Monthly Archives: August 2011
Brilliant piece of sober, reasoned thinking from Frank Turek on TownHall.com.
Telling about the usual homo calling him – as usual for homos – “bigot”, he says among other things (emphases always mine):
That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?
And in fact it never persuaded me how you can have boundaries, but I can’t. How you can claim to have a moral compass, but I cannot. How you can have a sexual perversion, and say that the ill person – the homophobic one – am I.
Then comes the debunking of the idea of having to be sympathetic to sodomites:
According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destruction—if a truck is about to run over you—the only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that road—that I celebrate the road you’re on—how could I hate you more?
I like the argument, but I personally do not think that medical behaviour should be the reason for condemning homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong because – besides being utterly disgusting, in such a way that only a depraved generation can choose to overlook the sheer horror of such a behaviour – it’s forbidden by God in a very special way. It has made it into an extremely exclusive list of sins – that countless generations have learned by heart and many contemporary “Christians” wouldn’t even know what it is about – and it has been explicitly been condemned by Christ Himself, who used Sodom as the epitome and paragon of evildoing when condemning the inhabitants of Capernaum.
“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day”. Matthew 11:23
It needs a very, very thick reader not to comprehend that here Jesus is saying “even those perverts who were so astonishingly bad that they had to be destroyed in their entirety might have seen the light in time, if they had had the privilege of seeing me accomplishing such mighty works as I did for you”.
But no, nowadays people prefer to believe that “Jesus does not take position on homosexuality” (no? Really? So he did came to subvert the Law after all? Or am I missing something here?), as yours truly had the adrenaline-laden privilege of reading in that oh so balanced loudspeaker of modern faggotry, the “Daily Telegraph”.
Turek’s treatment of the “born that way” is highly entertaining, and I will report it in its entirety:
First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because homosexual unions don’t reproduce.
Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.
Third, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important— they were also born with a specific anatomy. We can’t know if our desires are inborn since we can’t remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.
Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.
I liked that with the “don’t blame me” as in fact could be used to justify every kind of behaviour, ever the one homos define as “homophobic”.
The author concludes with two very perceptive statements:
a) in nowadays political climate, calling your opponent ” bigot” might win the day even if you don’t have any argument at all. The senseless and ceaseless whining of the homos is proof of that. Play the victim, and you’ll look good even if you are the real nazi.
b) In order to put an end to this circus, the only thing that must happen is that people start thinking again, getting rid of the politically correct blinkers and starting to apply simple logic to life’s situations.
We are not there yet, but something is starting to move.
Absolutely brilliant blog post from the “Little Catholic Bubble” about misguided compassion.
The author of the blog first describes her observation that
The culture has quickly moved from complete aversion to gay “marriage” (which was unthinkable even fifteen years ago) to the beginnings of real acceptance. I’ve noticed that most who have moved towards acceptance have done so out of a misguided sense of compassion.
We see here the poisoned fruits of a culture that has substituted Christianity with a wooly “let us feel good” mentality, where too many believe that, provided one “doesn’t harm anyone” (I didn’t know sodomy doesn’t harm, by the way), then it is all fine because we are oh sooo charitable.
When you have to explain to anyone that a sin is harmful because it offends God, you know that Christianity is in trouble.
But the fact is, the author continues, that such misguided compassion harms Christianity (and Catholicism) in a very direct way, by being used as a weapon to attack Catholic institutions: this is what we are seeing in several American states regarding adoption agencies, a story seen in similar ways in the United Kingdom and that has relevance for everyone of us in his daily life (try being a bad-and-breakfast owner and have to accept pervert in the house you live, and then tell me….).
A second, but crucial issue is the one of “discrimination”: if it is accepted that perversion is all right, then calling perversion as it is suddenly becomes discrimination, and hate speech; and the person must be very stupid who believes that liberals will be anywhere near “liberal” with everyone disagreeing with them. The author puts it, again, brilliantly:
when grave sin is re-categorized as a societal virtue and a civil right, then you and your Church are suddenly the ones in violation and will be penalized for speaking or acting in opposition.
The fact is, very simply, that the liberal is the enemy of the Church. To try to appease him is a feat of Chamberlain-like stupidity. It is the foolish idea that you can live together with those who want to get rid of you, and will have them as friends if you help them to do so. To say it again with the words of the author:
And so I implore you, fellow Catholics: Stop trying to “get along” with the world. The world hates you as it hated Christ, an assurance we have from Our Lord Himself. The new age of secularism is upon us, and its endless drone of “tolerance” does not apply to you.
It is time to wake up and realise that we are living a new, if not less dramatic than the old one, clash of civilisations: the Christian world against the new secular/liberal Nazism. This Nazism has already made vast inroads into our Christian societies, with abortion, euthanasia, and sexual perversions being just some example. Having being allowed to go as far, it is now moving toward the destruction of Christianity, which they – make no mistake on this, or you’ll pay the price – rightly see as in total opposition to their ideology and world vision.
It is perfectly coherent for a secularist to want to destroy Christianity. But it is perfectly stupid for a Christian to help them do so and feel good in the process.
We need a war cry to get out loud and clear from the Christian ranks. We need to realise that this is not about tolerance, or compassion. This is about the survival of Christian civilisation or its transformation in a world dominated by Nazi poofs. The cry that should go up from the Christian world is the one you hear above, courtesy of the genius of Giuseppe Verdi:
Guerra! Guerra! Guerra, guerra, guerra!
The photo you see above depicts Renato Bertelli’s Profilo Continuo, a then extremely celebrated and, still today, rather admired work of modern art.
The work represents, as the name suggests, the profile of the Duce over a 360 degree rotation.
Whilst the profile of the Duce is very marked and, so to speak, fitting for the role, what counts here is the impression of strenght, daring innovation, and even speed suggested by the work.
Bertelli’s inspiration didn’t go unnoticed. Mussolini was so pleased with it that he allowed its use as official portrait, and the work gave birth to reproduction that lovers of art (and, presumably, of Fascism) could install in their own reception rooms.
You see here, if I may say so, modern art at its best. You see what the work is aimed at, you visually and instinctively “get” the message of the work: the representation of Mussolini’s traits as the embodiment of a new era, a brave and daring, but breathtakingly modern one. Whilst very modern and with the Duce almost not recognisable, it still defines him in a brilliant way.
Fast forward to 2011. A new statue is revealed in Piazza dei Cinquecento, in Rome. The statue represents the late Pope, John Paul II.
It is, undoubtedly, a piece of modern art. There is a huge cavity, strongly resembling a device for the relief of gentlemen’s bladder urges and therefore fittingly called, by the vox populi, orinale. Apparently, said urinal-shaped cavity represents the desire of the late Pope to be inclusive, and accept everyone. It still looks like a urinal, though.
Over this strange device, a head is placed. A heavy, square, hard one. A head which, coincidentally, looks pretty much like the Duce’s head – it is astonishing how certain things remain in the collective imagination of a country – but is supposed to be the head of the late Pope instead. One looks at the “work” and thinks that whatever the artist has been smoking, it should be taken away from him at once.
Note that Bertelli didn’t need any modification to his work; and that his work actually wouldn’t have tolerated any, so beautiful it is in its purity of lines and clarity of purpose. This doesn’t seem to be the case of the artist of (degenerate) art who created the urinal, because said (degenerate) artist has now promised to modify the work so that people, at least, stop thinking that it is a monument to Mussolini with the wrong name.
One wonders what will happen, then, to this “masterwork with second thoughts”. Will the head be so modified as to make it more similar to the one of the late Pope? Will we get a profilo continuo of the said pope above the orinale? Will the Pope miraculously get things like… arms? Will the urinal be actually replaced with something at least vaguely resembling a body?
In the same weeks of the inauguration of the orinale, a statue to Ronald Reagan was unveiled in front of the American Embassy in London. It looks like – you wouldn’t believe it – Ronald Reagan. One wonders how the Americans could be so unbearably unimaginative as to commission something resembling the person it is meant to remember!
I do not know you, but I am fed up with idiots squandering public money and wanting to be cretinous at all costs, purely out of fear of not being considered intellectual and unconventional enough. Cretins is what they’ll be considered, both those who made the “work” and those who commissioned and approved it.
I am waiting to see what “modifications” are going to be unveiled. I’m afraid we haven’t stopped laughing yet.
One of the most tragic effects of the modern culture of death is being revealed in the last years: the selective abortion of girls.
As you can read here, this murderous practice has taken hold not only in China, but also in other Asian countries characterised by a strong preference for boys (curiously, then, some liberals will tell you that Catholicism is male-centered).
When in a country like China 120 boys are born for 100 girls, you know something really bad is in the making.
On the one hand, this clearly impacts public order. Males are sexually aggressive and a generalised scarcity of women is, on a collective scale, bound to cause problems of various kind. I can’t imagine that countries with a primitive legal system but vastly corrupted local structures, like China, will not have mafia organisations selling the “right to marry” in the territory they control, and killing those who marry without paying; or young women being sold to the one making the best offer; or an increase in the killing of men caused by the desire to have their wife “available” again.
On the other hand, this shows us how feminism starts to kill its daughters, with women’s “liberation” becoming the liberty to be killed in the womb because a woman. If you are looking for a form of discrimination against women, you can’t find one more cruel and cynical than this. But hey, don’t tell the feminazis, they would give the blame of all this on… men, and prefer not to see what monsters abortion has given birth to.
Besides, every Chinese/Asian man (and, make no mistake, woman: the discrimination against women has deep roots over there, and you can’t blame men for what is common mentality and custom) would be able to tell the feminazis that “reproductive health” applies to them too, and that Asian women should have no less rights than their Western counterparts.
Abortion: the gift that keeps on giving.
Slowly but surely, the idea starts to enter in some non-Catholic heads.
Take the Tory propaganda, for example. The defence of the family has always been a mainstay of Tory ideology, at least in words. If you live in the UK, you might a noticed an ever so slight tendency to upheld traditional values even among the faggoty, hoodie-hugging, chameleons Tories of these days. In their confusion, they can’t even see what a family is, but at least they start to see more or less confusedly that divorce isn’t all good. I know, Cameron is an idiot who would sell his mother to whoredom for the sake of a fringe minority of voters, but at least he gets some vague glimpse of the truth.
From the University of Virginia comes now a study telling us something for which actually no study has ever been necessary: a divorce is highly expensive, highly disruptive, and the cause of high social costs. The idea would seem to start thinking about making divorce less easy: people would then feel motivated to make the step only when they are rather persuaded, and in general a more solid approach to marriage and a happier generation of children would result.
All very sound, say I. But then one wonders why what is right should be right only when taken in the half dose, and would stop to be right if things are done, well, entirely right.
Believe this Italian-born blogger: nothing creates solid families so much as the inability to divorce. When children grow up in a world where they know that they only have one go, they will mostly grow up into adults who will make responsible choices, will go into a marriage without thinking that it must be an erotic paradise (him) and endless romance (her), and most of all they will go into their new life without a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it, permanently looking at them from the kitchen. Several other things will happen, like the stigma against divorced couples. Say what you will, but this will certainly work and help couples to stay together and work on their problems rather than slam the door with “emergency exit” written over it.
It is astonishing that a country can ask a person to, say, lock himself in a deal with the Army for several years, but doesn’t even feel able to ask them to lock themselves into the matrimonial deal for, say, six or seven years. It doesn’t even square that a sovereign country can ask a person (nowadays, of both sexes in practice) to be drafted and land into a trench in a totally involuntary way, but can’t ask them to stick to the decisions that they themselves have taken.
Slowly, someone begins to open his eyes. The university of Virginia starts to say that divorce might have to be made more difficult. Granted, the taboo of individual happiness at all costs – which then leads to serial divorces and serial unhappiness, only more expensive – is not touched yet, but even Protestant should start to wonder whether – in their opinion – the Holy Ghost was being so wrong when He allowed them to divorce only in a very limited number of cases, and whether He is so right now that it allows them – or “inspires” – them to divorce so rapidly.
But the real crux of the matter is that, once again, the rightness of the Catholic truth starts to slowly filter through increasingly vaster strata of the population; in a confused way for now, but one that already starts to give the right Catholic solution to an entirely secular and Protestant-made problem.
In case anyone should still think that RU486 is a contraceptive, please read here what the National Right To Life has to say on the matter:
RU 486 is an artificial steroid that interferes with the action of progesterone, a hormone crucial to the early progress of pregnancy. Progesterone stimulates the proliferation of the uterine lining which nourishes the developing child. It also suppresses normal uterine contractions which could dislodge the child implanted and growing on the wall of the mother’s womb.
RU 486 fills the chemical receptor sites normally reserved for progesterone, but does not transmit the progesterone signal. Failing to receive that signal, a woman’s body shuts down the preparation of the uterus and initiates the normal menstrual process. The child, deprived of necessary nutrients, starves to death. The baby detaches and is swept out of the body along with the decayed uterine lining.
Contraception, my aunt. Outright killing more likely.
Of course, people like Adolf Hussein Obama who don’t even have problems with leaving a child to die of cold after birth – and call it “late-term abortion” – will not see the “subtleties” between contraception and killing. But hopefully many others will, particularly among Protestants.
The unfortunate resignation of Steve Jobs as Apple’s CEO (he is now chairman, but clearly not with the same impact on the company and, I am very much afraid, not for long anyway) has reignited the old controversy whether Apple be Catholic and the PC world protestant.
I would, in the half-serious, half-joking spirit in which these comparisons are made, wholeheartedly agree.
I see the similarities as follows:
1) Apple is based on the leadership of one man. What made Apple such a wonderful weapon is the total commitment to what Steve Jobs thought right. Whilst you cannot make any serious comparison with a Pope, the contrast with the atomised PC-World is undoubtedly there.
2) Apple had a, as far as I know, unique product politics; that – following Steve Job’s creed again – you got an extremely limited palette of products.
There is only one iPhone. Granted, you can buy the old one, but basically your type choice is limited to the choice between the old one and the new one. Even in the choice of colour you are very much constrained. Compare with Nokia & Co., or with the PC producers. Apple didn’t try to please you. It brought its new product on the market and shouted: “Convert yourselves!”
The masses obliged, and believed.
3) Apple had a “love it or hate it approach”. There were no compromises. You had to accept the entire creed. Once bought an iPhone you were locked into the world of Apple apps, once again following the idea that what Jobs thinks is right, and it must be right because it’s what Jobs thinks. An entirely different planet from the anarchic, extremely fragmented world of, say, android.
4) Apple wasn’t easy. Jobs didn’t do things halfway, and he always did things his way. Consequently, he spent mind-boggling amounts in R&D, for which his clients were obviously called to foot the bill. And he gave the world extremely sleek products, for which the same clients were asked to separate themselves from an additional, substantial chunk of cash. Like the Church, Apple offered you a world of uncompromising beauty and superior intelligence, for which there is a heavy price to pay. But with Apple you couldn’t even try to dodge the unpleasant bits; you couldn’t be an apple-follower” in name only”: the phone or other device you had in your hand showed which creed you subscribed to.
Yes, there are some similarities in the comparison.
It is sad to say that – Jobs’ health problem notwithstanding – Apple seems to be in much better shape and to have a much more dedicated following than the Church. It clearly shows that the Church has no Steve Jobs around.
But on the other hand, who has…
P.s. and, obviously, one more thing. Steve Jobs is dying. I hope he uses what probably are his last weeks wisely. I will pray for him.
Firstly, some background information for the readers. When you have your own blog you have the possibility of seeing, from a “background page” not available to the public, which other internet pages have linked to you causing readers to land on your internet site from the site who carried the link. Every now and then, one clicks to see what is going on and is then carried directly to the internet site that has posted a link to one’s own site.
It was thus that I landed, some days ago, on this site. As you can see, this is not a very liberal site and is actually far more on the conservative site than yours truly; it appears to be either very near, or a mouthpiece of the SSPX (or FSSPX, if you prefer the abbreviation of its Latin name) itself. In particular, on this same thread another post was placed, equating the possible “peace proposals” of the Vatican to the Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (“I fear the Greeks, even when they are bearing gifts”) many of us will remember from our schooldays.
I found the comparison indelicate, as whilst I do not think that along the corridors of the Vatican everything is made in a spirit of disinterested saintliness I do believe that the attempt to reach a reconciliation with the FSPPX is a sincere one, and a great concern of the Holy Father. If memory serves, I saw this “Greeks fearing” comment (possibly also posted elsewhere) mentioned in Rorate Caeli, with reactions generally not far away from mine.
It turns out now from Messa in Latino that:
a) the Timeo Danaos comment is lifted from here and therefore clearly from Williamson himself.
b) that, coming from Williamson, this would be a clear indication that, however concrete or advanced, some form of proposal is really in preparation.
What Messa in Latino is thinking is that possibly on the 14 september we will not have the official announcement of an agreement with the FSSPX, but the presentation of a proposal, that would be examined by the SSPX in all tranquility, particularly in view of the unfortunate Assisi-III gathering still scheduled for October.
Messa in Latino finds the events momentous enough to justify the title “Rome-FSSPX: decisive moments ahead”. I am obviously pleased, but cannot avoid noticing that if no agreement is being finalised, the (mere) proposal of a structure similar to an Ordinariate for the SSPX and other traditionalists would not be anywhere near the historical moment perhaps hoped by many within the SSPX (and dreaded by the liberal troops), but rather the beginning of a painful – if hopefully salutary – phase of conflict within the SSPX itself, with the likes of Williamson refusing a priori every kind of contamination with Rome’s “Greeks” whatever the gifts, and the coming Assisi “event” not contributing at all to the serenity of the discussion.
Please also note that, in an unprecedented move, a religious sister from New Zealand has been authorised to be transferred to a convent dependent from the FSSPX. I can’t imagine such a decision unless if dictated from the persuasion that a reconciliation is not so very far away. The news relating to the sister has been published and then taken offline, but it is still available in cached version, with the link on the Messa in Latino site. Whilst I understand Messa in Latino’s reasons to publish it I prefer not to do it for obvious reasons, but take it from me.. ;).
From the outside, we can’t do anything else than pray of course. Still, one can’t avoid thinking that if such a proposal is on the table, it would have been perhaps wiser to wait until after the Assisi-III gathering – provided that such an event must really take place – and start the discussion, say, before Christmas or around Easter, in a different and less controversial environment.
I find some positions within the SSPX frankly difficult to digest, and the entire Danaos-attitude not helpful. But from what I have read around – on the internet, and from the leaflets-booklets I have picked from them on several occasions – the desire for reconciliation is very vivid among the majority of the members and supporters of the organisation, and the idea that Rome should be “converted to Catholicism” (rather than, say, persuaded to rephrase and reformulate questionable statements and attitudes of the past) rather in the minority.
Let us hope and pray for the best. Even if on the 14 September nothing should happen, this might be a good sign as it might – just might – indicate that a proposal for reconciliation is ready, but its official presentation wisely postponed to a less controversial time.
Three cheers for Fr John Lankeit, the rector of the Cathedral of Ss. Simon and Jude, Phoenix, and also echoed by Father Z.
Father Lankeit had the lucidity and courage to say out loud that what is wrong can’t be right; not even then, when this wrong is very dear to secular minds. I wish the Conciliar fathers had had the same courage when subversive tendencies appeared in their respective diocese; but this obviously didn’t happen, seen that the subversive tendencies had been encouraged and abetted by those same bishops who should have suffocated them.
Fr Lankeit decided, then, to say what rather everyone well underway on his process of sobering – or who never got drunk in the first place – knows: there can be no place in the Church for so-called “altar girls”. He doesn’t say it with these words of course, but the message is clear enough. It was more than a mistake, it was a liturgical abuse to which Rome caved in out of sheer cowardice; a cowardice that has made incalculable damage, the rubble only in the last years being seriously, if slowly, removed. What is wrong doesn’t become right merely because it’s been approved.
Allow me to let Fr Lankeit speak:
“If you look around the Church — and I’m talking about the overall Church — if you look at dioceses, if you look at religious orders and you look at parishes where they have the clear honoring of the distinction and the complementarity of men and women, you see both vocations flourish,” Fr. Lankeit said. “And when I say both vocations, I mean to the priesthood as well as vocations to the consecrated religious life.”
Look – the man is saying – when you do things the proper way, you have more vocations among people of both sexes!
“Vocation crisis” is just another word for “liberal madness”: when you had the former you unavoidable got the latter; as the latter goes away the former will unavoidably disappear.
Fr Lankeit has others, long-forgotten or long-ignored truths to say. Try this:
“Prior to my ordination, as a single, Catholic man, I had no right whatsoever to the priesthood. And so when I went into the seminary, I was determining whether or not Jesus Christ was calling me to be a priest, but the Church was likewise discerning me and the ultimate decision was the Church’s,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Even if I felt very, very strongly at the bottom of my heart that I was called to be a priest and the Church didn’t recognize that, I had to accept that.”
I wonder how you can explain this to the modern feminazis: that there is no right to priesthood, no matter how strong you “feeeel”. No, it’s not about your feelings and no, you are not God and are not authorised to change His rules, though you may “feel” you are. I am afraid that allowing girls to become “altar boys” hasn’t helped to get this simple facts straight.
“The Church was likewise discerning me”. Thank God for Fr Lankeit, and please let your Hail Mary for him be a beautiful one.
Or try this one:
Q: Do young girls who serve at the altar become nuns?
A: “I haven’t seen that evidence”
You weren’t being inattentive, Father. The only vocation of “altar girls” which seems to work very well is the one to sanctimonious, secretly mocked, bossy old ugly feminist. No vocation crisis there I am afraid. Well, not yet; but given time and undertakers, tutto si aggiusta….
Out of tune, I must say, is the close of the article, with the mother of two siblings (one a boy, already an altar server; the other a girl, apparently aspiring to become one) who thinks that she must “understand where it’s coming from” and says “I would want to know more about the reasons for the change before having an opinion about it.” I hope that after the knowing will come the understanding, but the rather unpleasant impression remains that what counts in the journalist’s mind is what the mother thinks, rather than what the Church has done these two thousand years. I wasn’t entirely surprised in discovering that I was very interested to know what Fr Lankeit’s motives are, but really couldn’t care less of what opinion the lady will have.
Insensitive, isn’t it?
As so often in journalism, such “sociological” pieces are a mixture of some good observations and the most appalling common places.
The leitmotiv of the article is that in Italy you wouldn’t have had the looting because the Italians are oh so movingly good, and they don’t even profit of a huge blackout to start looting. A picture is drawn of these peaceful Italians with a good heart and full of love for their mamma, they would never loot and see her cry…..
Let us clean the air from legends here, and let us say first that the potential of Italians for violence is simply frightening. You only need to go to a football game (if you dare) to know what I am talking about. The 16,000 policemen around London during the riots pale in front of the at least 5,000 (and up to 10,000) policemen around the stadium on the day of a big derby. The violence that goes on in the minor leagues is considered so normal that it doesn’t even make headlines.
Let us also be clear that Italians don’t loot not because they feel solidarity with the shopkeeper, which they certainly perceive as well-off (though I would agree that Italians are marvelous in their solidarity when they perceive someone as in need of it, and you see here all the power of their Catholic culture), but because of other factors that are more or less absent among the London mob:
1. Every scumbag is raised up with some form of moral value, and be that the third-rate morality of a communist. Whilst violence is compatible with this mentality if some “ideal” is at stake, the idea of looting a shop for the sake of a sweater is not among them. In short, it’s not “cool” to show up today with the sweater you have looted yesterday. And if your father – in whose house, and by whose rules, and at whose costs you still live in 95% of the cases – knows of that, you had better pray. Carlo Giuliani was a goddamn idiot, but I can’t see even him looting sweaters. Even behind his violence there was an ideology, not the total absence of one.
2. Always linked to point 1, the police is – compared with the British one – pretty brutal. I actually start to think that riot-tourism to London from Italy and elsewhere may soon develop as a reaction to the dismal show of the Metropolitan Police during the riots, basically an invitation to the hooligans and hotheads of Europe to come here and have a good time. In Italy the police charges with horses and batons when there are disturbances in the queues to buy football tickets (so happened in 1984, Champions League final, Roma vs Liverpool). When in 2001
dick hotheads from all over Europe decided to meet in Genua, Carlo Giuliani was shot in his mouth from a couple of metres’ distance; needless to say, the silent majority of the law-abiding citizens was behind the Carabinieri like a man. In the adrenaline-charged atmosphere of that obscene urban battle (the result of Berlusconi, idiot as always, wanting to play moderate and by “anglo-Saxon standards” in front of the world press instead of doing it the good old Italian way), the Land Rover of the Carabinieri drove over the body of the dead Giuliani twice, once by rehearsing and once, just for security, going forward. Mama-loving, yes; non-violent, er, well, no.
Interestingly, Italy never had such riots again in these ten years. Punirne uno per educarne cento…... Punish one, and you’ll teach one hundred.
Ten years later and in England, the police can’t even decide themselves to use water cannons after four days of devastation, and four people murdered. To a hooligan, it must look like an amusement park. Guess where the next big riot will be.
3. In Italy there is something called disciplina. This is the strange idea according to which one can’t do whatever he pleases. The idea that there are rules of social behaviour that one must, volens nolens, accept. There is violence of course, but you don’t have the violence that is purely the fruit of not having any value and moral structure whatsoever. Can’t say the same for London I’m afraid. Even in the long history of Italians civil unrests of the Seventies (with Molotov bottles flying around practically every Saturday in places like Milan) looting was just not part of the picture.
The rioting in London is the fruit of a mentality and a society that provides young people with plenty of justifications for whatever they want to do, without giving them rules, discipline, values, and a spine. The solidarity in Italy is the fruit of being raised in loving environment, in intact families; with some guidance given, and good old-fashioned Christian values, and the odd punishment if needs be.
In England there would be, very often, no father in the first place; but if there was an Italian one, he’d run the risk of having a concerned social worker at the door.
Then they complain about the riots.
I don’t know anything about Justin Bieber. I mean, I really couldn’t care a straw. I barely know he exists, and I assure you the last circumstance is merely due to the fact, alas, not being really avoidable.
It’s astonishing to me that people still fighting against their acne might be considered the carrier of any form of message (let alone wisdom) whatsoever. It tells something about the state of our society. Add to this that the young man looks like a …. oh well, let’s not say that, poor chap.
It would appear that whatever this chap says, makes waves. Crucially, he appears to be, in a way, “pro life”. At least as much as one can be whose clarity of thought doesn’t go beyond saying “whatever they have in North Korea, that’s bad”. Whatever? If you don’t even know what it is they have, how can you….. ? But I’m getting excited, and in the day of Gaddafi’s fall I do not want to get nervous.
It would also appear that the young chap has made a video looked at 600 million times, which poses the question whether all this popularity couldn’t be put to a good use, for example trying to condemn genocide. Adolf Hussein Obama wouldn’t be pleased for sure; at least for the duration of a golf game.
It seems easy, but it isn’t. In my eyes, the problems are as follows:
1. This is a teenager. Teenagers do change their mind. If you start supporting him now that he says what you like, you run the risk of a huge problem the day he will start saying things you don’t. The probability is not small.
2. This is a teenager who can only influence teenagers. People who – looking at reality for what it is for once instead of drinking the kool-aid of youth rhetoric – don’t vote and, basically, don’t count. People who will grow out of their infatuation with a pop idol and will soon start thinking with their own head, provided they have one. It is a delusion to think that a pop idol can influence a generation, much less a generation of teenagers into their adult years. Teenagers change rather rapidly and many will be ashamed in five years’ time – nay, make it two – of having ever told themselves fans of their idol of yesteryear.
3. Beware of those who are popular. Truth is not spread through those who are popular. On the contrary, popularity (as in pop-ularity) doesn’t really make great inroads. If the religious opinions of famous people had a real relevance, Scientology would make no prisoners. The reality is that people – even when stupid, and even when teenagers; which all too often is the same thing – can well separate their musical preferences from their values. My impression is that people “follow” their idols when the latter do what they want to do in the first place; their idol is one who took drugs because they want to take drugs, etc. Pop idols don’t change people, for sure, much less change adolescents into different adults. Thank God for that, by the way.
4. If we want to really fight against abortion, we need something with a bit more weight than a walking Clearasil ad. We need brave priests and bishops saying it as it is. Serious advancement for Truth is effected by serious people being taken seriously by serious people, not by teenagers expressing some broken idea in broken English to other barely literate teenagers.
Bieber can do whatever he pleases. It doesn’t really count. What counts is, primarily, priests and bishops, and they are the ones who must begin to seriously wake up.
It’s not that people become conservative because, say, they like Beyonce’s voice (a lot else to like, anyway….). They become conservative because they develop that conviction.
Like millions of others, I spent countless hours listening to Simon & Garfunkel. Never could give a straw what their political opinions are.
You may think that the title of this blog post is a joke, but it isn’t.
Taking Lessons from Luther is exactly what our heroes, the “Conciliar Fathers”, should have done once come back to their diocese after V II. Luther would have told them that communion must be:
1. kneeling, and
2. on the tongue
That much is what the great Athanasius Schneider has implied in an interview given to Radio Maria Suedtirol (= Alto Adige), in German, and reported by kreuz.net.
In the words of the Bishop:
„Die Lutheraner haben bis vor kurzem und bis heute noch in den skandinavischen Ländern die kniende Mundkommunion bewahrt.“
The Lutherans have preserved until a short time ago, and to this day in the Scandinavian countries, communion kneeling and on the tongue”.
According to him, the idea of communion in the hand in the way practiced today – the article goes in detail about the way communion was practised in the first centuries, and makes clear that the former, infinitely more reverent practice had been completely and, crucially, un-controversially abandoned by the V century – comes from the Calvinists. And even in this case not from the original ones, but from Dutch Calvinists of the XVII century.
This means that even people who did not believe in the Real Presence managed to deal with the host in a more respectful way than the “Conciliar fathers” did once returned to their dioceses.
I do not know whether, when talking about the “Spirit of V II”, mockery or anger is more fitting; but I feel irresistibly attracted toward the second.
Like the excellent Charles Pope in this blog post (and thank God for a priest saying to us that he “joined the church choir to meet the pretty girls who sang there”) I always felt a strong connection between music and God. Not in the sense that I though that there must be a God because I hear beautiful music (I am one of those fortunate being who always had, since childhood, a strong interior feeling of the existence of God; something you can’t explain to those who haven’t it more than you could explain how it is to be in love to those who never were) , but because in my eyes music must tell even to the atheists that man con achieve summits by which one can, even as an atheist, seriously doubt that this is purely the work of man.
I still remember the first time I heard, for the first time, Schubert’s Incompiuta.
I wasn’t the youngest anymore (perhaps thirteen or fourteen), and it literally (as in: no air) took my breath away and sent such shivers down my spine like I had never had before. I still can’t hear the start of this wonderful example of truly divine beauty without having a shiver sent down my spine again, every time.
Much as I admire Schubert as one of the very, very greatest, I simply can’t see in this the unaided work of a human mind. No doubt, Heaven came down to give us a glimpse of Its glory and majesty and stunning, aching beauty. And the same impression happens, by the chap in question, rather often to me (for example by listening to this and this, pieces by which you wonder how humanity coped before having them). If you consider that he himself declared that his Ave Maria was composed in a period of “overpowering devotion to the Blessed Virgin”, you get my drift.
Music truly catapults us in another dimension, throws away all our reasoning and rationalising and takes control of us in such a way that, with such an instant immediacy, really should let us think .
The problem with the atheists is that in their fantasy of omnipotence they think that man can do everything. Therefore, they will not recognise God’s work when they are put squarely in front of it.
Beethoven used to say (can’t find the citation anymore) something on the lines that his music (not only sacred music, of course; but also glimpses of Divinity like this one) was able to led people to God more than many priests would. Whilst a composer certainly can’t effect the consecration, I think we get his drift, too.
Words of wisdom from this blog (emphases mine):
You may have noticed that I do not use the term “same sex marriage” very often. In fact, I am making a conscious decision not to use the term at all any more. I think the term gives away too much ground to our opponents. Continually using the term makes it possible to believe that such a thing as a marriage between people of the same sex is possible.
I don’t use the term “square circle” because such an entity is not possible. Likewise, I think it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married to each other. So, I use another term that I believe is more accurate.
I use the phrase “redefinition of marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage,” or in a pinch, “genderless marriage,” depending on the context.
Even “genderless marriage” is questionable because it is naming something that is an impossibility. Gender is essential to marriage. The move to make same sex unions the legal equivalent of opposite sex unions requires that gender be removed from the understanding of marriage. If this legal movement to redefine marriage succeeds, it will be creating something entirely new. Nothing will be left of marriage but the name, as I have said in articles and lectures called, “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage.” But at least the term “genderless marriage” calls attention to what is at stake in the debate.
Whilst I do not get the one with the “genderless marriage” either, a very important point is made here: if we acquiesce to the demands of political correctness, we allow the enemy to shape the debate.
You see this everywhere, for example when whining homos complains that their “existence” is denied if one criticises their mentality. But more in general, even the use of that most stupid of words, “gay” to say “homosexual”, must be fought against with great energy.
A vocal homosexual must be an object of laughter and ridicule. The day we have started to suffocate our laugh for fear of “hurting” the pervert is the day we have started to allow them to give a shine of legitimacy to their requests for legitimation of their perversion.
I am pleased to see that whilst only six months ago I felt rather isolated in condemning the use of the word “gay” and using “insensitive” language, the decision of the State of NY is clearly shifting the debate toward a more aggressive language.
I had already written in June about the possibility (and what spoke against it) that the meeting of the 14. September will lead to news concerning the canonical position of the SSPX.
It now turns out that the German internet site of the SSPX invites to pray.
The site also notes that Fellay and his two colleagues invited are, themselves, an organ of the SSPX, the “General Council”. In other words, Fellay is invited not with his two nearest aides, but the leading organ of the SSPX is invited to appear. I notice here, as others have done, that the discussions with bishop de Galarreta ended in a positive atmosphere.
Now, of course it can be:
a) that the invitation to prayer is a purely pious one, and
b) that the three SSPX men are supposed to merely talk about the discussions.
At the same time, I remember the Rosary Crusade of the SSPX before the lifting of the excommunications, and the cynical part of me can’t avoid thinking that this is the way parts of the SSPX start telling us that something big is in the making.
As I have already written in June, my suggestion would be to “curb our enthusiasms”, as the scheduled “Assisi III” in October doesn’t really make an offer of reconciliation in September really desirable in view of the heated discussions that would be engendered within the SSPX (and we have already seen that the likes of bishop Williamson would be on the war path in no time).
Still, when the SSPX invites to prayer before something happens from the Vatican I begin to think that something more than a pious attitude is in play.
Read here on The Deacon’s bench a rather enjoyable blog post about, well, what can go wrong.
Truly delicious at time (the reference to the mother is probably the best, and gives plenty of background), this entertaining piece of bloggery might, particularly from some wannabe priestess, be seen as typical of the chauvinistic culture reigning among the clergy.
For this reason, the blog post is linked here.
Wisely, Deacon Kandra has closed the comment box.
I had to make an effort to adjust to the accent of this chap. But boy, he has the right attitude! (The other two chaps are rather impressive, too…).
Over the entire West, we should wake up to the absurdity of allowing such abominations to be even considered.
We did so, because we accepted to call things the way perverts call them, instead of the way they are.
No, homosexuals are not “gay”, they are perverts. No, it is not a marriage, it is a parody of a marriage good at most for a third-rate movie. No, perversion is not a human right. No, we shouldn’t take such proposals more seriously than we take – for now – proposals to marry cats and dogs with humans.
Time to wake up, and have a good laugh.
“Protesters” protest against the alleged costs of the papal visit. It turns out that:
1) the Government doesn’t pay a penny. Kudos to companies like Coca-Cola which have actually sponsored the visit (compare this please with the behaviour of the likes of Starbucks).
2) The huge influx of foreign tourists is a boon for which the local economy doesn’t even have to go through the usual circus of megalomaniac expenses, as in the case of the Olympic games, a trifle costing several billion GBP for three weeks of tourism, against whose costs nothing comparable is happening; at least nothing getting the attention of the goddamn liberals.
3) The popular participation is massive, which again questions the idea whether a couple of hundreds cretins should really have some relevance compared to the huge masses obviously not having a probably with the costs, even if such had been incurred.
“This kind of secular garbage makes you seek, it’s nothing but lies and distortions”, says Voris, and how right he is.
This with the “secular garbage” well applies to BBC Radio three, which this morning at 800 only had to mention the Papal Visit in Spain to say that some ppeople have been arrested “who protests against the costs of the visit”. No mention of the huge popular success, no mention of what the Pope has said, nothing of nothing.
If these scroungers had a minimum of ethical standards instead of abusing OUR money for their propaganda, one might be a little less angered for the compulsory expropriation of our money.
You can start the complaint procedure here.
It won’t be of much use for now, but the piling of the complaints will make things easier when someone of good will comes around and decides to do it differently.
Let them work and give an answer, at least.
Every now and then, some archbishop forgets bishopese and start talking like a bishop.
This time, Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis reminds us of the importance of praying for the dead.
Archbishop Carlson is politically incorrect for several reasons:
1) he reminds us of a typical Catholic teaching, the communion of saints. One wonders how many young Catholics – yes, even those in Madrid – would, when asked, be able to answer correctly as to what it is;
2) he reminds us of the importance of prayer;
3) he reminds us of the value that we as Catholics put on works of mercy;
4) he reminds us that our relatives and beloved in Purgatory need our prayers.
This clearly goes against a certain liberal, tambourine-armed mentality according to which canonisation by acclamation follows death and we shouldn’t do things so much differently than our brothers in Christ, the Proddies, lest they are offended and/or “hurt”.
Slowly but surely, a certain orthodoxy seems to timidly reappear in the way bishops present themselves and present Catholicism to their sheep. A long way to go for sure, but one registers such interventions with a certain satisfaction and optimism.
I am trying to remember how often I have heard such news in my past years in Italy. I can’t remember a single episode. OK, the Internet was not really there, but the only things one could hear were the usual sugary talks about The Young, peace ‘ n love, and The Young (I am forgetting something. Oh yes.. The Young).
Some twenty years later, I think we can say that at least the sprouts of a new orthodoxy are clearly visible.
Twenty years ago, who would have even mentioned the works of mercy….
It is now 22:10 here in the UK, many hours after the Pope’s arrival in Madrid.
Unfortunately for the BBC, the huge crowd do not really make for good headlines, so the fact is simply ignored.
Instead, the BBC feeds the TV-licensing paying masses with yesterday’s bollocks about the protests.
Interestingly, space is given to the alleged gas attack from a “papist”, whilst the violent demonstrations of the commies and perverts are clearly ignored.
This will certainly change, to an extent, in the next hours. But that at the end of the day the BBC still hasn’t reacted to this huge popular success really tells the tale.
I read this on Mark Shea’s blog and thought I – and my readers – could well join in the prayers.
On a different note, I allow myself to notice the different outlook and attitude of the parents and relatives who know that their beloved child/nephew will soon be undoubtedly in Paradise – being baptised, and below 7 years of age – with the unbearable nothingness staring at atheists parents/relatives in the same situation.
“Soon she will return to her heavenly home”, says the grandfather of his niece; and whilst the most emotional amongst us can’t stop the one or the other tear, well, it is a very different tear from the one of the atheist.
Go on the American Papist site to see some photos of today’s visit of the Holy Father in Madrid.
I wonder whether the media will give the popular participation the same space they have given to the protests for the alleged costs of the visit.
I have my doubts whether these visits and mass excitements have a real effect on a country’s Catholic feelings and inspiration. Still, the masses should give something to think to some people:
1) the liberal journalists, who should accept the fact that their ceaseless shooting on the Church doesn’t do much to destroy her reputation.
2) the bishops, who should finally grasp the concept that with time and effort – not today, of course, and not tomorrow – there’ s a potential here that can, and should, be mobilised. If one is interested in defending Christian values, that is.
We’ll see how all this develops. But one can’t avoiding noticing the masses with a certain satisfaction.
Michael Voris will soon be in London again; and again, he will polarise and cause controversy with his, well, rather outspoken communication style.
This is not after many people’s taste, particularly in England. There are certainly many who consider him too outspoken, too explicit, too harsh in his criticism – directed at clergy as well as non-Catholics – and, basically, not nice. Therefore, they don’t like him.
The key to understanding Voris – and, I think, many of the more outspoken bloggers out there – is that not being English, they don’t give a damn about being liked. In times of scandalous corruption within and without the Church, you can’t say things in a halfway effective way and be liked. You’ll have to choose whether to be liked – and largely ineffective – or making an impact and being disliked by very many and called many names – “uncharitable” being my favourite, closely followed by “homophobic” -.
Voris gets it. He seems blessedly immune from this (very British, but rather Anglo-Saxon, too) idea that one must be “nice” in order to be taken seriously or, more importantly for some, being invited to afternoon tea, which is then called being “relevant”. His message is simple, straight, brutal. It gets actually – and fortunately – more brutal as the months go by, with the language getting more explicit (note how the word “gay” has been in the last months largely replaced by the vastly more correct “homos”).
In my eyes, Voris has laid bare the root of the diseases that has almost killed the Church in the last fifty or so years: niceness, and desire to be accepted. If you want to be nice you’ll have to accommodate to the whims and desires of the world, and you’ll end up bowing to its ideology whilst you pretend to want to reform it. I have pointed out to this very recently, speaking about the bishop who feels obliged to say that opposition to so-called same-sex marriage is “his opinion”.
His opinion, my aunt. truly, what has the world come to.
It might well be that in former times, when the Church had a stronger grip on society, one could – perhaps! – afford the luxury of being a bit softer, and still being listened to. But we can’t compare. In a society where most people consider abortion a given – and, make no mistake, most bishops too, may God have mercy on their souls, as well as on mine whilst he’s there – you’ll not make many inroads by gently whispering your – if you may say so, in your opinion, and present company excepted – polite disagreement with it. You must call abortion for what it is: genocide, and you must call those who stay silent accessory to a genocide.
The same argument goes for the rest of Christian life: I had written very recently that it is high time to start stigmatising divorced people again. I expected a load of insults of the British sort: “you can’t say this, because I am divorced”; “harsh”, “uncharitable” or the like.
Nothing happened. I blame the summer.
Yes, this attitude means having to spread adrenaline around instead of saccharine, but the saccharine is what almost killed the Church and so the adrenaline seems rather welcome.
How Voris reaches the heart of the problem is demonstrated by the vast number of personal attacks you can read against him on the Internet: from the alleged toupet to “the way he rotates his pen”, his detractors show a great attention for irrelevant details.
All this doesn’t mean to say that I always approve of what he says. I remember some questionable “vortex” videos about homosexuality, forms of government, or Father Corapi that in my eyes would have profited from a bit more of reflection and rephrasing. But no one can be always right, or approved by everyone.
Still, I think it is fair to say that Voris’ first sin in the eyes of most of his detractors consists in his basic policies of not giving a damn for being liked, and not giving a damn for being nice.
Oh for bishops and priests like him! Oh for bishops and priests speaking with half his directness!
It there had been more Vorises around in the past decades, particularly but not only among the clergy, we wouldn’t need this debate about Voris now.
He is around, because they weren’t.
You’d say that the National Catholic Reporter is good, on a good day, to line your birdcage and you’d be right. But every now and then (and invariably, through the pen of John Allen) something interesting comes out of that, too.
This time Allen entertains, edifies and instruct us with an article about Fr Thomas Weinandy’s (who works as theologian for the US bishops’ conference) attack on bad theologians.
Whilst Fr Weinandy seems to have in his sights Sr Elisabeth Johnson, with whom he had a very public disagreement not long ago, his remarks have a general character. The man doesn’t mince words:
“Theology may be the only academic pursuit where one can seemingly be considered a theologian without actually having to know the subject matter,”
“It would appear at times that a theologian need not actually know God.”
“Much of what passes for contemporary Catholic theology,” […] “often is not founded upon an assent of faith in the divine deposit of revelation as proclaimed in the sacred scriptures and developed within the living doctrinal and moral tradition of the church.”
[Theology is degraded to} “the fun of being cleverly and sophisticatedly entertaining, or the thrill and buzz that comes with academic sparring.”
Wise words, if you ask me. I only allow myself to add that if the most shameless of these theologians are never excommunicated, and those less shameless but clearly heterodox are, on occasion, even made Cardinals one can’t be surprised if the faithful are confused.
My grandmother, who had only an eighth grade education, knew more than many theologians because she knew the truth.
As in pretty much everything, the example should come from the very top.
The bishop of Elphin (Ireland), Christopher Jones seems to have a gift for slogans. In an interview to the Irish “Independent” he said that many children born in a dysfunctional family are “born losers”. His exact words were, speaking of his past experiences in the matter:
“[…] many of them were born losers. They had no start in life in terms of a loving relationship”
Well yes he says “many of them”, but it’s fair enough and probably a good depiction of reality.
The bishop expressed himself, in my view, even more happily when he said:
“When a culture of marriage weakens, an ever-growing number of children will never experience the inestimable value of being raised by a loving, married mother and father,”
making clear in a very poignant way what a burden is put on a child who doesn’t feel beloved, accepted and protected as he should.
The Bishop, though, allows himself what in my eyes are a couple of rather serious blunders, certainly the result of the automatic reflex of modern clergy to never want to displease anyone.
Firstly, he had to point out that he was “not criticising single parents, many of whom were making heroic efforts”. Yes of course some of them are; some of them have been left without great faults on their side, some of them are widowed, etc. But by “not criticising” the bishop actually shoots himself in the leg and undermines his own argument. If a mother makes the heroic effort to properly raise her child, be assured that this child will still grow up feeling loved and cherished, as countless orphans before him have done. But he should have stressed that many don’t do any effort, divorce after a couple of years, marry – when they do – without any serious intention to protect the children with an intact family, consider divorce a perfectly acceptable option, consider their own quest for an imaginary happiness to be more important than the environment in which their children grow.
What the bishop should have said is that we must start to stigmatise parents who divorce, as it was in every society who really (meaning: not in words) cares for the family, until not so many years ago. Yes, there might have been exception, but exceptions have always made bad laws. One of the dominant traits of modern times is the willingness to destroy everything out of fear of displeasing some tiny minority, or some relative, or neighbour, or acquaintance.
I remember the time where the “losers” were those whose marriage had failed. Let me rephrase it: those who couldn’t keep their marriage together. Altri tempi…..
The observations I used to hear in Italy at the news that someone had divorced (on the lines of “oh well, she must have been threatened with a pistol to marry him”, or “oh well, you can’t ask that people marry knowing what they’re doing”) reflected the thinking of a society where you took responsibility for your actions instead of blaming the partner, the society around you, or claiming to want to be happy and the like. Once upon a time, people started a marriage knowing that it would be difficult rather than going for the fire exit at the first difficulties. No divorce, you see….
There is no better incentive to avoid the destruction of a family than knowing that you have only one go, and that marrying means putting your life in the hands of another person who put hers in yours. Marriage becomes an authentic gift of oneself, and this shifting away from the “me,me,me” mentality the best premise for the raising of reasonably happy and healthy children.
This, the bishop doesn’t say. He throws compliments around instead.
The second blunder is about the so-called same-sex marriages, where we are confronted with a bishop that says that the fact that so-called same-sex marriages would undermine marriage is “his view”. When even bishops renounce to say loud and clear what the Church teaches and make themselves so little as to present even such obvious concepts as “their view”, one knows why the Church in Ireland has lost so much ground.
Can you imagine any bishop, Irish or not, expressing himself in such a way a couple of generations ago about so-called same-sex marriages….?!
Bishop Jones has, I think, still done a good deed and he might probably get some flak for this. But I continue to notice the same fundamental problem, the same underlying weakness, the same desire not to displease anyone, that is at the real root of today’s problems. Including born losers.
And so it came to pass that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was scheduled to speak at a “mega church” in the United States. The ecclesial community in question seems to be rather prominent, and has in the past been honoured by speeches from the likes of Bill Clinton (no doubt, talking about the spiritual possibilities afforded by cigars).
It turns out that after a community of perverts decided to criticise the ecclesial community as (you guessed it) “homophobic”, valiant Mr Schultz decided that the best thing to do was to wet his pants and cancel the appearance.
I frankly begin to think that street workers are shining beacons of morality compared to these servile CEOs, ready to brown their noses at every possible and impossible occasion.
I invite you to send your own message to Starbucks that this behaviour is counterproductive, by banning them from your wallet for a certain period of time. Let your wallet speak, and let all your friends and acquaintances know about this.
If you want Starbucks to know why they don’t get their money, you can contact them clicking here. Make sure to click “other” from the menu.
It is truly astonishing that big multinational companies be led by such sissies. Show them that if they want to be so idiotic, they’ll have to do it without your money.
As you can read on Rorate Caeli, the person who has maintained the beautiful “Divinum Officium” site to which I also link under Online Breviary, Mr Laszlo Kiss, suddenly passed away on July 11.
May he rest in peace. An “Eternal Rest” or ten for a man who has dedicated so much time to such an endeavour is certainly in order.
On a more pressing level, there are now doubts as to the survival/maintenance of the site.
Rorate Caeli launches an appeal to discover
if perhaps any members of our readership who are internet and computer-savvy would be interested in working on a project to repost the site using the downloaded files, so that the site may be kept alive and any edits can be made so that it remains accurate.
A priest is available to help with the text part, but he needs someone able to work on the technical side.
It would be ideal if a Congregation or Particular Church could host such a site… In the meantime, if you believe you can help Father in this project, with ideas and other relevant suggestions, please contact us: newcatholic AT gmail DOT com, with the subject “Divinum Officium”.
This is to help the search. In case someone were able to help, please contact Rorate Caeli directly at the above mentioned address.
First of all, a suggestion: may we start explicitly avoiding using terms like “pro-choice”, “family planning”, “and “gay”?
Choice doesn’t apply to the murder of babies; planning children means actually planning to have them, and “gay” doesn’t mean homosexual.
Coming to the point: the already mentioned Bishop Aquila (one who takes his job seriously, as you can read here) has given an interview to the Catholic World Report, letting drop something rather similar to a bomb concerning the way a bishop should deal with Catholic Pro-Abortion politicians. Let us read him:
How should the Church respond to Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion?
Bishop Aquila: Their particular bishops can use the process of correction that is given to us in sacred Scripture, especially in Matthew’s Gospel. Our Lord tells us to speak to the person, and then take two or three others with us if he does not change.
If he still does not change, the Church can speak to him, which is done through the bishop. [The bishop] exercises the authority of Christ. Christ then says that if that person is still obstinate and will not change, treat them as a tax collector or Gentile. Expel him.
We do this out of love for the person, seeking his conversion. He needs to understand that the salvation of his soul is in jeopardy because of the positions he is taking.
Catholics are called to defend human life, particularly that of the unborn. The Church’s teaching is clear. If we don’t challenge public officials who reject this teaching, we leave them in their sins and confuse the faithful.
One doesn’t know how to begin, so many are the points which Bishop Aquila makes very clear in just a few words:
1) At a certain point, a bishop must act and excommunicate the politician.
2) The bishop must do it out of love for the man, and desire to save his soul.
3) Catholics are called to defend human life. It’s not an option for anyone, much less (so much is clear from Aquila’s words) for a bishop.
4) The Church’s teaching is clear. No ifs, no buts, none of the excuses used in the last decades. Abortion goes against Church teaching. It must be fought against.
5) The bishop who doesn’t act: a) fails to help the sinner, and b) confuses the faithful.
You know, and I know, and everyone knows, that there are at the moment a handful of bishops who are, in this particular juncture, specially called to action by these words. I frankly can’t imagine that bishop Aquila’s words may have been spoken without having those particular situations in mind.
I do hope that in the coming weeks and, if must be, months, more and more US Bishop will raise their voice not only defending the point in principle but, like Aquila, elegantly suggesting to their colleagues the way to react to what happens in their dioceses.
You wouldn’t believe it, but there are perverts out there asking that Bert & Ernie (pre-schooler audience ) have a so-called same-sex marriage. Millions of very little children should be confronted with sexual perversion from the tenderest age. This is then called (if you are a pervert) to “beat homophobia” and to “express tolerance for gay people”.
I have the impression that the intolerance for perversion must be stepped up, instead. If you let them have their way, these perverts will start corrupting toddlers.
In a move that sounds more dictated from common sense and entrepreneurial instinct that from rebellion to the homo mafia, the sesame workshop has flatly refused to follow the call to the perversion of little children. The argument (rather stupid, if you ask me) is that, wait for this, puppets don’t have sexual orientation. Well no they aren’t supposed to be perverts of course, but if they are called Bert and Ernie instead of, say, Martha & Agatha it is clear that these puppets are male puppets. I mean, no one would say that Miss Piggy can’t fall in love with Kermit because a pig can’t fall in love with a frog.
I do suspect that the reason for the refusal is a different one: to do as the homos demanded would have satisfied 1% of the population, but killed an extremely fortunate children’s program. It’s not that there aren’t alternatives available, and many parents would have reacted as they should.
Therefore, and all the reasoning of the sesame workshop notwithstanding, Bert & Ernie will remain… straight.
I might have said this, in one form or another, in the past; but as they say, repetita iuvant.
Tomorrow (but celebrated today in the UK) is the Feast of the Assumption. It is the principal feast of the principal victim (after Truth, and Church Unity) of Protestantism.
The Church had already always believed the truth of the Assumption, but it was only with the great Pope Pius XII that the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed as dogma. Before, almost everyone believed. Afterwards, everyone had to believe.
What we are requested to believe is the same that was believed by fifteen centuries of Church history before the heresies of Luther and co., as well as afterwards. The Church never changes Her theology, but her theology organically grows, like a tree that is always the same tree when young and slender or when old and mighty. Please tell this to your Lutheran acquaintances when the occasion arises. The Church doesn’t innovate Her theology.
Protestants miss all this. Most of all, they miss Mary.
A Catholic is not – thank God – so imbibed with Scriptural verses to be thrown around everytime it is helpful to underpin the one or other individual position (tot capita, tot sententiae might have been coined for Protestants, so fitting to them it is); but he knows that he has a Mother in Heaven. He feels the love, the vicinity, the help, the maternal consolation, the loving intercession of his heavenly Mother more than a Protestant ever will.
I pity the man who cannot direct at all times his eyes to heaven knowing that She is there, loving him all the time, suffering for him as a mother, helping him as she can as a mother.
I pity that man, because he has rejected Truth and Love and has closed himself to a great source of love, of consolation in difficult times, of joyous thanksgiving in good ones.
What is more immediately evident to us from the tenderest age, than Motherly Love? What is nearer, more keenly felt, more lovingly remembered? It has been said that by dying, most soldiers pronounce the affectionate word for “mother” they used as a child. I do not doubt it in the least. It truly tells something.
In His infinite Goodness, God has given each and everyone of us such a gift in much greater measure than every earthly mother could; He has given such a consolation and hope to those ( many in the past, less in modern times) who could never know the love of a biological mother; He has provided each and everyone of us with a source of unconditional motherly love, bigger than we could ever imagine.
Then Luther came, and so many were cut out if not from the love, certainly from the consolation.
Poor chaps. The Blessed Virgin loves them so much, and they miss most of the warmth, the love and the beauty. Oh, to have a Mother in Heaven, and not fully realise it!
Hail Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us now and in the hour of our death.