When was last time you heard about the “Francis effect”? Yep, and you now know why: even the secular press knows it did not work.
The article is, as you would expect by a libtard publication like the NYT – the author works for “First Things”, though; more about this later – entirely centred around secular issues. In line with the forma mentis of your average IYI (“Intellectual Yet Idiot”) reader, The Church is seen like a party, or a product, or a firm: where an “innovator” who seems “in line with the times” steps in and “revitalises” the ailing organisation. And this leader does such wonderful things as living in a luxury hotel, wearing black shoes, shooting selfies, and other such like stupid things very much liked by a stupid age.
The article, showing the great ignorance of his author in matters of Catholicism, (but we are talking of Libtards here) even absurdly criticises the Pope because
Francis has also shied away from big changes on doctrinal matters. Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod.
(Yes: you can facepalm here. No, really. It’s ok).
The secular mind sees the secular Pope at work; it sees him trying to make of the Church something similar to the Democratic Party; it sees, also, that he is failing miserably.
The secular mind cannot understand the Church more than the devil can like holy water. They just do not get that the Church – as an organisation – prospers when she opposes the world, and withers when she cozies up with it. If they knew this simple truth, they would never invent strange and absurd expressions like the “Francis effect” and mean that it would be good for the Church as an organisation.
The Catholic mind understands the folly of all this. But hey, they are “homophobic”, so they don’t count.
As the author points out, very rightly, Francis has failed miserably even in the other – and originally, we were told, the most important – reason for his appointment: the reorganisation of the inefficient, corrupt Vatican apparatus. We knew that already, because we know that South American dictators tend to be extremely stupid wreckers of everything they touch. But it’ s nice to see that some libtard notices that, too.
However, the obviously Catholicism-free author must have heard, at some point, something about Catholicism at First Things, because he seems to have a very confused idea of how the Church works. Examining the cause of the continuing decomposition of the Church in the US, he writes something that has always been a mainstay of this little effort:
Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads.
The cult of man damages the Church of God. Francis, in his vanity and folly, presents himself as the good guy in opposition to the bad guys of the sixty generations before his. It can work for him, for a while, until people understand what a phony the man is. But it will never be any good for the Church. This is now apparent, and the “Francis effect” thingy has gone the way of “reading Francis through Benedict”.
The author, who is so blind that he sees something positive in Francis “paying his own hotel bill” and “eschewing the red shoes”, still has some ideas left of what Catholicism is:
Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.
So, is this author Catholic after all, and just too servile to the NYT to write like one? I don’t know, and I am not interested to know. What interests me here is that even the entirely secular outlook of this article must see Francis’ dismal failure.
The Church is the enemy of the world. Francis is the friend of the world. Francis is the enemy of the Church.
And he has failed.
Even Libtards see it now.
Hillary freezes in panic, oblivious to the world, with a “what I am doing here?” face that is just plain scary.
Big Black Guy (secret agent? Or rather a nurse of sort?) is very fast in recognising what’s happening (methinks, not the first time…), jumps on the stage and promptly reassures her; she still remains there, smiling but still clearly unable to connect with the reality around her. It’s only when Big Black Guy urges her to “keep talking” that she recovers and remembers her line and her purpose on that day.
You can say “panic”, it looks more like incipient Alzheimer to me. In both cases, this is the most stressful job on the planet. How is anyone fit to do it who needs to be reassured in the middle of a panic attack/ loss of reality that the people around her are “not going anywhere”?
This video was watched more than one million times, I think it’s from August or earlier. Can’t think it brought her the vote of many still undecided.
if I were Trump, I would run this and the other one of the 11 September in my own ads.
I have already explained in Part I what I think was the main factor in the rapid advancement of the “Spirit of V II” within a Church so strong and self-assured only a few years before. I would now like to spend two words about what was, if you ask me, the second most important factor: the rapid changes in education and the connected giovanilismo, the exaltation of everything “young” typical of those years.
The unprecedented economic progress since the end of WWII had brought another huge social upheaval: the education revolution. In less than twenty years, the entire West had undergone a massive change: the son of the peasant was on its way to become an accountant, and the son of the accountant was listening to new (and often crappy) ideas at University. Never had such a transformation occurred so rapidly. Never had so many young people been so obviously better educated than their parents and grandparents.
This caused a rapid deterioration of a traditional hinge of the social fabric: the respect for the elder.
Once seen as the depositaries of wisdom, old people were suddenly seen as uneducated, ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious obstacles to progress. In parallel, the young men and women (better educated, optimistic, full of reformist zeal, and often able to speak without accent or dialect) were seen as the new frontier, and the pathfinders to the discovery of a new and better world. A new world which saw all the prejudices and limits of the old one (and they were there; they were clearly there) and thought that the old system of religious rules, piety, and rigid propriety was pretty much on the same level with the countless superstitions they saw in their old people. The young people might have loved, but they did not esteem their parents, and they did not think their parent had much to teach to them. They were grateful to the peasants who had, with their sacrifices, allowed them to become accountants or teachers or lawyers or civil servants. But they saw in their parents just that: peasants.
For their teaching and guidance in life, they started to look elsewhere. In all the wrong places.
It is apparent to me – and I have seen it very often in real life – that the old generation had, very often, an instinctive sense of what was right, and that they were right; but they were unable to defend themselves, to appropriately articulate their belief against the tide of opposition of their own children and grandchildren; children who spoke so well, better than they ever could, and were filling their parents and grandparents with pride and joy even as the latter were worried at what their children and nephews were actually saying.
These were the children for which the old generation had made so many sacrifices. Look at them now, speaking like lawyers and pharmacists! The son of the small tenant, or of the daily labourer; the daughter of the milliner, or of the domestic servant! They know so much more than their parents and grandparents! Yes, they are wrong. But how to explain it to them? They speak so well…
And the entire world, the entire planet told the older people that the future belonged to the young, who would make a better planet for everyone. Largo ai giovani, “make place for the young” – possibly the stupidest slogan of all times after “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’ ” – was not much questioned in those times. The “Springtime of the Church” is just the same madness in a different way. Guitars in the church are just another byproduct of the same stupidity that gave us the May 1968 in France.
And so, my dear readers, we have it, the explosive cocktail that gave us first Paul VI, then Assisi, then the rock mass concerts and mass media popes, then eventually the Evil Clown himself in all his wheelchair-embracing, Castro-cuddling, planet-“saving”, heresy-promoting, perversion-protecting, sacraments-desecrating debauchery. It was an explosive cocktail of growing welfare and growing, but secular, education; sadly not contrasted by a clergy too often tired of being party poopers when the party, which had been going on for a while, seemed to want to go on forever.
Too many were weak. Countless others were simply ill-equipped.
Satan was, as always, looking for those whom he may devour.
I had never seen the like.
Gloria TV does not dedicate one part of their news to the Letter “With Burning Concern”. No. They dedicate to it the entire edition.
Oh joy! The thinking Catholic heads may be a minority, but there are still more than a couple around. As for those who refuse to think, I wonder how much FrancisMercy they will receive when they die.
As I write this, the video was clicked 6,100 times. Please follow the link and spread the word!
I read around the (right) consideration that not all must have been good in pre-V II times; otherwise it would not be explained how V II could do so much damage in just a few years.
I will, therefore, try to make some considerations about this myself.
We tend to see a strong Church as a wonderful apparatus, eliminating sin from around it like a hoover gets rid of the dust. I am afraid it might not work that way.
Fallen nature being what it is, even a strong church can only be something similar to a strong dam, opposing a strong wall of faith to the immense quantity of sin pushing against it. You can stand at the bottom of the huge wall and observe its majesty, and you will certainly think the dam beautifully strong; but what you won’t see is the huge amount of water ceaselessly applying its pressure on the wall, and which would flood to the vale below if allowed.
Such was, in my opinion, the Church of that Great Pope, the Pastor Angelicus. An extremely strong dam, for sure; cared for by many trusted guardians; but still, with the huge mass of world sinfulness exerting a huge pressure against it. This pressure was growing and growing as the Western world left behind it the years of great deprivations (and, as always, strong faith) of the war and marched resolutely towards unprecedented prosperity and optimism; and, to an extent, unprecedented belief Religion is now not the basis for life, but an optional not really useful in times of advanced medicine and ever-growing individual security.
Strong as the dam is, the water behind it will always be immense, and will always be ready to flood everything if a leaked, no matter how small, is found.
The leak has a name: il papa buono; or, as I think it far more appropriate, il papa stupido. Pope John XXIII was really so dumb, that he thought a little leak would do no great harm, and the bit of water coming the other way would be a welcome refreshment and cleansing force for the dry, dusty, at times crusty walls of the old, majestic, very hard dam.
The rest all followed from the initial madness: as it is in the nature of things, once the water found a small aperture it did not take long before the huge pressure, which had always been exerted (but was kept in check by the Pastor Angelicus and his very smart Church) caused a big leak, then a break, and a huge quantity of water naturally rushed the other side in a roaring waterfall. When Roncalli died too many were already those now tasting of the water, and desiring to shower in its roaring freshness.
Pope Roncalli had contracted two typical diseases of the age: the first was niceness, and the second a boundless, rather stupid optimism about the future. These diseases belied the traditional, realistic and dryly somber evaluation of the human shortcomings prevalent up to then. John XXIII was probably so dumb that he really believed in a new era of sort; as if humanity could transition to a new phase just as easily as the Soviet Union could transition from Stalin to Khrushchev or the US from Eisenhower to Kennedy.
Pope Roncalli is, therefore, the main – if unwitting – agent of the flood. But not he alone, of course. The flood came because of the original sin-laden water that had never ceased to apply its huge pressure on the Church, and which only the strong dam of a very fortunate series of excellent Popes (five of the last six rather stellar by any Church History standard) had kept in check for so long, and with such success. But human sinfulness is a huge weight to keep in check. The desire to “make peace with the world” is an extremely heavy temptation. The water will still be there pushing, pushing all the time…
Here ends Part I.
Part II will deal with what is, in my eyes, the second most important factor in the unfolding of the first, brutal stage of what was to become, as we can now safely say, an apocalyptic tragedy.
Mahound’s Paradise has excerpts from the latest, extremely stinking public performance of the Evil Clown.
The following atrocious words attracted my attention more than the (almost equally atrocious) rest of the ramble.
“We are called always to live out and proclaim the newness of the Lord’s love: ‘Jesus truly loves you, just as you are. Give him space: in spite of the disappointments and wounds in your life, give him the chance to love you. He will not disappoint you,’” Francis said.
This is so gay, it redefines the boundaries of Eltonism.
Francis sounds like a hippy homo on pot: not only the “lurv” that does not care for truth is worthy of foul tomatoes, but – worse still – the clear idea that one should consider giving Christ a chance even as he does not want to change a thing in himself is the perfect denial of all Christianity stands for. What a gracious step, what a moving concession this entirely secular person would be making to Our Lord and Saviour!
I picture your average pot-smoking, fornicating, ugly, fat, aborting feminist slut out there thinking: “oh well, I love myself just the way I am, too, and I do not see any reason to change at all! So the old man got that right, for sure! Therefore, I might give this Christ the man talks about the chance to love me just as I am, and let’s see if this Christ knows what is good for him! Of course, I am expecting a lot from his unconditional, non-judgmental, guilt-free, gender-neutral relationship now, because that’s what the man in white promises”.
Francis keeps peddling around a Christ resembling a whining, groaning, whimpering, extremely beta guy dying for some attention whatsoever, and not asking anything in return: I do not say adoration, but even some basic respect and attention. “Oh please, please, just give me some thoughts every now and then! You don’t need to do anything! No repentance, no change, nothing at all! You are so wonderful as you are! If you love me,
keep my command it’s quite enough for me, and you won’t regret it!”
When I read it on Vox Cantoris I thought it might have been in jest, but actually it is real news, as EWTN confirmed: Apostate Homosexualist Michael Coren has been stripped of his Papal Knighthood, has been requested to return the medal, and has so far refused.
Boy, this is funny. A man who decides to leave the Church and insult her with his homoheresies is peeved at being told bu the same Church to draw the consequences, and does not want to return the symbol of something in which he does not believe anymore, and says publicly so.
But the funniest thing is this: that Coren must now realise that even in FrancisChurch, where even Muslims and Lutherans are treated like the same thing plus some squabbling theologians, he is considered worthy of public rebuke.
Can’t wait for the man to appeal to the Evil Clown himself to allow him to keep his medal, though he doesn’t believe in that which the medal represents.
We truly live in a world of self-obsessed, deluded hyper-individualism, in which every cretin thinks he can make up his own religion at will.
Can’t imagine what kind of people will buy his books.
Or perhaps I do.
I have published all three parts of the “With Burning Concern” letter; therefore, you all know which side I am on.
I think it very wrong that those (names not named) who should all be on our side waste their time and undoubted intelligence for this kind of mini-squabble.
I will offer this thought: it is bad to want to be “mainstream”, and it is bad to want to have a big readership. The world is such, that if you want to have a big readership, and be able to boast that you are so and so big, you will have to get “middle of the road” positions even when more uncomfortable roads are the only ones indicated. The “mainstream” is unlikely to ever be persuaded that the Pope is a heretic. They will drink all the cool-aid they have to drink to persuade themselves of the contrary instead.
This Pope is a heretic. A tool of Satan. An old, lewd man obsessed with sex and social so-called “justice”. He is an Atheist through and through. In short, he is an Evil Clown. That’s it. If you still can’t see the evidence, you will always refuse to see it. Still, the harsh truth of a heretical Pope will never be “mainstream”.
And please don’t give me that rubbish that we can’t judge people’s heart. No one uses the argument with Hitler. We can see actions, and from the actions we see the motives. As outside, so inside. You can’t act like Martin Luther outside and be Padre Pio inside.
This Pope may repent one day, and we should all pray as much as we can that he may one day come back to be (or, more likely, become) a Catholic. But if he swims like a heretic, walks like a heretic, and quacks like a heretic, I will leave this rubbish about the “not judging” to others.
Let your nay be nay. Don’t go to your judgment and be told you listened to hundreds of episodes of defiance of the Church, and all you could say was that you were “surprised” or “confused”.
Being neither cold nor hot is rather dangerous.
This part deals with the “pastoral heresy”, the blatant situational ethics, the aggressive secularist and anti-catholic behaviour demonstrated at every turn and, last but not least, why faithful Catholics cannot remain silent in the face of such a disgrace.
Once again I repeat my appeal: please spread these links as much as you can. Opposition to the Evil Clown can only be effective if more and more people are helped to understand the reality of this truly unbelievable Pontificate.