Monthly Archives: December 2010

The Sodoma Experiment, Part III: The Accomplices

By all the disgust about the astonishing feat of these last days (two perverted children “adopting” – or something like that – a third child, this one very young) we have somewhat overlooked the fact that in this case, astonishing behaviour is shown on several levels.

Let us take, for example, the mother. I mean by that the rightful owner of the uterus considered fit enough for an aging rock star and his chosen boy toy. No doubt the lady can use the cash as, for what I know, the physiological process of pregnancy is neither of little consequence, nor entirely pleasant, nor devoid of some (residual, nowadays) health risk. This without considering the bikini shape, as I am risking the assumption that one able and accustomed to have almost any whim satisfied will choose to have his boy or (more importantly) daughter as pleasing to the eye as technology and money can make possible.

The mother, then. I can hear all the circle of friends and acquaintances emitting various  rumours and hushed cries of faked joy swearing about how “beautiful” this is. How “sweet”. How very “exciting”. By the money probably involved, the word “remunerative” might also have fallen in; though of course not in the presence of the sweet angel bearing the new life romantically injected into her after the documentation was finalised.

What is more to the point is that the lady prostituted her uterus for the well-paid pleasure of a strange royal family composed of two queens, and that all those who have helped in doing so (the doctors and medical personnel; or the lawyers caring for the, no doubt, ponderous legal side of the matter) have abetted this prostitution.

Think of it: in most Western countries the law does not allow to organise an establishment so that men can have an hour of (sinful, but humanly rather understandable*) pleasure, but in the same countries it would be allowed to rent a woman not for an hour of pleasure but for nine months of a complex biological process; not to satisfy an extremely common human craving, but to satisfy the extraordinary whim of a very rich person; not to satisfy a sexual attraction whose existence (even if wrongly directed in this case) is preordered by God and considered holy, but to satisfy a perversion God has never made possible in the first place and only a perverted use of technology in Mengele-style has made achievable. The madame of the establishment which Elton John might have visited to get a whim out of his system (if he had been a man; which he isn’t) would have risked jail, but the doctor who implanted a baby on the uterus of his choice doesn’t.

Funny world. Where are the feminists when they could, for once, be of some use.

The mother, then. Methinks, she reasons that this is only a biological exercise; that once the child has been given away he will be soon be if not forgotten, at least not remembered as her own lost child; that by all the money received in the process (I can’t really imagine her having financial cares, ever again) she’ll be able to go on with her life, have her own children, give them better chances than this would otherwise have been possible, & Co. Doesn’t work that way, though. Volens nolens, she is the mother. Nature is stronger than rationalisation and clever thinking. Nature doesn’t care for the content of legal documents. Nature will claim from her, one day, that motherhood that she has sold, prostituted away.

We see it happening in these tragic era, with female suicides on the rise largely because of abortions committed several decades before. We have seen it happening in all ages past, with mothers forced to give their babies to the care of an orphanage pining for their lost motherhood (involuntarily lost, poor souls) for the rest of their life. We see it happening even in men, developing an extremely keen sense of loss after divorce and partial isolation from their children. Think of the sorrow of the woman discovering one day (a day far away perhaps, but a day that will invariably come) that this was her child, made by her and sold. Wouldn’t want to be her, not for all money in the world.  

Far less tragic appears in comparison the position of the other accomplices and one can’t exclude that they will live and die in utter disregard of the evil they have contributed to create. Still, even for them the day will come when account must be given. I hope and pray that for them awareness and repentance may come before it’s too late.

I wish everyone a happy, prosperous and spiritually fruitful 2011.


* Before the usual idiots and feminists come out saying that “Mundabor approves of prostitution”, let me make clear that I don’t.

Father Finigan On Mum, Mass And Soap

Absolutely beautiful blog post from Father Finigan.

As it is not very long I allow myself to re-post it in its entirety.

“My Mum Forced me To Clean My Teeth”

“I am heartily sick of the protest “I don’t go to Mass because my parents forced me to go when I was young.” OK Son, what else did your parents force you to do?

Your parents forced you to wash before you went out in the morning. Those cruel tyrants made sure that you cleaned your teeth before you went to bed. They dragged you kicking and screaming to school so that you could learn to read – and the teachers collaborated by forcing you to learn the alphabet and put the words together.

To top it all, after looking after your physical needs, they had the temerity to exercise their authority by looking after your spiritual needs and taking you to Mass on Sunday.

If they had neglected to see that you were clean, had suitable clothes, eat some sort of nourishing food, get some education and cross the road safely, they would have been visited by social services and given a care plan so that you could be healthy and safe.

And you are complaining because they took responsibility for your eternal life?

In this context, it is relevant to quote again the classic:

Ten reasons why I never wash

  1. I was forced to as a child.
  2. People who wash are hypocrites – they think they are cleaner than everybody else.
  3. There are so many different kinds of soap, I can’t decide which one is best.
  4. I used to wash, but I got bored and stopped.
  5. I wash only on special occasions, like Christmas and Easter.
  6. None of my friends wash.
  7. I’ll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
  8. I can’t spare the time.
  9. The bathroom is never warm enough in winter or cool enough in summer.
  10. People who make soap are only after your money”.

I would add the following:

“11. Some soap representatives turned out to be child abusers.”

“12. If I start using the soap, I’ll have to make an effort to stay clean.”

“13. If I start using the soap, there’ll be unpleasant discussion with my stinking neighbours.”


The Sodoma Experiment, Part II: “Telegraph” Not Much Better Than Dame Elton


What this blog post is about.

I have written only yesterday about the extraordinary times we live in; times when an old pervert who, together with his perverted (er, what….. mistress?) decides to have a new and unusual toy can easily “rent a uterus” and, through the help of sperm of not yet revealed origin, provide to what he probably calls “procreation” and certainly “fatherhood”.

Today, the “Telegraph” has an additional article about that. The article shows at the same time the pit in which the “Telegraph” has descended, the indifference to perversion of its journalists and more broadly the indifference with which vast parts of society – even among those calling themselves “conservative” – looks at abominations of this sort before happily moving back to the enjoyment of Cheryl Cole’s secondary sexual characteristics.

The article’s position first. It is in the “celebrities” section of the Telegraph’s “news” internet presence. From this we infer that a) the “Telegraph” finds it necessary to have a “celebrity” section, and b) the “Telegraph” considers celebrity gossip “news”. Not many years ago such rubbish would have been considered something for the working classes; which, by the way, is still the case.

The content of the article is also revealing. Elton John’s childishness is heavily criticised, his decadent habits utterly (and, I must say, rather amusingly) exposed. Still, not one word about his perversion, the scandal he gives, the monstrosity of men “adopting”. Yes, the sperm-uterus-concoction used in this case does cause a certain discomfort, but I fail to detect any moral message in that. Basically, the fact that the man buys a tram and has it shipped through a couple of oceans is seen as morally reprehensible, the fact that he is an openly homosexual old perv living with his concubine isn’t.

So much so, that the article’s author considers clearly reprehensible that an Ukrainian child suffering from Aids could not be adopted by the “couple”. How backwards, these Ukrainians who continue to insist on a family being….. a family! “With a rubber stamp, a small boy’s life chances were crushed”, says Ms. Woods in an emotionally charged, X-Factor-cum-Dickens moment….. (I failed to cry, though. It must be me).

What? Crushed because the poor child has not been adopted by….. a couple of homos? What “adoption” is this? What “family” is this? And for Heaven’s sake let us set aside the donations. Donations don’t buy one the right to be above the Law and I am rather pleased that the Ukraine showed more integrity than Madonna’s Malawi (or whichever other tin-pot African post-colonial disaster it was).

So there we are: two homos go around a) trying to adopt children and – failing that – b) proceed to hire alien uteruses (and perhaps even sperm; who knows, they might have quarrelled about who is “the father” and I really wouldn’t want to see two aged homos in a kitchen fight…..) and the “Telegraph”‘s journalist doesn’t criticise the obvious monstrosity of all this, but merely the infantile, ego-driven, diva-like character of one of the two (good Lord, there we are again…) “fathers”.

Sometimes I have the impression that just as we speak, up above dear old Abraham is haggling with God again, trying to spare us the angel’s visit…….


The Madness of Our Times: Elton John And “Partner” Get A Child

Now available as "Fathers", too.

As reported in a clearly festive and non-judgmental mood by what is becoming the most lavender-reeking newspaper in England, the once great “Daily Telegraph”, Sir (or should I say: Dame) Elton John has now – probably tired of other extravagancies – hired a uterus and procured a baby to be adopted by his lady-male-friend and himself.

The fact that this symbol of perversion is now 63 does not add anything to the monstrosity of the matter (men, and I mean real ones, have had children at old age in all ages past, particularly if they had the need to ensure descendants to family or kingdom), but helps one to understand to what extent the perversion of modern times makes a god of every ego-driven whim.

The man is not only old. He is homosexual to boot. His desire to “adopt a child” is not due to his thinking that Golden Retriever puppies are not original enough, or that – after Madonna’s episode – taking a black child away from his father and enlarged family is not so cool anymore. No, his uterus-hiring exercise is the product of the same militant poofdom which prompted him to have a so-called civil partnership contracted on the first day of this becoming legal in what was once a great Empire and has now become a laboratory for perversion experiments.

Dame Elton has an agenda. His decision is not about a man wanting to become a father, but about a fag wanting to show that he can become a father. For this, Labrador puppies are not good enough.

No doubt, this latest monstrosity (which would have terrified the most rabid feminists of 100, or even 50 years ago and would have been considered an absurdity even by homos themselves until very recent times) will be saluted by Satanic England as the newest achievement in the march toward “equality” and celebration of “diversity”.

These are the times we live in and even the supposedly conservative “Telegraph” sees it fitting to make of this just another “celebrity” article.

Time to wake up, folks.


“Catholics For Choice” And Other Oxy-morons

They would have liked "Catholics For Choice"

I never cease to be amazed at that particular form of human stupidity expressing itself in people insisting that things be the contrary of what they are. Say, I am buddhist and I’d like to think that Jesus was Buddhist, therefore I persuade myself that Jesus was Buddhist.

The problem with that is that one can’t believe one thing and ts contrary. Unless he is outright stupid or deluded to the point of stupidity, of course. If you believe in Jesus you can’t believe that he was Buddhist and if you think that Jesus was Buddhist you don’t believe in Jesus, you believe in a self-made religion to which you conveniently attach what you and many other like in an attempt to make it credible.

The same happens here. You can’t believe that you are a Catholic and that Catholicism is wrong on doctrinal issues. You really can’t. It’s a contradiction in terms. Besides indicating the belonging to a group, being Catholic has a meaning, it signifies something. It is logically impossible to claim to belong to this group and at the same time to negate what the belonging means. You can’t say that you are an “Atheist for Allah”, because being an Atheist implies that you do not believe in any Allah and every claim of doing so lets one sink into total ridicule.

This is so unbelievably banal that it shouldn’t be necessary to explain this at all, not even to a chid. No child claims to be, say, a boy but also a girl because he knows that if you are a boy, you obviously can’t be a girl.

This wisdom is accessible to every five-years-old child, but is apparently beyond the grasp of a group calling itself, wait for this, “Catholics for Choice”.
As the Motley Monk blog reports, not only such an organisation exists (I am tempted now to google in order to see whether the “Atheists for Allah” also exist, seriously…), but it even has a “President”. This chap has – in a moment of boredom or drukenness or, more probably, in a desperate attempt to make himself important – released a statement about Bishop Olmsted’s decision to deprive a group of medical structures to call itself “Catholic” and about which I have already reported.

The statement, available in full on the above mentioned blog, is hilarious. I mean not hilarious for me, but hilarious for every five-years-old who has been properly instructed about what “Catholicism” is. The statement reeks of those home-made religions that aromatherapy-addicted old aunts invent after a longish sojourn in Thailand and reminds rather of the immortal Monthy Phyton sketch about the man who “wants to be a woman” .

Here the sublime humour of Monthy Phyton is not even approached, but a good effort is made when the “individual conscience” is presented – by people who call themselves “Catholic” – as the decisive criterium of what is good.
Also nice is that, very much in line with “liberal” thinking, the good conscience of the one who defends elementary Catholic values is put into question. Basically what the chap says is: “we go against the Teaching of the Church but we are in good conscience, so we are fine; you defend them, therefore are probably in bad faith”. Classic.
The substitution of praxis with Catholic value is also very funny: a lot of Catholics recur to abortion, therefore abortion is in line with Catholicism. I’d like to know the chap’s opinion about fornication, adultery, drunkenness, gluttony, & Co. No wait, better not…..

Enjoy the statement and add, if you can, a Hail Mary for the poor deluded chap who is in serious need of them.


On The Rosary – Again!

Our Lady of Pompeii. Notice the object in the Blessed Lady's hand..

I have often written about the Rosary and I will continue to do in the future, as I think that the Rosary is the most beautiful weapon (after the Mass) in the armoury of the Catholic and the motorway to salvation even for the, well, more difficult cases.

EWTN has on its website a short-ish but well-made explanation of this devotion with both a short historical excursus and some briefly but convincingly outlined arguments of why we should pray the Rosary.

I’d add to them that the devotion to the Rosary for one’s entire life has been described by the Virgin Mary as a sign of predestination. In short, this means that developing the habit of devoutly reciting the Rosary will have as effect that Mary’s intercession and the work of the Holy Ghost will allow us to die in the state of grace.

I can’t stress enough how important this is in the life and in the economy of salvation of every faithful. The daily recitation of the Rosary – and the many promises attached to it, most importantly the one outlined above – will help the faithful to get some serenity if they tend to have scruples, to look with confidence at moral improvement and at a good death if they are alarmingly sinful – and perhaps tending to desperation – and to give a quiet confidence and a beautiful, serene hope to all the others.

In very simple words, the practice of the devout recitation of the Rosary is the way a Catholic makes his salvation – to express oneself very bluntly – in some way “irrefutable”. If he perseveres in this devotional habit, Mary’s intercession and the Holy Ghost’s work in him will invariably lead him to a point where he improves his ways at least to the extent that the mercy of God does not deny him salvation. It doesn’t mean that one will become a saintly man, nor that this process will be a gradual or a visible one, nor that a long and painful sojourn in Purgatory will in this way be automatically avoided. Similarly, it is not like going to the gym every day, with the results being soon visible in direct proportion to the regularity and earnestness of the effort. Rather, it is like working every day to the building of an invisible shield with the promise that – if we persevere in this work like honest craftsmen – the shield is guaranteed to be, at the moment of death, strong enough to avoid Satan wounding one’s soul to the point of damnation.

It is, in a sense, a minimum guarantee concerning what is, in everyone’s life, the matter of most importance.

For this reason not only the importance of the habit of praying the rosary can never be sufficiently stressed, but at the same time the benefit of transmitting this knowledge within one’s own circle of relatives or acquaintances appears evident. For example, parents could make an effort to instil in their young children the habit of praying the Rosary every day at the same time as they decide to acquire this habit for themselves; even if there is no guarantee that these children, once grown, will keep the habit it is highly probable that one day – when life’s troubles knock at their door, as they invariably do – they’ll remember the experience and perhaps recover a great patrimony for themselves.

The Rosary is truly, truly important. So important that, in my eyes, it should be looked at with the same sense of importance with which mass attendance is observed, but with the notable difference that a daily rosary recitation is easier to achieve than mass attendance and the failure to attend to this devotion is therefore, so to speak, less easily excusable. I mean by this that one can pray the Rosary even on many of those occasion when he is not in a position to attend Mass: say, when ill or travelling.

If one is honest with oneself, he’ll notice that he does have the time to pray during the day, or before going to bed. As always, it is a matter of priorities and if one discovers that he can’t find 20 minutes for prayer in 16-18 hours of waking time, well this is a clear sign that his priorities are in dire need of re-adjustment! Conversely, if one decides that the daily recitation of the rosary does have priority he’ll soon discover that the opportunities to recite it are in a normal day – and if necessary by splitting the rosary in a decade or more at the time, as one is allowed to do – aplenty.

Forgive me, therefore, for coming back to the same argument again and again. If there is an issue worth of being repeated, it is this one. I also allow myself to stress the benefit of daily recitation of the rosary because – at least for me – this is the only way to make it work. It is in my eyes very difficult to take the decision to pray the Rosary, say, “three times a week” and stick to it, as irregularity of practice facilitates forgetfulness and mañana-attitude. Much easier is it, I think, to make of the rosary a daily habit. No forgetfulness, and no mañanas…..

Devout Mass attendance and devout Rosary recitation are God’s and Mary’s double whammy against Satan’s snares. You do these two and the rest will come to you by itself in the same way as if you leave your front door open in winter cold will unavoidably get in. By devoutly attending Mass and reciting the Rosary, you open the door to Heaven moulding you in such a way that Satan won’t win, guaranteed.

There’s no better deal in your life, no investment with a higher yield, no pleasure or joy that can compare with this.

Start taking the habit of praying the rosary every day. One day you’ll be so glad you did it.


Archbishop Longley Misses An Occasion To Do His Job

If you go here at around 2:10:00 (make haste, because it might disappear in the next days) you’ll have a good example of what doesn’t work with the Church in England.

The BBC journalist insists in posing irritating, but actually very fitting questions to Archbishop Longley. Thankfully, the journalist has got it that the Pope was, during Condomgate, “not saying anything terribly new” and he therefore asks – understandably, from his ungodly perspective – whether the Church is going to “change” Her opinion about condoms and, more fittingly, whether the average English Catholics accepts “lock, stock and barrel” the Catholic doctrine.

This would be an ideal occasion to launch oneself on a passionate defence of Truth, on BBC’s “Today” programme, on Christmas Eve. Which is, I was told, what an Archbishop is supposed to do anyway.

Instead, Archbishop Langley’s answers oscillate between the inane, the cowardly and the pathetic. He goes on and on remembering the success of the Papal visit; talks about how much the church is looking for “dialogue”; insists on Cardinal Newman in a way clearly meant to avoid the show of “tough love” required of him; tries not to answer the journalist’s questions and even says that he thinks that Catholics in England accept “lock, stock and barrel” the Catholic teaching, “otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholic”. Good Lord; do we live on the same planet….

The buzz words, though, are all there. Dialogue is obviously there and change is also felt as appropriate. “The Church is constantly changing”, says he when he talks of the ways the Church talks to the people. This is meant to sound positive, I suppose, but the guts to say loud and clear that the Truth doesn’t change and everyone must come to terms with that is clearly more than he can muster. So we have on the one side the hurt feeling of perverts – explicitly and emphatically championed by the Beeb man – and on the other hand we have a man insisting with you that the Church “changes” because now the Pope talks to you on the radio. Brilliant.

Archbishop Longley (not one of the worst, for sure; for the English standard, I mean) has given a wonderful example of why the Church struggles in this country: because it is afraid to say it straight and prefers to hide behind successful visits, blessed Cardinals and easy slogans of “dialogue” and “change” instead.


BBC & Co. Silent As CDF Puts Things Right

You can read on Rorate Coeli (you’ll have to scroll down to the 21st December) the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on trivialization of sexuality” (American spelling, apparently. Fair enough…).

This is nothing less than an official statement about Condomgate. If you take the few minutes to read it, you’ll notice that the arguments it makes are not in the least different from the comment made on this and other orthodox blogs at the time of the controversy.

What one notices is that at least here in the UK the media have chosen to completely ignore this statement in the same way as they had – once it became clear that they had once again pissed outside of the pan – conveniently decided to move to other topics.

As a result the truth didn’t get one hundredth of the media attention given to the lie and untold non-churchgoer Catholics must be somewhat under the impression that after all the Church can change Her teaching and therefore, well, must change it in order to become, ehem, more similar to them.

This is further prove that the media landscape of this country – largely dominated by champagne liberals, liberals who can’t afford the champagne and socialists who think they’re liberals – is not interested in information, but in manipulation of the (license-paying) public.


The Bishop, The Sister And The Hospital

Slow to act, but though in the end....

The case of Sister Margaret McBride, who was excommunicated By Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix after permitting an abortion taking place in the Catholic Hospital of St. Joseph, Phoenix, Arizona, is well-known and the issue of Sr. McBride’s excommunication has been widely discussed on the blogosphere in the past. This hospital is part of a series of structures called Catholic Healthcare West (CHW).

In the last days, a new element of the controversy has appeared as the Bishop has now revoked the right of the entire system of medical structures CHW to call itself “Catholic”. This is therefore not a single hospital being singled out, but an entire net of structures found so deficient that the adjective “catholic” cannot be applied to anyone of its components anymore.

You find the statement of the Bishop here. I assure you it is worth the reading. I limit myself to comment as follows:

1) The action of the Bishop is highly commendable. Still, one remains with the uncomfortable impression that in this day and age a Bishop can be ignored for seven long years before action being taken. Years, not months. One understands the need to be somewhat gentle, but if gentleness is perceived as indecisiveness it is no surprise that the bishop’s admonitions are ignored.

2) Bishop’s Olmsted action has, as it appear from the statement, been precipitated by the information about an abortion having taken place. I don’t want to think how long it would have taken for the Bishop to take decisive action if the news of the abortion hadn’t reached him.

3) From the statement it would also appear that on closer scrutiny a series of further infractions have been discovered, which had gone on unchallenged for years. In particular, sterilisations and even abortions have been practised with regularity under the very nose of the diocese, whose ability to know what was happening appears to have been rather impaired. One reads such news and shivers at the thought at what happens every day in the “Catholic” institutions of the rest of the country.

4) By all the justified criticism of the slowness and softness of the Bishop’s past action, what is evident here is the extremely clear tone of the communication. By reading it – particularly if accustomed to the exercises of our local bad shepherds like Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols – I could scarcely believe that this was an official statement of a Bishop. This is a man who has understood that his inaction led to the loss of human lives and has decided to put an end to it – as far as he can – in the most decisive way. You can read here a further statement released two days after and which is a further example of a brutally frank communication style.

Kudos, then, to Bishop Olmsted for his certainly belated, but nevertheless courageous action. Let us hope that his example will soon be followed by his colleagues and the adjective “Catholic” before a hospital’s (or university’s) name will soon mean something again.


US Army And Shower Neighbours

This here is authentically funny and shows all the blindness of political correctness. Enjoy!

For the record, I haven’t seen a gym in the last 20 years (no, 25) without individual shower cubicles; I also thought there were some people around who still knew what “decency” is; but I didn’t know that there were people able to think that males and females showering together is “disruptive”, but having to completely undress in front of a self-proclaimed faggot isn’t.
Funny old world.

As to “what happens in the gym”, I can assume that in Nordic countries – and certainly in the old Communist Germany – nudity in front of the other sex was seen as absolutely normal. That is, I would say, a bit more frequent than in the comparatively scarce gyms without proper privacy. Where’s Mr. Frank’s problem, then?


Michael Voris on Christmas And Hell

Lucas Cranach, "Adam and Eve".

This must be one of the most brilliant Voris contributions ever*.

The general tone and message of the short video (the very Catholic idea that every one of us is naturally headed for damnation, with Christ’s sacrifice opening us a door to Redemption, but a door which we must still consciously get through; or – to use the even more fitting Voris’ image – that we are in a pit of sin and prospective damnation with Christ tending us a hand that we need to grasp and hold to if we want our soul to be saved) must sound utterly shocking to the modern “everything goes”, “heart in the right place”, “let us be nice to each other”, tofu-eating, permanently “celebrating”, “inclusive” brigade. It will be, in fact, rather fun to observe, in the next days, the comments about this video and the astonished reactions of people confronted, perhaps for the first time in their life, with something different from the usual “isn’t it incredibly cool that we are all going to be saved”-mantra all too often heard from the permanently smiling priest down the road.

Voris is good because, among other things, he constantly works at the demolition of the sugary image of Catholicism held by so many poorly instructed Catholics nowadays; the vague idea that Jesus be an older version of Mahatma Ghandi with some trait of Nelson Mandela thrown in, or that Christianity be a simple way to “celebrate whatever each one of us feels like doing” whilst feeling so “inclusive” and “tolerant” in the process.

“I’ll do as I please, you’ll do as you please, we’ll celebrate each other and feel rather smug by doing it” seems to be the unspoken slogan of such “Catholics”.  The fact that some of them might even be in (some sort of) good faith only exposes the criminal neglect of the very fundamentals of Catholic instruction initiated by the pot fest called Second Vatican Council and the heavy drugs phase called Spirit of Vatican II.

As the detoxification progresses and the Church becomes more and more aware of the extent of the damage inflicted to Her body by decades of unspeakable wreckage of all that is authentically Catholic, it is good that those like Voris help the faithful to gain consciousness of the extent of the fundamental problem of the human condition.

When one properly understands the concept, one realises that the Church’s troubles are but its consequence. Conversely, unless one understands the fundamental sinfulness of the human condition it will be very difficult for him to look at the problems within the Church and put them into the proper context. If he is sooo good and surely meant for Heaven, how can the Church be so much below his own standard?

Let us hope and pray that this is the last generation of Catholics thinking that Jesus was “like, cool” and the Church “bad, man”.


*as always, free registration might be needed. Do yourself a favour and get through the procedure; you won’t regret it.

Extraordinary Ministers And Conservative Catholics.

Father Z has, some time ago, posted an interesting post about a Catholic churchgoer explaining why she might renounce communion on the tongue.

What could have seemed the usual rant of an oldish feminist now deciding that communion on the tongue is too much identified with “Catholic Crusaders” turned out to be a real and well-meant concern of desecration of the host due to the inability of many “extraordinary ministers” to cope with communion on the tongue.

I’d like to give my short comment in the usual intolerant and crusader-like way.

1) If you ask me, the lady’s mistake was that she chose to receive communion from an eucharistic minister in the first place. As the priest is always there giving communion a Catholic who wants to receive on the tongue should actually do the obvious thing and queue on the priest’s line, whilst the “communion in the hand”-crowd will be left, if they really really want, to the eucharistic minister(ess).

2) The priest can certainly be blamed for not properly training the eucharistic ministers but in all honesty, not many priests expect one who wants to receive on the tongue to queue on the eucharistic minister’s line. I was surprised to read that something like that happens at all.

3) My personal experience is that on such occasions (where eucharistic ministers are present) the queue to receive from the priest is much longer than the ones to receive from the eucharistic ministers and I have seen scenes that were authentically embarrassing for the latter. Nowadays, eucharistic ministers are as much in fashion as bell bottom jeans. Thank God for that.

4) It goes without saying that the recovery of sound Catholic practice goes through the abolition of eucharistic ministers, a sad and ridiculous leftover of years of theological drunkenness and liturgical abuse. The same goes for the communion in the hand, something reminding me more and more of Donald Trump’s hair or Elton John’s clothes.

A conservative Catholic should, in my eyes, vote with his own feet and receive communion in the same way as countless generations before him have done.

It is not about better training the eucharistic minister. It is about getting rid of (well) her.


The New Model Homo Army Introduces Itself

Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.

The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.

Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.

In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and one’s nation) survival. I wonder how many of the above mentioned liberals and perverts would favour such measures if the risk of being raped and killed by an invading army was a concrete possibility. As things stand, the army is something liberals and feminist only notice when they criticise it, or when they criticise the government of the day for using it.

But the most important element to be noticed is in my eyes a different one: the de-Christianisation of the West that makes such abominations (and such utterly ridiculous measures) thinkable in the first place. What until not many years ago (with remembrances of war a concrete experience for most, a more solid Christian thinking and a keen perception of what an army is there for) would have been the subject of low-grade comedies is now supposed to become not only the norm, but be celebrated as an achievement to boot.

Mala tempora currunt. I do hope that the new composition of the Congress and Senate in the US will make it possible to repeal this abomination in the years to come but I do not doubt that, should not be the case, the problems will be enough as to force the US Army to backpedaling in just a few decades, as the Church did.


The European Court Of Human Rights Shows What Nazi-Activism Leads To

You might have read that, in another desperate attempt to be “relevant”, the (let me check…) European Court of Human Rights has decided that its judges are right and the Irish people, Catholicism, Christian decency and common sense wrong.

You find here a short description of what this court is. Basically,

a) it is nothing to do with the EU (besides the fact that many countries happen to be members of both)
b) it has been instituted by one of the innumerable treaties meant to give jobs to people deemed worthy of receiving favours from politicians (the main reason why such institutions exist anyway),
c) It has 47 European members. I didn’t even know Europe has made it to 47 states, but make your guess as to how many are modern democracies and you’ll know everything you need to know about this farce.
d) even Russia is part of the treaty. Which really, really says it all.

Basically, this is one of the many supranational institutions within and without the EU which are taken as an excuse to do something a national government wants to do anyway but is scared of taking responsibility for or are, alternatively, utterly and completely ignored without even the press making themselves ridiculous by asking that their ruling be put into practice.

In this case, which – as you can read here, regards a rather limited sphere of application and doesn’t force ( I mean: doesn’t even try) Ireland to repel tout court its ban of abortion, the reaction of the Irish government will tell us whether the local politicians want to take this as an excuse to give in, or stand their ground and show this activist “court” the longest finger they can find. The first reactions seem to indicate that Ireland will stay the course, and thank God for that.

But this is, really, not the question.

The question is how on Earth supranational “judges” think that they have the right to decide in the place of modern Western democracies in matters which are among the most radical and fundamental decisions imaginable.

This shows all the degree of perversion and effeminacy nowadays reached in mainstream European public opinion; a vast region where the news that some self-appointed “Supranational Supernanny” wants to tell to million of people what to think in matters of life and death doesn’t cause a deluge of calls for the immediate suppression of such ridiculously undemocratic institutions. Very simply, the idea that their “betters” should tell them how to “improve” is so ingrained in the imaginary of the emasculated population that the best you can hope is that such decision are simply ignored because of their evident stupidity. Probably what is going to happen in this case.

This is liberal Nazism at its worst. “Stuff democracy, we decide” is its war cry. Democracy is an obstacle to the creation of the “Just Nanny Society”, where the citizens are protected from their own decisions (though allowed to play democracy every now and then, if they behave) and some “judge” remakes the world at pleasure; and no Christianity please, it’s not “diverse” enough.

Fuehrerprinzip for the XXI Century, that’s what this is. We should start to call for the abolition of all such supranational judiciary bodies. They don’t count and they don’t work. They can only be used as an excuse by cowardly politicians and we really don’t need the ones or the others.


Cardinal Burke Strikes Again

Cardinal Burke is truly one of the brightest stars in the Church’s firmament.

Look here at his latest firework. The man attacks not one, but several tenets of the secular and liberal Catholic mentality at the same time. He is like a Gatling cannon (I know I have made this comparison already; I did it because I like it 😉 ) shooting at the errors of our time.

Condemnation of “secularist dictatorship” and of the “moral bankruptcy “of contemporary culture; explicit mention of Satan (you don’t say!?); claim of Jesus Christ as the fullness of Revelation (“hate crime”, methinks?); criticism of fake Catholicism (and one wonders whether CINO will soon become a frequently met abbreviation); criticism of secular mentality within the Church; criticism of the hostility of liberal university towards pastoral teaching; criticism of the widespread ignorance in all matter Catholic…. Cardinal Burke can put all this (probably more than what ++ Vincent Nichols had the gut or the conviction to say in an entire career) in one speech.

One reflects that this man is now officially among the papabili and is filled (by all wishes of a long and happy life to the present Pontiff) with a sense of optimism and expectation for the future of the Church.

More like him and the Church will come out of the V-II sump in which she has sunk herself in no time.


Wikileaks And The Concerned Ambassador

I am not a friend of Wikileaks.

Still, as everyone else I can’t close my eyes in front of the reality of information being now in the public domain and will therefore say a word or two about the behaviour of Mr. Campbell, the British ambassador to the Holy See.

Mr. Campbell has a fundamental problem: he thinks that true unity between the Only Church and heretical groups may be achieved in some way mysteriously different from the only possible one: that at the end of the process there are only Catholics of the right sort (as opposed to the soi-disant ones).

As Mr. Campbell misses this very simple point, he is unable to see what is happening with the Ordinariates. He sees them as something meant primarily for Australian and North Americans, because he can’t see that Ordinariates are meant for everyone who wants to be a Catholic. He can’t see the push towards unity (the real one) that this entails because to him unity is a unity of two churches, which as a concept is as Catholic as I am Communist. He suggests that Rowan Williams should have been “consulted” about the ordinariates because in his vision of the “two churches” he sees the latter as somewhat entitled to the information.

In a word, Mr. Campbell seems somewhat concerned about the well-being of the Anglicans as “church” and fully intentioned to regard the shop as such. This might be forgivable in a poorly instructed non-Catholic, but a Catholic ambassador to the Vatican should know a bit better than that.

Mr. Campbell misses the substance of what the Church is. As a consequence, he misses the reasons and motives of why She acts as She does. He looks at the Church with the distorted spectacles of his own political convictions and therefore it is no surprise that he can’t have a clear picture of what is happening.

In my eyes, the United Kingdom needs an ambassador to the Vatican who is able to understand the Church. If he doesn’t have the instruments to understand the Vatican’s motivations, how can he be properly explain them to his own political masters?


Will Catholics come Home?

Father Z informs us of an initiative of two US (Arch)Dioceses, meant to encourage Catholics who have stopped practicing to come back to the Sacramental life.

Whilst one can only be appreciative of every effort to get lost sheep back to the fold, I allow myself to point out to the fact that just to say “please, please come back!” will not yield a great dividend unless a ruthless analysis of why the sheep have gone away in the first place does not precede the initiative.

The sheep have gone away because the shepherd has become rather weak, rather superficial, rather cowardly and rather stupid. The sheep have gone away because the shepherd has become even too weak to tell them that they are supposed to stay within the fold rather than being scattered everywhere.

If the shepherd starts telling the sheep “what do you want to do today?”; or to appoint a sheep comittee to tell him how to make his work; or to substitute his daily job of being a shepherd with that of being a “friend” of the sheep; or to talk to the sheep about social justice rather than caring for their welfare and security or, in general, to tell them that in these enlightened times the sheep have become so evolved that they don’t need shepherding anymore, it is really no surprise that the sheep become less and less.

Nor will the sheep come back just because the shepherd starts telling them what a good company he is, or what fun, or how socially aware they’ll become if they start being near him (being “led by him” is a word he would, obviously, never use) again.

The way to attract the sheep to the fold is always the same one: to be a good shepherd. The is what the shepherd should never have stopped doing. If the shepherd starts recovering the notion of the importance and dignity of his role, the sheep will slowly but surely start gatherng around him, because they see in him a refuge and protection, and indispensable help on their journey through life. Then, and only then, will the shepherd be able to lead them effectively and to let them feel protected and cared for.

Too many within the Church have renounced their role (particularly when unpleasant) and refused to do their job. This comes at a price and my impression is that the bad shepherds who did so will be punished far more severely than the careless sheep unable to see any use in them.

The recovery of church attendance goes through a recovery of the role of the Church, of the role of the priest sunday after sunday, homily after homily and controversy after controversy, of the basic understanding of what the Church is.

As long as this analysis is not done and the painful (for those looking for popularity and, ohh that word, relevance) consequences consequences of the choices to be made are not clear, there’ll never be any increase in church attendance.


The Holy Tree of Glastonbury

I must admit that (due to my ignorance or simply to these facts being a bit overstated) I didn’t even know of the existence of the “sacred tree of Glastonbury”, called Holy Thorn.

Come to that, I didn’t even know of the existence of any Sacred Trees (but again, I must be missing something here) or of the fact that the tree appeared to attract pilgrims from very far away. Apparently even the Queen gets a bit of it every year for her Christmas table. Must be an Anglican tree, then.

But really, this is not the point.

The point is that once again, a symbol of Christianity has been attacked by fanatical idiots and the fact hasn’t caused an uproar anywhere comparable to what would have happened if, say, a Mosque had been attacked or vandalised.

I am not a great friend of holy trees. I like trees, but this kind of legend attached to a tree (by the way planted in 1952 following a tradition of replanting “traditional” plants) is not really my cup of tea.

Still, the idea that the tree might have been cut as a reprisal against the landowner seems a very weak argument to me, considering both the present aggressive anti-Christian climate and the fact that we are approaching a time claimed by pagan sects as being of relevance to their own follies.

We’ll have to see in the next days if the people responsible for this act are caught and what their motivations are. But one can’t avoid registering the mere fact of these events happening as a worrying sign of the times.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.


Late Abortion And The Hypocrisy Of Abortion Clinics

From the Blog The Divine Life, an interesting post about that tragic word, “late-term abortion”.

Besides being very instructive about the scale of ruthlessness the “liberated” Western society has brought on us, it makes clear the intrinsic hypocrisy of the entire so-called “pro-choice” edifice.

An abortion is either a murder, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there should be no reason whatsoever why those who don’t consider abortion killing shouldn’t practice it any time before birth or – come to that and with the same thinking – actually during birth too. If it is, then it shouldn’t be practiced and it should be banned altogether, period.

This idea that an abortion would be morally acceptable for, say, 20 weeks but would then become morally questionable starting from day X is a logical and ethical absurdity. Also hypocritical is the behaviour of those institutions which practice abortions only in certain circumstances after the – arbitrarily decided – day X whilst leaving the circumstances completely under the control of the mother. Actually, when a mother decides that she wants to kill her baby it is difficult to tell her that she was morally authorised to do so until last Tuesday but, alas, at midnight all this ceased to apply.

The arguments just don’t have any logic. The argument that one would procure an abortion only after a certain day is totally devoid of logic and the argument that one would procure it only if there are reasons every mother could claim for herself (“emotional distress”, say) is illogical and hypocritical at the same time.

Abortion is murder. What is so difficult in that……


The Tridentine Mass And The Sense of The Sacred

Very interesting post from Father Z, who is basically requested how the Tridentine (I am against the use of “TLM” as a matter fo course; if it was the Tridentine for my grandfather it is fine for me, too) can be made interesting again to a person who, as a child, felt it is an imposition.

My answer would be to see the Tridentine Mass as one saw the obligation to learn as a child or the obligation to eat things different from, say, chocolate.

The Mass in itself has not changed, it is our attitude which must rise to the appreciation of the Mass. This requires a bit more work than it is necessary to appreciate, say, chocolate but it is perfectly doable anyway. It is a bit the same process many of us had to undergo with the learning of school subjects which might have seemed dreadful when very young and turned out to be extremely fascinating at a more mature age.

At Mass, we meet Christ. There can be nothing wrong with the Mass in itself. If we get a wrong feeling when thinking about the Mass, we must reflect whence it comes and how this feeling can be overcome. In the case of the Tridentine, the discomfort can only come from reminiscences of past impositions. These are nothing to do with the Mass itself.
If the discomfort should be caused by other factors (say: an unpleasant priest, an irreverent Novus Ordo, disturbances) then we should consider attending elsewhere. Still, we aren’t justified in thinking that the Mass should do something to interest us, as opposed to us becoming interested in the Mass.

Places like Amazon (not places like Waterstone’s) are full of books who can beautifully introduce one to the Tridentine. Know Your Mass is a simple, easy to understand, very orthodox, nicely made one.

Books like it is what, I think, should be suggested to those approaching the Mass again.

On Friday Penance again

Father Z has a post over a sort of debate published in the Catholic Herald and originated by the fact that (even!) the Bishops of E and W are now thinking about reinstating the practice.

I have written about the penance some time ago and will not repeat the argument. What I would like to stress here are the elements emerging from the discussion:

1) It is a very good sign that the Bishops of E and W (people who have a problem even with traditional days of obligation) are now thinking of reinstating Catholic traditions.

2) Personally I think that what they should do first is to a) reinstate the days of obligations and b) start to severely stress the Sunday Mass obligation.

3) I say this because if our hierarchy is not even able to request observance of Catholic rules when it is most important (Mass attendance), the request to reinstate traditional practices might – even if commendable in itself – sound hollow or, worse, fake. Particularly if it is accompanied by the usual self-flagellation meant to make one oh so accepted by the anti-Catholic public, as in “make penance on Friday to save the world from globaluormin“, or the like.

I am also against the argument that such a penance would be a small thing, or that in modern times it would have lost part of his meaning.

Catholicism is made, to a not little extent, of small things. They are what, brick by brick, builds the edifice of our salvation. To cross oneself when passing a church is a small thing, but it has been known to save souls. To say an Hail Mary or three is not a big sacrifice, but it causes joy in Heaven. A small act of contrition in the middle of the cares of our day is not a big thing in itself, but it is part of a habit and, as every Catholic should know, habits are very important in the economy of salvation.

As to the welfare argument, it might be argued that abstinence from meat on a Friday is more relevant today (when many people eat meat every day, so that to abstain from meat on a Friday requires a change of habit and the offering of a small sacrifice) than it was in days past (when the fewest people could afford to eat meat every day and therefore Friday abstinence was more a matter of planning than of sacrificing an otherwise affordable meat meal).

In general, it is very positive to see that old traditional Catholic practices are being, one by one, rediscovered. Personally, I think that the Bishops of E and W are not at the head of the movement, but merely following it.
Still, as long as they start to deliver I’ll not be the one to complain.


Spanish Government Can’t Guarantee Cardinal’s Security

Please read here what Spain has come to.

I wonder what the reactions would have been is a meeting of perverts (you know what I’m talking about, those with the many letters, LGTB or the like) had been treated the same way.

This without considering that the above mentioned perverts are fringe groups and the Cardinal represents the by far biggest religious organisation in Spain.

Spain had such problems in the past. They were solved in the end (and unfortunately, not without a huge amount of suffering) when an intelligent, brave and very Catholic man decided to stand up for Catholicism.

You never know, one day History may repeat itself.


The Nanny, The Police And The Catholic Blogger

We are all aware (or better: we should all be aware) of the fact that the secular society tries – with increasing energy and a more and more aggressive behaviour – to ban Catholic thinking. This is a disease common to lefties the world over (they have it in their genes, I suppose), but it is particularly evident in the formulation of legal heresies like the “hate crime” and all it is being used to justify.

We are informed from the “hermeneutic of Continuity” blog that steps have been undertaken to allow the police to block whatever site is – according to the judgement of said police – used to “commit crimes”.

Whereto this can lead is easy to see. In a world where political correctness is at a premium over the old activity of thinking, almost everything controversial can be considered “hate crime” and the removal of relevant pages be asked of the police without any need to have this view upheld by a court. This is the wet dream of Heidi’s governess and of all those like her and a poof, lesbian, and every other pervert’s paradise.

If this goes on, the pressure will be on the police to act according to the wishes of all those who consider themselves “victims”. Catholic thinking and in particular catholic bloggers will be a very obvious target.

It is astonishing that a country so proud of individual liberties as to even refuse the obligation to carry identity cards can tolerate such an intrusion of what would be a true police state into his right of freedom of expression and information.

If anyone knows of Internet petitions meant to put an end to this madness please let me know and I will give publicity to the fact as soon as possible.


The Prayer For The Unborn And The Turning of The Tide

Read here (from Father Z’s website) the beautiful Prayer For the Unborn of the Pontiff.

Besides helping to take the attention away from Condomgate and to substitute it with issues not in the least open to misinterpretations, the new prayer seems to me just another little sign of the times. It seems to me that, led from the United States, the entire Western world is slowly waking up to the fact that the fight against abortion must not only become central in the Western political debate, but to the way a person sees himself. “You can’t tell yourself a Christian and be an abortionist”, is the message which comes across with increasing evidence.

I know, actually there shouldn’t be any need to explain these simple truths in the first place. Alas, not a few Catholic shepherds were much more relaxed after the Second Vatican Mess, when many traditionally Catholic countries introduced abortion legislation and were confronted with a resistance that to define toothless would be gentle, and to define cowardly would be truthful.

We might slowly be approaching the turning of the tide. The recent elections in the United States have somewhat (somewhat) changed the landscape and I would say that slowly, but surely, the message will reach increasingly larger masses of Christians who have never really stopped to think how their professed Christianity could be reconciled with abortion more than with hail, or draught, or toothache.

If the result of the prayer is that in the next weeks the debate about condoms will be replaced by the debate about the genocide of the unborn, we’ll have an example of how to engage the public opinion in a way which is at the same time doctrinally orthodox, and not open to equivocation.


Praise Of A Heretic

Rare praiseworthy Heretic: C.S. Lewis

I am now re-reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape letters” and I am truly enjoying every word again. In a sense, I had almost forgotten how witty, profound and instructive the man was.
This book is, so to speak, the non-Catholic counterpart of the great G.K.Chesterton. More rapid to get to the point than the latter probably, though perhaps not so full of surprises and paradoxes.

Most of all, C.S.Lewis is amusing. He instructs whilst he entertains. The book is even more remarkable because, though written in the midst of the Second World War, it does not have anything of the propaganda or “Gott mit uns”-Attitude you might expect in a book written in such difficult and passionate times. Written in the middle of a savage conflict, the book reminds one even more of the far more momentous conflict (because linked, each one, to an eternal result) that the battle for the soul of every one of us is. C.S. Lewis flies over the conflicts of his time and dwells over the conflicts of every time.

The man is also remarkably orthodox from a Catholic perspective and is therefore, in my eyes, rather safe reading as instruction, too.

Many of you have probably read the book already. I think the others won’t do any damage to themselves by ordering it. Books which make it a pleasure to open and re-read at regular interval are seldom wrong investments.


(There. No one will be able to say that I always shoot at Heretics now….)

%d bloggers like this: