, and nothing to do with him.
Have pity for the man. His own boat is about to capsize big time, unless he comes to his senses in the short time that has remained to him.
The disgraceful Pontificate of the Evil Clown can be summarised with the following points:
Dethronement of Christ, and substitution for a Weltanschauung in which earthly cares and problems are the only focus. Francis says we should kneel in front of the poor, but he does not kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He is a South American agit-prop in White.
Aggressive pushing of a strongly socialist agenda of the sort that has repeatedly put on its knees the economy of several Central and South American Countries. Pushed by a person every bit as arrogant, incompetent and outright stupid.
War on Christianity wherever possible, with a strong desire to Muslimise Europe as much as he can. Also, downplaying of specific Christian beliefs in favour of an “everything goes” mentality asking Muslims to “hold on to their Korans”.
The war on everything that is specifically Catholic: the hate for the Sacraments (say: marriage, communion) and every Catholic institution (canonisations, beatifications), the stunning affirmation that God is not Catholic (well in a sense He isn't; in another He cannot be anything else), the denial of fundamental tenets of the faith like the proclaimed belief that it is impossible to live a chaste life; the hate for the Mass, which he wants interrupted whenever he wants to bully one of his men; the hatred for every small Catholic gesture, like the infamous video of the man separating the hands, joint in prayer, of the poor boy (who promptly joined them again, his Catholicism naturally and promptly shaming the impiety of the very Pope); the mocking of the “rosary counters”; the insults to the Blessed Virgin, belittled as a poor naive girl who might have felt duped at the foot of the cross. The list could go on for very long.
To all this we must, for the sake of completeness, add another very unique trait of this Pontificate: the arrogance, the boorishness, the outright vulgarity exhibited by the man at every step: from the chair left empty at the Beethoven concert to the treatment of the FFI, to the way people inside (Müller, Burke) and outside of the Curia (Knights of Malta) are routinely humiliated.
Summa summarum, the man is at war with everything the West holds dear: from the Christian civilisation to our wonderful Catholic traditions, from Capitalism to the Sacraments, and from decency to common sense.
The fact that such a tool was allowed to become Pope is, once again, a glaring indication of how much the Lord is punishing us.
One of the moments of serenity afforded by this Pontificate is when the Evil Clown makes a clown of himself. He manages to do that regularly, so I don't complain in this respect.
This time, we are informed by horrible magazines allied with him that he man has put a “vietato lamentarsi” (“complaining not allowed”) outside of his room in Casa Santa Marta.
The mind, once again, boggles.
The most mean-spirited, whining, grumpy, acidic old git that ever became I do not say a Pope, but probably a bishop dares to put such a sign on his door, blessedly oblivious of the way it makes him look exactly like the insufferable, hypocritical ass he is.
It truly is hilarious. The stupidity of this man does not know boundaries.
If only he were not Pope, he could be an excellent parody of a priest.
The new criterium for beatification opens the way for interesting developments: if the oblatio vitae is added to the traditional two, we will have an awful lot of potential candidates used to further demolish every single Catholic institution.
From what I have read, the new discipline is the usual Jesuit piece of
shit deception: it can be read in a fairly orthodox way – and I would question the innovation in that case, too – or it can be used to disrupt the institution of beatification. Say hello to Blessed Proddie, and after a while Blessed Muslim and Blessed Hindu. In time, the oblatio vitae will include those deemed, by their extremely unchristian life, to have lived a Christian life because they fought for communism social justice: Che Guevara comes to mind.
My cat is, actually, already walking around with a strong expectation of beatification. He lives a very virtuous life according to the lights of a cat, and social justice is – of course, the cat's way – very strong in him: how much food, fun, and girl cats he is due is a matter of the greatest social importance to him. There is no doubt he will – not being neutered – fight all his life for social justice. Heck, if he were to die in a desperate jump from one roof to the other, striving for his fair share of female cats, he has no doubt whatsoever this would be a clear giving up his own life for the benefit of humanity as he perceives it.
I don't blame my cat. He is told that the Church should be building bridges to him, and that the Church's language towards socially conscious cats striving for social justice has been too harsh in the past.
I actually blame Francis: who, once again, shows his barely believable hatred for Catholicism by attacking every single Catholic institution as much as he can.
The ridiculous Mickey Mouse outfit calling itself the Church of Englang has now decided their Mickey Mouse priests can celebrate their Mickey Mouse services wearing appropriate casual dress. This is, obviously, to make the Mickey Mouse outfit “relevant”.
I will leave aside the irrelevance of the Anglican liturgy in itself as this is not what interests me. What is important here is that this senseless chase for “relevance” makes the Mickey Mouse outfit even more irrelevant. The desire of these people to be like the world is the best indication that the world does not need them. They are like a chameleon wishing not to be perceived as in contrast with his environment, and then surprised that he is not seen at all.
The Mickey Mouse sect is, basically, proclaiming she is surplus to requirement in the very wordly, earthly society she wants to be part of. A special role has always be denoted and underlined by a special dress. Ditching the latter is renouncing the former.
The Mickey Mouse personnel is probably not fazed by this at all. Their churches are shockingly empty anyway, and as long as they get paid by the extensive patrimony of the organisation they do not feel they should have any concern. Most of them clearly see themselves as no more than social justice and motivational speakers, hoping to keep the dozen or two people they see every week entertained.
You can do that in jeans and trainers, too.
Die soon, Mickey Mouse so-called Church of England. Your death will not even be noticed as your Mickey Mouse pastors have long become unrecognisable as such.
You will not be missed.
Read on Rorate the shocking story – even by Francis' standard – of when he forced Cardinal Müller to interrupt a Mass, and a Mass Francis new the Cardinal was celebrating – to have a meeting with him about some infinitely petty matter compared with the celebration of a Mass.
The man is just astonishing. This is even way beyond the realm of the atheist and is a sure movement into the realm of the satanical. Even an atheists, once Pope, would respect the decency and the basics.
But not if he hates Christ.
The Italian philosopher Marcello Pera has launched a rather fitting attack on the Evil Clown. Please follow the link and read all the details.
I thought this interesting, because Pera's words are very, very similar – and identical in context and harshness – to the ones used by your humble correspondent these last four years.
It is a matter of not little satisfaction, for someone insulted for so long and by so many, to discover that he, actually, got Francis right from the start, and drew the consequences from what Francis insisted in doing and saying much sooner than most others – I was in very, very small company years ago; but thankfully I wasn't the only one by any means – and using the same chosen words other use now.
Also for me speaks the fact that I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, and made a honest effort to find the good in him. Alas, the vulgarity and shameless demagoguery of the man soon forced me to decide that there wasn't much good to be found in him.
You read this little Italian blogger in 2014 and you find what Italian philosophers will say in 2017.
Three years in front of the mainstream.
Boy, this is what I call blogging 😉
The twelve things to know and share are here
The mind boggles.
The Monsignorina was so sure of impunity that he organised noisy nightly parties in a building with other (no doubt: splendid) apartments whose tenants were actually somewhat Catholic. He was also so confident that he could take massive amounts of cocaine. I notice here that all that cocaine for himself & homo friend must cost an awful lot of money, and I still haven’t read a word about where the money came from. It is not unreasonable to suspect that embezzlement on a vast case might have taken place.
Then we have the way CockLovingErio looks in the entire matter: your obviously homo Monsignor is so screwed on cocaine that he needed to be detoxified, and the cardinal wants us to believe he had noticed nothing? Why the luxury apartment, way above the rank of the Monsignorina? Why the luxury BMW with Vatican plates? How on earth can it be that all this happens and he did not notice or suspect, but actually worked actively to make the fag bishop?
Then we have the last point: Francis has done absolutely nothing to punish or demote Coccopalmerio. Sheesh! A person with such an acument shouldn’t be left responsible of the doghouse, much less a Vatican ministry!
One suspect that it is not only CocklovingErio that is, ahem, like the Monsignor.
Either Francis is exactly like the Monsignorina (that is: a homo); or he is taken hostage by them and does not dare to do anything against them; or, also likely, whether he is a homo or not he has no qualms with sodomites at all, and will not do anything against them provided they can be useful to him. They can be easily blackmailed, too.
Either way, the Venezuelisation of the Vatican proceeds at a steady pace. This is what you get when you elect a south american stupid, incompetent, petty dictator as Pope.
The sudden death of Cardinal Meisner led me – like, no doubt, many others – to think that every day can be the day of reckoning for the Evil Clown, too. I wish with all my heart, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, that this may be the case very soon, and this cancer expunged from the body of Holy Mother Church.
However, I reflect that even if Francis were to die today (please, Lord!) the situation of decay has now become such that, in the normal course of events, it cannot be reversed.
Whilst also ripe with the malignant tumor of Vatican II, the 2013 Conclave was certainly less poisoned with Modernism than this one; still, they were blind, stupid, or perverted enough to elect Bergoglio. If the Evil Clown were to do us the favour and kick the bucket, the probability of the Cardinals electing one willing to really backpedal is minuscule. Too many FrancisCardinals are already wearing red for a halfway sane choice – of, of course, a traitor who left Christ alone on the Cross as Francis spit on his face with Amoris Laetitia – to come out of a Conclave. In the normal course of event, we would be utterly done for.
But we have been promised that, at some point, the normal course of events will be disrupted by a supernatural intervention. As we realise how bad the situation has become, we brace for the full collision with Asteroid Faggot and do not expect any improvement to come out of it in our lifetime; but we keep praying that the unexpected may come as we are still here, and may allow us to live our last years in the serene consciousness that the worst is behind us, the bad council and the bad Mass have come and wreaked havoc but are now on the way to defeat, and a solidly Catholic Pope is filling the next Conclave with Crusaders.
If Francis died today, we would still be in huge trouble. But the Blessed Virgin will crush his heresies as all the others one day.
Rather predictably, it turns out father Milani, who was a star communist priest in the dark age of the Sixty-Eighter and later, was a homo and, likely, a pedophile.
As the song says, it’s the same old story. Scratch the dissenter, and you will find the pervert underneath.
Francis likes both. If a priest has both qualities, he will like him a lot. He will do all he can to keep the customer satisfied: the cohort of fags, atheists, heretics who have elected him and give him his power base, and whose thinking he completely shares.
What an unforgettable Pope the Cardinals have elected.
It is a very sad anniversary, this day that marks 10 years of Summorum Pontificum.
Ten years ago, I thought – albeit not yet introduced to Catholic blogging, much less with my own one – that Summorum Pontificum would one day be seen as the first meaningful step towards the recovery of sanity.
Today, I seem to notice that it was the pet project of a Pope not really interested in the recovery of the past, but rather more focused on giving a varnish of old to the new he was still promoting. This very man subsequently stunned the world with a resignation that I found, at the time, in perfect good faith and made in the confidence that his successor would more vigorously continue his program of very moderate conservatism; before two interviews gushing praise for Francis led me to suspect – the man not being gaga at all – that he is actually on board with everything that has happened after his abdication.
Ten years ago I saw a great offensive coming. Today I see us entrenched, albeit I must also say that the trenches have revealed and nurtured a fighting spirit that warms the heart.
Still, entrenched we are, and with the very sad prospective of going on this way for who knows how long, it being now clear that only the Blessed Virgin's intervention will save us from a spiral of decline made by obscene episcopal and cardinatial appointments,coupled with the most scandalous silence of the others.
Ten years after, we prepare ourselves for a half apocalypse.
When I think of all this, and reflect that some people are even happy with the faint meowing of the likes of Cardinal Meisner, I have no doubt at all why we are where we are.
As it is now known, the CDF has recently (that is: when still badly led by Cardinal Müller) sent a letter to the SSPX in which the Vatican states exactly the same conditions for the reconciliation with the SSPX that caused the last attempt to fail. Besides secundary matters, the crux of the question was the acceptance of V II from the part of the SSPX, an acceptance on which the Vatican now officially still insists.
Predictably, the SSPX has refused, and this is the end of that.
One would be tempted to think that the Vatican had no intention to allow an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX in the first place, and Francis may well have had this intention from day one. However, it would be naive to think that the SSPX embarked in the new negotiations without a reasonable hope of success.
What I think gas happened is that a not irrelevant franction of Vatican functionaries and dignitaries has been pushing for an unconditioned reconciliation with the SSPX, prospecting to the Unholy Father its advantages in terms of “diversity acceptance” and with the possible further benefit of the now “reconciled” SSPX avoiding calling Francis “Modernist through and through”. Francis has either weighted his options during this time or, more probably, told his people that he was doing so in order to enjoy a more prudent SSPX for as long as practicable. This is a Jesuit, which in modern parlance is synonymous with “atheist, possibly homosexual, church-hating devious liar”. It is, therefore, more reasonable to assume that Francis was lying all the time rather than to charitably imagine that he really gave the thought of unconditioned reconciliation a honest chance and the benefit of a long reflection.
So: what changes now? I don't know because I don't know to what extent the upper caeli said of the SSPX believe – at this point naively, if you ask me – that some small door could still be open.
In my eyes, however, something very important should change.
1) The SSPX should stop focusing on a reconciliation that will clearly not happen during this pontificate at the very least, and start firing from all cannons at the heretical work of subversion we are witnessing every day.
2) In a less immediate perspective, the SSPX should wonder whether the times do not call for a more aggressive leadership than the one of Bishop Fellay. I am not doubting the personal integrity of the Bishop, but one who states that a reconciled SSPX would avoid criticising too loud or too harshly (I have written about it) is just too much on the soft side, and in my eyes not good enough for the present time.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war.
I am not sure Bishop Fellay is the best man to lead it.
One of the many madnesses of this mad era is the … Mass Concelebration of the Mass.
I read today of a Mass concelebrated by more than 150 “celebrants”; last week I heard on the radio of another one of more than 100.
Like all the rest that has to do with Vatican II, this gesture takes the faithful away from God and directs it toward the faithful. Look at us, it says. We are such a joyous group we can barely believe how good we are.
Can't imagine for anything to do for all of them but three at the most. Unless, that is, they do stupid things like reading the Gospel in unison, one hundred of them.
Catholicism is being brought out of Catholicism. A creepy celebration of man is taking his place. This is just stupid. It is, in fact, even worse than the mega masses followed on a mega screen one Km away (and therefore actually seen on TV). It is a sort of mass self-celebration.
You may say that we have bigger fishes to fry, but… have we? The Liturgy is the beginning of all things. The state of the Liturgy also tells you the state of the Church.
We are clearly in very, very bad shape.