Monthly Archives: November 2011
I call “The Nichols Challenge” the attempt to comment on the latest heretical statement of our not-so-beloved – though much in need of our prayers – Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols without falling in mortal sin.
I have made a couple of attempts, but really if I start to write what I think of the man, it doesn’t serve anyone.
Therefore, I ask you to enjoy (ha!) Rorate Caeli’s take on the matter.
Please, please don’t let me say more.
Bishop Fellay has spoken and the position of the SSPX on the Doctrinal preamble is now clear: unacceptable as it is, but with proposals of modifications.
As the Preambolo was not set in stone, and had been open to modifications from the start, this answer is not surprising. Granted, it may sound strange to mainstream Catholics that an organisation to which reconciliation is offered would show such resilience to set all problems aside; still, this goes to show the wood out of which the SSPX is carved. “Peace” for the sake if it is, fortunately, not on the menu, and the Society will only accept full reconciliation when its leading men will be satisfied that it will be possible to them to continue the same fight after the reconciliation they are fighting now.
Judging from what the CNA reports, the biggest issue seems to be the “leeway” (as “allowable margin of freedom or variation”, says Merriam-Webster) that would be given to them. In Bishop Fellay’s words:
“What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options,”
So: there will be no acceptance of the “Preambolo” as long as there are no guarantees regarding the ability of the SSPX to continue to be, well, the SSPX, but there will be alternative proposals of clarification aimed at seeing whether the Vatican accepts that the SSPX will continue its work without any form of muzzle after the reconciliation.
I might be an incurable optimist, but if this is the biggest issue I would say that great progress has been made, irrespective of the reconciliation happening, or not. It would appear the only big obstacle is the ability of the SSPX to continue its work without any impediment must be guaranteed, and without this guarantee the SSPX will prefer to do without reconciliation.
Note that there is no talk of, so to speak, “converting the Vatican to Catholicism”; also, there is no word about the unfortunate Assisi III event. It seems to me that the SSPX says they are ready, if they are allowed to continue their work.
Fair enough, says I.
Some of you will have read of my rather perplexing experiences in Bruges, Flanders. Rather a couple more – says my stats table – have read, or at least clicked on, my several posts about the Heresy in Austria.
In what appears to be the deserved punishment for the Vatican’s incompetence and culpable inaction, the heresy now spreads to Flanders, where – as I write this – no less than 211 priests have signed a sort of petition explaining things the poor idiots “don’t understand”.
Unfortunately, your truly can help with German, but he is totally at a loss to interpret that strange-sounding mixture of guttural sounds called Flemish. For this reason, I will have to rely on the always excellent Rorate Caeli for a list of those things the poor idiots – or worse; read my post about Bruges – don’t understand. They seem to be the following:
1) We do not understand why the leadership of our local communities (such as parishes) is not entrusted to a man or woman, married or unmarried, professional or volunteer, who received the necessary formation.
2) We need dedicated shepherds. We do not understand why these fellow faithful cannot lead Sunday services.
3) In every living community we need liturgical leaders. We do not understand why – when there is no priest – a service of Word and Communion is not allowed.
4) We do not understand why skilled laypeople and formed religious educators can not preach. We need the Word of God.
5) We do not understand why faithful of good will who remarried after a divorce have to be denied Communion. They are equally part of the community.
I regret the demise of those blessed times when a slap in the face was the way such questions – when posed by, say, an unruly child; adults would obviously, being adults, not pose them – were dealt with. Unfortunately, nowadays the children aren’t treated that way anymore, and many of them seem to have become priest.
Why they did that, is beyond me. Unless they’re homosexual or pedophiles, of course.
Still, I do not want to hide from you the fact that in my modest opinion, the biggest culprit for this mess is the Vatican, and one wonders how many countries – or parts thereof – will launch such “initiatives” before someone in the right chambers wakes up, smells the coffee and starts being Catholic instead of regaling us with the usual platitudes about how good bishops are supposed to be, without caring to do anything when they – regularly – don’t.
The northern European barn is slowly, but surely burning. I can’t hear the Vatican sirens anywhere.
The time for empty talk has passed. This is the time for sharp and decisive action, for exemplary excommunications, for punishment and restoration of sound Catholic thinking. Beginning, of course, from Cardinal Schönborn but now – alas – having to go much further than some diocese lost in Mitteleuropa.
The Neville Chamberlain policy didn’t work. It never could, it never will.
Every now and then, some idiot will come out in search of easy notoriety, and will question the one or other feat of the extraordinary life of Padre Pio.
This is not surprising. Satan is as terrified of Padre Pio now that he is dead, as he was when the great Saint was alive. More so, arguably, now that he is dead and in Paradise, able to help so much more.
To us Catholics, the resurgence of the one or other rumour, of the one or other slander is the source of mild amusement at best. Those who know something of Padre Pio’s life – whoever wants, can find a wealth of unbiased information – know that he was slandered for a great part of his life, and that it is a great sign of a saint’s holiness that he be slandered after death.
To non-Catholics, Padre Pio will always remain an enigma. An enigma they will refuse to examine in detail, because they know that to delve deep into Padre Pio’s life means to discover the depth of Truth, and they are scared.
But the most stupid of them all are those who on the one hand tell themselves Catholics, and on the other can ever conceive that one of the greatest Saints not of our, but of all times might have thought about committing a fraud, about abusing of the public credulity for – let me count – fifty years or so. I do not know whether this is more blasphemous, or more stupid. More blasphemous, I think. No, more stupid. Hhmm, no… more blasphemous for sure! No, wait…..
This, whilst half of the Catholic world – and the most influential one at that: Gemelli didn’t like him; Gemelli’s friend Pope Pius XI wasn’t a great fan, either – didn’t believe in him and tried everything to “expose” him, the astonishing combination of his graces being, in fact, too much to be believed at once even by undoubtedly smart people, or smart Popes; whilst others, like Pope Pius XII, always supported him with astonishing firmness, and no little courage.
So, we are now asked – and please don’t laugh – to even contemplate the possibility this great Saint might have been a fraud. Worse still, that a great Saint might have been a fraud, and still be a great Saint. Make no mistake, dear reader: this is the work of ignorant, perverted minds.
To the Catholics among you, I do not need to tell anything. You all know that one can’t be a great saint and a massive, fifty-year fraud more than Martha could have been a transsexual, or Judas the good man in the story.
To the non-Catholics among you, some words of instruction:
There has been – before padre Pio – only one male stigmatist: St. Francis. Some other saints have been known to spread around them flavours of roses or other flowers, without being aware of this – this is the origin of the saying “to be in odour of sanctity”, by the way -. Others more have been known to be able to read other people’s mind, particularly in the confessional. Others still have been known to have received – on rare occasions – the gift of bilocation. Finally, some of them have been known to talk to angels on a regular basis, and to be harassed by the devil because of their holy lives.
There is only one Saint known in the entire Christianity for having shown not one, or two, but all of these graces. This is the same man who – ad majorem Dei gloriam – is still slandered today. May this long last, I am tempted to say: the more the slandering goes on, the more intelligent and inquisitive people will be attracted to the Church through this great, great son of Hers.
Padre Pio didn’t live in some obscure middle-age time, his feats lost in the fog of time, and embellished by the charm of legends. He lived in an age of advanced technology, of radio and television, of spread atheism, and of accomplished medicine. His stigmata were witnessed by atheist doctors, who couldn’t explain their origin – not many know this, but the Church also uses avowed atheist doctors for this sort of exams, as it keeps everyone honest – and his other miracles and graces and signs were witnessed by so many, that it would be utterly un-Catholic to question the sainthood of the man and thus, by definition, his not being a fraud.
Most importantly of all, the man has been canonised. If there is one thing that canonisation means, only one, is that the saint was not a fraudster. This is not difficult to get. Not for a non-Catholic, much less for a Catholic. Canonisation is not like beatification, after which event one can still legitimately question the sainthood of the person beatified. Canonisation is matter of infallibility. When someone has been canonised a Catholic shuts up, period.
There. I had to say it.
Beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothes.
Absolutely spiffing commentary of Michael Voris on Adolf Hussein Obama’s notorious speech at Notre Dame.
The last part is the best.
For now an entire day, it seems that WordPress has put an advertisement of SkyTV on my blog.
I generally do not care what ads are on my blog, and do not comment on them. I actually never even look. I am grateful WordPress allows me to have a completely free, anonymous blog, and take what goes with that.
But this time is different, because in my more than half century of existence I have never experienced a company so unspeakably bad like SkyTv. They are the stuff out of which nightmares are made. I’d prefer to have no TV altogether, than to give another penny to Sky.
So, there you have it. I couldn’t see Sky adv on my site, and leave this unnoticed.
If I believed in reincarnation, I’d be persuaded the authors of this paper were Nazi doctors working in extermination camps. Kudos to Rorate Caeli for, once again, making beautiful job ox exposing such inhuman barbarism.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists today informed the world on how to kill a baby before, well, it is accidentally born.
The tone is chillingly measured, and you can vividly imagine Dr Mengele at work with the same attitude, and using exactly the same words.
Feticide should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth.
Inducing fetal death before medical abortion may have beneficial emotional, ethical and legal consequences.
and I wonder whether Dr Mengele himself would have dared to express himself in such an utterly inhumane way. As to the “beneficial ethical consequences”, they once again remind one of the Nazi doctors thinking it “ethically beneficial” to conduct experiments on Jews.
Not enough? Try this:
[ ….] in cases where the fetal abnormality is not lethal or the abortion is not for fetal abnormality and is being undertaken after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion.
“Pay attention”, they say, “when you go for the baby killing, you must take care that you do it right! Otherwise a live baby can be born; you don’t want that, do you?” It goes on:
When medical abortion is chosen, special steps are required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. The RCOG recommends feticide for abortions over 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, except in the case of lethal fetal abnormality, and that feticide should always be performed by an appropriately trained practitioner (under consultant supervision) using aseptic conditions and with continuous ultrasound.
Here, our aspiring Mengeles explain to us what the issue is: when you perform an abortion with the foetus still alive, the “procedure” might go wrong and you might find yourself with a – legally born, I assume, as this is not Obamaland – child. Now, to kill the child after birth isn’t really…. legal, is it?* Therefore, the best thing to do is to kill the baby first, and take out the corpse later. How these people can look in the mirror, is beyond me; but hey, Dr Mengele probably didn’t have any problem with that, either.
It follows a list of the methods with which the desired, ethically beneficial babycide can be executed. Shall potassium chloride be used (as our Nazis recommend), or perhaps is the faster Digoxin to be preferred? Have they tried with injections of liquified Zyklon B? How do you say? Forbidden? You don’t say….
The Nazis are among us. They go around undisturbed saying and doing things that would have sent them to the Nuremberg Trial with the express train. They are blissfully – er, hellishly – unaware of any wrongdoing, like the Nazi doctors; and like them, they have become so criminally obdurate they do not even perceive they have lost almost any trace of humanity.
As I have said many times, it seems Hitler has won the ethical war, after losing the military one. Abortion and euthanasia wherever you turn, amidst the general indifference.
Truly, the Nazis are among us, and have polluted our Western Civilisation.
I wonder whether Dr Chartres, the oh so sensitive, anti-Capitalist so-called bishop of London, will have something to say.
* This is no Obamaland, remember!
a) Barack Obama
b) Bill Clinton
c) Ronald Reagan.
There are no prizes for winning.
(with kudos to Green Mountains Scribes)
Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a Nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our Nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow. Both as individuals and as a people, we join with the Psalmist in song and praise: “Give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good.” One of the most inspiring portrayals of American history is that of George Washington on his knees in the snow at Valley Forge. That moving image personifies and testifies to our Founders’ dependence upon Divine Providence during the darkest hours of our Revolutionary struggle. It was then – when our mettle as a Nation was tested most severely – that the Sovereign and Judge of nations heard our plea and came to our assistance in the form of aid from France. Thereupon General Washington immediately called for a special day of thanksgiving among his troops. Eleven years later, President Washington, at the request of the Congress, first proclaimed November 26, 1789, as Thanksgiving Day. In his Thanksgiving day Proclamation, President Washington exhorted the people of the United States to observe ”a day of public thanksgiving and prayer” so that they might acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” Washington also reminded us that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” Today let us take heart from the noble example of our first President. Let us pause from our many activities to give thanks to almighty God for our bountiful harvests and abundant freedoms. Let us call upon Him for continued guidance and assistance in all our endeavors. And let us ever be mindful of the faith and spiritual values that have made our Nation great and that alone can keep us great. With joy and gratitude in our hearts, let us sing those stirring stanzas: O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain! America! America! God shed His grace on thee. ————————————————————————————————————
NOW, THEREFORE, I, —– ——, President of the United States of America, in the spirit of George Washington and the Founders, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November –, —-, as a National Day of Thanksgiving, and I call upon every citizen of this great Nation to gather together in homes and places of worship on that day of thanks to affirm by their prayers and their gratitude the many blessings bestowed upon this land and its people.
Great news from France, where it was announced that Father Michel, the hero of Thiberville, is now allowed to have his own parish in Le Planquay, in the smallest church of the diocese.
Le Planquay is merely 5 km away from Thiberville. Let’s call it a nice walk, or bicycle ride.
What appears evident to me is that the intent here was certainly not to “punish” Father Michel with a small church, but to allow him to remain as near as possible to his congregation.
Unfortunately, whilst Bishop Nourrichard has been clearly bypassed by the decision – forced on him by the Congregation for the Clergy – the bad news is that said Bishop Nourrichard remains in charge of the diocese. In time, perhaps, this problem will be sorted out, too.
We should pray for Bishop Nourrichard, of course. I promise you I’ll try until I succeed.
For the moment, let us rejoice for Father Michel and for his brave parishioners, soon able to have their beloved priest again.
Bishop Nourrichard was appointed to his present position by the current Pontiff.
“NOW THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable Personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as a national Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and sanctity of every human life”.
Presidential Proclamation of “National Sanctity of Human Life Day”, January 14, 1988
In the last few days, two events have impacted the blogosphere:
1) The Birmingham Oratory announced the return to the Tridentine version for their sung Sunday Latin Mass. This must be, if London is any example, an old version of the Novus Ordo, very similar to the Tridentine already. I can easily imagine the other UK Oratories will follow suit in the near-ish future.
2) A high-profile blogger has announced a trial period of the Tridentine as the 9am Sunday Mass.
Both events are, in my eyes, clear indication of the following:
A) Even in the UK, the Tridentine’s march is now slowly becoming unstoppable. The more Tridentine masses there is, the more there will be, as imitation sets in and the faithful begin to know that the Tridentine mass exists in the first place.
B) The rediscovery of traditional Catholicism after the drunkenness of the post V-II years doesn’t go through a more pronounced use of the Novus Ordo in Latin (the Novus Ordo was, actually, meant to be mainly in Latin, with exceptions where allowed by the bishop), but through the rediscovery of the Mass of the Ages. This seems to be additional confirmation that within the Church there is a more and more pronounced feeling – expressed, or not – that there is no need to “integrate” Vatican II in the liturgy by rediscovering the Novus ordo as it should have been. What we had before V II was perfectly OK, and can be used exactly as it was. In particular, the decision of the Oratory seems very indicative to me, as the present Solemn Novus Ordo (Latin) very probably used is so similar to the Tridentine, that the decision to switch can in my eyes only have the ideological background I have just described.
In my eyes, this also takes care of all the waffle about the supposed liturgical enrichment brought about by Vatican II. Enrichment, my aunt. If you ask me, the fitting place for the liturgical innovations of V II is the rubbish bin. It seems to me that whilst others – particularly if religious – would not express themselves in the same way, this train of thoughts becomes more and more spread. At least I cannot detect any “renaissance” of the Novus Ordo in Latin, for sure. Not even as a by-product of Summorum Pontificum, or as an intermediate step.
In the next years, we will see an increasing number of Tridentine masses around. It will take some patience, but in time its beauty and reverence will be clearly perceived by the faithful. I can well imagine that those who will have the patience to persevere, and will make the small effort to absorb the Latin and follow the mass with a missal or bilingual booklet, will soon wonder how they could cope with the kindergarten version of the original for so long. Give them some more time, and they’ll be speechless when asked what were all those ladies doing in the sanctuary, and why exactly were people receiving from laymen.
We are not there yet, but already at this point I can’t see how the march of the Tridentine can be stopped, as its celebration is the best advertisement it can receive.
The future isn’t Vatican II. The future isn’t a desperate attempt to create some strangely concocted liturgical hybrid, either. The future also isn’t a mixture of elements of the Tridentine with elements of the post-V II era (a Tridentine with altar girls, say).
If you ask me, it is clear enough what the future will be: it will be our beautiful, solemn, reverent past.
In the wake of the announcement of the Diocese of Orange obtaining the green light for the purchase of the Crystal Cathedral, two elements appear that might, one way or the other, result in the building not becoming the next Cathedral of the Orange diocese.
The first element comes from a Rocco Palmo’s blog post, aptly entitled “Live from Orange: Bishop Tod’s “Hour of Power” “. Therein Palmo writes:
As Brown’s successor would inherit the move and its ramifications at the outset of his tenure, a successful offer by the diocese would likely receive considerable scrutiny in Rome, and could possibly even be scuttled by the Holy See should the acquisition be seen as unduly prejudicing the future of the diocese and the freedom of its next bishop to make his own calls.
Whilst it is not clear to me how to Diocese could persuade the sellers to wait for Rome’s green light and make of it a condition of the sale, the phrase seems to indicate that the purchase/building of a cathedral is seen as important enough to justify a direct intervention from Rome. I point out once again to the fact that the purchase is seen as economically advantageous, and the property has already been seen as eligible for alternative use. This basically means that, if the Diocese decides to backpedal – or the Vatican decides to force them to – the property could be sold probably without loss, and possibly at a profit.
The second element comes from another indication from the blog post:
To fund a prospective Crystal purchase, the diocese is understood to be laying the groundwork for a capital campaign. Further revenue would ostensibly come from the sale of a smaller plot long owned by the diocese for an earlier incarnation of its long-sought cathedral project.
Whilst the sale of the plot originally destined for the cathedral seems the natural solution, the new element here is that by explicitly asking for funding of the Cathedral purchase, the Diocese of Orange will in fact not be able to escape a “referendum” about the wisdom of the operation, a referendum in which the voters express their opinion by giving – or rather not giving – contributions towards the purchase. I do not doubt that it will always be possible to raise the funds in other ways if desired (this is a diocese with more than 1 million nominal faithful; a bank loan of, say, $50m with repayment in, say, 15 years would cost not more than 4-4.50 dollar a year per nominal faithful), the decision to ask the faithful for direct contributions would rapidly give a way to gauge the way the local Catholics see this purchase. I don’t need to say that, should such an appeal be done, I sugest that the faithful do not even think of donating even a penny toward the purchase of Tod Mahal.
We shall see, but the matter appears not so easily settled yet.
From Messa In Latino, a beautiful example of liberal tolerance and acceptance of diversity.
In Caltanissetta (Sicily), a priest decides that one either receives on the tongue, or he doesn’t receive at all. Is he allowed to do so according to Canon Law? I don’t know, and frankly I doubt.
What I do not doubt, though, is that one of the liberal non-communicants went to the sacristy after Mass and started to insult the poor priest with such violence that other people, forcibly hearing the scene, called the Carabinieri.
Yep, I’d say this explains well the “spirit” of liberal Catholicism.
Dr. Schuller has been a key figure both in Orange County and around the globe for many years; I wish Crystal Cathedral Ministries success with their reorganized finances.
Tod Brown, 18 November 2011
Sad news, and actually such that I hoped I would never write. The Diocese of Orange won the bidding war with the Chapman University.
It would therefore appear that this monument to Protestant grandeur – not ugly in itself, but in my eyes unworthy as a place of Catholic worship – will become the next Cathedral of the Orange diocese.
The changes necessary have been described as follows:
The liturgist for the Orange diocese, Monsignor Arthur Holquin, said July 26 that several changes will need to take place in order for the Crystal Cathedral to become a Catholic worship space.
Along with a central altar, a tabernacle and a baptismal font, the building would need a “cathedra” or bishop’s chair. While renovations are needed to the building, “not much deconstruction would be required and the iconic personality of the original architecture and design would, for the most part, be retained,” he said.
The entire exercise stinks to this Catholic nose of ecumenism from the window. It is as if the building was supposed to remain as Protestant as possible, perhaps thinking that this would attract Proddies, rather than motivate Catholics to worship elsewhere.
Battle lost, then?
This “Tod Mahal” might never be converted to a Catholic cathedral if the Holy Father sends the right person to substitute the departing – and good riddance – Tod Brown. I can easily imagine that if the right person is chosen, the pressure will mount to change plans and sell the real estate, perhaps even at a profit. In the end, the structure was sold rather fast, and with a marketing time of 12-24 months it should be possible to undo the damage and avert the danger. Still there is time, as the Protestant congregation so fond of “possibility thinking” receives the possibility of staying in the structure for up to three years.
When the next bishop comes, I hope the local Catholics will start their own “possibility thinking” exercise themselves.
The disgusting picture you see above is one of the photoshopped images used by Benetton, the crap sellers, to try to help a declining brand to escape oblivion with some “cool” scandal, like for example openly approving faggotry.
You would think that such disgusting exercise would be very pleasing to the liberal minds, never tired to stress out how “homophobic prejudice” continues to penalise countless ohh so sensitive perverts and make them a target for homophobic persecution or, to use a fashionable word, “bullying”. Who then, you certainly reason, should be more happy to be represented in such a “diverse” posture than the New Messiah, the Herald of Change, and enthusiastic supporter – as much as his role allows him to; at least until after the election – of so-called “gay rights”, Adolf Hussein Obama?
Isn’t it so, that an enthusiastic approval of the picture would earn him the immediate approval of all the “liberal minds” – even the heterosexual ones – of the United States? Isn’t it so, that with the economy set not to improve rapidly and a deficit to let the Italians look thrifty, Obama needs all the support he can get from those oh so mistreated minorities who see in him a beacon of hope and social – again – “change”? Can it be denied that a liberal mind like Obama cannot, cannot see anything wrong in a homosexual kiss, even if he happens to be straight? Aren’t liberal not all faggots at heart, and be it only in their own peculiar, oily, hypocritical “I would so like to be a faggot to know how it feels to be persecuted”-way?
Wrong, my friend. The White House is not amused. Not amused at all. Obviously they don’t say that dear Minority President doesn’t want to be identified, in any way whatsoever, with that minority; liberals have high standards of hypocrisy that must be maintained at all times. No, what they say is that they resent the use of the President for “commercial reasons”. Interesting. I seem to remember Nixon with the Coca-Cola bottle. Besides, the subject of the campaign is, in change-English, “unhate”. How can it be that the President of the United States overlooks the humanitarian sense of the campaign, to focus exclusively on the vile commercial interests, like a Republican would? What kind of mindset is this? What has happened to the promised “change”? Was the same virulent reaction caused by the (now passed) phenomenon of Barackvertising?
Take it from me: the President of the United States acts the liberal, but in reality he is a homophobic closet conservative.
Or, as they say in Italy, “everyone can be a homosexual with other people’s backside”…
P.s. one is curious about the reaction of the Chinese… should be fun for Benetton’s Chinese sales prospects…
First of all, Benetton produced in my time expensive, overpriced crap and I do not think anything has changed in the meantime; rather, I am surprised they are still around as a company.
But this is not the matter; the matter is that in their most recent campaign called “unhate” – from their grammar you’ll recognise them – they dare to publish a photoshopped image of the Pope, and have other not-so-funny pics; for example the one with Obama kissing Chinese commie leader Hu Jintao like a benetton-wearing homo, though we know that faggotry is probably the only shortcoming Obama doesn’t have.
These photos are obviously anti-Catholic and Anti-Christian in that they not only make a mockery of the Pope – the photo has in the meantime been withdrawn, but only because the Vatican threatened to sue -, but through the union of the “unhate” (see above) message with homosexual obscenities send a perfectly anti-Christian message, that it be someway cool to be a homo, and even to show it in public to other Benetton wearing fags.
Therefore, a Christian – let alone a Catholic, let alone anyone straight – avoids Benetton.
Overpriced crap, anyway.
Isn’t it beautiful, technology?
Nowadays, you can experience an apparition in the comfort of your home, sitting in front of the computer, with your favourite tea.
This being a new and bold era, the Blessed Virgin gives you her schedule, and lets you know beforehand when and to whom she will appear. We all have busy lives, you know, so she gracefully accommodates our schedule.
Not only this, but the Blessed Virgin is now a priest, too – it must have to do with the vocations crisis, I suppose – and therefore will bless all the objects you keep near the computer during the announced ceremony, erm, gig, erm, apparition. Exactly like a priest would; or a priestess, or…. er, wait….
You don’t believe all this? How dare you? This is organised under the protection of none other than Cardinal Schoenborn, the protector of heretics and patron of blasphemers!
It must be true, right?
Can’t wait for the apparition.
Prepare the popcorn.
You would have hoped that the matter of the Crystal Cathedral – an extremely Proddie place of worship, for which the Diocese of Orange made an offer, trying to get a new Cathedral on the cheap – was now put to rest. Wrong.
It would now appear that the two parties who have shown an interest in the property – the said Diocese of Orange, and Chapman University – are intentioned to start a bidding war, with the Diocese countering the University’s offer and the latter answering with an even more succulent counter-offer.
I understand the argument with the money, but I am at a loss to understand the one of practicality and speed of execution in view of the time during which the proddie community would be allowed to stay in. In three years you can build an awful lot, and this without saying that you can build it in a proper, Catholic way rather than making do with a mixture of office building and Protestant megalomania.
I continue to think that this initiative is wrong, that the building is un-Catholic, and that in the XXI century the money should be there – as it has always been the case in the past – to do things slowly but properly, rather than fastly but beastly. Our ancestors started to build Cathedrals knowing that they would never see them completed, not even half made, not even with the roof covered. They did it ad maiorem Dei gloriam, thinking of the long-term results rather than seeking their short-term satisfaction. I wonder who is wiser.
Well no, actually I don’t.
The Taj Mahony is ugly enough, and un-Catholic more than enough. California doesn’t need another mistake.
Every now and then, some good blog appears to be shut down, or at least to be frozen for some time.
This time – and believe me, this is a loss – it happens to Ttony’s Muniment Room. It is not so bad, because the blog’s author says that he is “sure he shall be back eventually”. But it is very bad, because the motives for the blog freezing pose in my eyes questions to which – if you ask me – the wrong answer is given.
Let us examine the argument, because the issue is one that impinges every Catholic blogger without exception.
Imagine a fleet of ships commanded by an Admiral who says all the ships under his authority have to tie fast to a particular rocky isle. Imagine that many do, but you gradually realise that on yours, the Captain, the senior officers, and those of the crew who deal with the officers have decided that rather than tie fast they will remain close to the rocky isle, but not tied to it. They will give all the appearance of being obedient to the Admiral except in the most fundamental of obediences.
The Admiral gave the order because he, better than anyone, is in a position to see just how rough the sea is, but the Captain, Officers and senior rates on our ship reckon that they know better, especially about the place where they are and think that their own ways of dealing with what might come will be perfectly adequate.
Most of the crew will remain oblivious about what’s going on, but a few are aware not just of the Admiral’s orders but of the senior officers’ agreement to ignore them.
What should they do? Mutiny? If not, what should they do? Acquiesce? In which case what should they answer when at some point in the future the Admiral, or his leader, asks why they disobeyed?
The author’s conclusion is that he should stop blogging because, be the officer wrong as they may, mutiny is never justified.
I allow myself to disagree.
My argument is, I believe, well presented by a poster who continues the nautical metaphor. I report his answer in its entirety:
Blogging or not blogging, you are still on the boat, the rocks are still nearby, your friends are still in danger.
St Thomas Aquinas says that truth is found in resistance to a contradiction – so here’s a contradiction for you to resist…
A Bishop knocks on your door and demands to have sex with your young daughter. Are you obliged to be ‘obedient’ to his request? No? That’s because you know he has no authority to demand such a thing. “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” (Lumen Gentium)
Next he knocks on your neighbours door and your neighbour thinks he has to do everything a Bishop says… do you help your neighbour by stepping in and telling him not to obey the Bishop on this point?
Would that be leading crewmen against their officers? or would it be protecting your brother against abuse of authority?
The sex example is extreme, but it makes it clear that saying no to Bishops is sometimes an option. Telling other Catholics that they are allowed, indeed sometimes compelled to say no to Bishops is sometimes an option. It is sometimes a duty.
Aquinas says… “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” (Summa Theologica)
Bingo, says I.
Whilst the example is extreme, it is perfectly adequate to explain the situation. Either the bishops are wrong, or they aren’t. If they aren’t, then one must recognise that they are right and act accordingly. If they are, then one must recognise that they are wrong, and act accordingly.
The day I die, I prefer to be asked why I decided a mutiny against a very bad captain, than why I decided to shut up and give a hand to send the ship to – almost – shipwreck.
God knows, seldom has the Church had so many bad bishops. In past times of corruption and licence, their failings were still private; but in these disgraceful post-V II, still Bugnini-laden times, the “bad bishop problem” is the insisted, publicly proclaimed, shamelessly pursued sabotage of everything that is sacred and soundly Catholic.
More or less willingly – I’d say: always willingly, though probably with a varying degree of malice – these bishops are enemies of the Truth, and enemies of the Church whose work they willingly and publicly sabotage. On whose side will we be, the Church’s or the Bishops’?
I do hope that Ttony will see the validity of the argument, and will soon be blogging again. One can be more or less controversial, or decide to soften his tones a bit after all; but to stop altogether, isn’t it a bit extreme? The matter as I see it is that Truth can’t be compromised for the sake of obedience to error, and to those who propagate and protect it. Where a bishop’s obedience to the Church ends, there ends my obedience to said bishop. Wolves will not have my support because they are clothed as sheep; and be their clothes so purple, or even red.
The Bishop’s good sheep; but God’s first.
I was praying my Rosary waiting for the Mass to begin. I wasn’t at the Oratory and was therefore resigned to witness some, let us say, strange things.
But this, I had not expected.
A lady goes on the pulpit. She seems to review the reading of the day, but doesn’t talk. A silent rehearsal, so to speak. I barely notice it, and sink into my rosary again.
After the decade, she is still there.
I begin to notice now, and wonder what she might be doing. She is pretty far away, but I can see that she is, in a way, still rehearsing. “Strange” – I think – “she probably reads every Sunday; perhaps it’s the first time?”. I sink into my rosary again.
Another decades ends, and she is still there, on the pulpit. This time, I observe. She is rehearsing, but she is also clearly enjoying. So much so, that she seems unable to leave the place, though she must, she must have become aware of the questionable taste of putting oneself in the pulpit and staying there for, what, seven minutes?
I can’t avoid thinking how a man – let alone a woman – would have been seen in past times if he had installed himself on the pulpit for such a long time. Even in a man, I reflect, this would have been considered something inappropriate unless the man has been invited to preach – which used to happen in the past; think of St. Philip Neri, who was an extremely popular lay pracher before taking Holy Orders. In a woman, this would have been considered, methinks, even worse, the “I want to be a priest” attitude becoming nothing less than obscenely subversive.
Some time passes still, and the lady decides that every good thing must have an end, and finally abandons the fort. But wait. She is not the sanctimonious, “look at how I smell of incense”-type of lady. She looks intelligent, and gives the idea of being very attentive at what she does. She reminds one of a mathematics teacher, or rather she reminds me of my old Greek and Latin teacher with the openly admitted Fascist sympathies, but extremely well-prepared. This here is probably no Fascist, but she surely looks like she is well-prepared. Her lack of sugary look-at-me attitude (rather, she has an “obey me”-attitude; but not in a wrong way; like my old teacher, by the way) makes the insisted pulpit behaviour the more striking; I become curious to listen to the delivery and to see whether the soppy “I try so hard to be like Mother Theresa”-feeling (in my experience, the most common trait of the female Mass reader) becomes apparent.
The delivery comes and it is, I must say, excellent. Nothing of that sentimentality so often heard from the aging representatives of the emotional sex, and which lets you thank God in a very special way that they will never, ever be able to be Catholic priests. No sanctimoniousness, and no self-extolling “If my mother could look at me now”-sense of self-importance. The lady delivers with the ruthless efficiency of a heart surgeon. The voice loud and firm, the pronunciation extremely clear, no uncertainty and no repetition whatsoever. This lady knows what she does, and does it properly. I become more and more curious to hear the next reading, (invariably) delivered by another woman and really, it’s like comparing Mussolini with Berlusconi (my apologies to the lady, if she reads me. The one I compared to Berlusconi, I mean).
What has happened, then? Was the “pulpit” lady so good because she had remained standing on the pulpit for the time a priest needs to deliver an average homily? Or was she good because she is conscientious, and has rehearsed – at home, probably, and for a long time – the proper way of reading in public?
More importantly, what does this episode tell us about human nature?
What it tells me – feel free to disagree; you weren’t there, anyway… – is that pride threatens us in the most subtle of ways; that particularly in these, after all, half-innocent manifestations of human frailty we can observe the way our human nature finds a way to sneak into our habits, to take control of our better instincts for a short time.
Who knows what was going on? Perhaps was the lady asserting her new role in front of other ladies who had tried to put obstacles on her path and was, so to speak, marking her territory? Was there some special message she was trying to send? Why on the pulpit, but without saying a word? Why for so long? Why in such a public, unmistakable, frankly embarrassing, “The Office”-kind of way*?
And if we are honest with ourselves, isn’t this what happens, dear reader, to the best of us? To you, even, let alone to me? Aren’t we all in constant danger of climbing our own pulpit, and to stay there until it becomes an embarrassment to all those around us? Yes of course we must, so to speak, deliver our reading. It is even our duty – according to our abilities – to do so. But isn’t it a wonderful thing to observe – in the others, surely; less in ourselves – how subtly the mechanism works?
There should be no lay readers at Mass. It is, I am sure, difficult enough for a priest to resist the pride. For laymen, this becomes an impossibility.
As shown even by the lady with the excellently clear delivery.
A prayer for her, by the way. This was the first lay reader I liked, and that’s no mean feat.
*Not a UK resident? Sorry, old chap….
One of the most common trait of every internet discussion – and of many discussion in the real world – is the unavoidable intervention of the compulsive do-gooder.
The compulsive do-gooder lives in a world made of platitudes and common places. He thrives so much in such an environment, that he googles around looking for controversial discussions on the Internet – this forum, or that blog – to intervene and dish his accustomed list of banalities.
For the do-gooder, war is always bad. He can’t countenance that some be rich, and many other poor (he is, well, certainly not rich himself; if he is, he feels guilty for that, but without becoming poor). He finds it extremely worthwhile to complain about “inequalities”, as if God had made a world dominated by equality, and men had decided to subvert God’s plan. That human beings have always possessed the most varied degrees of intelligence, wit, beauty, or physical strenght never occurred to him and hey presto, here’s the next platitude…..
Most of all, the compulsive do-gooder has no controversial opinions. He will tolerate everything and everyone, as long as he feels approved. He will throw “Jesus” in every discussion, and this will allow him to avoid taking a stance on whatever problem, or controversy, or perversion going against the thinking of the lazy, indifferent, fat mainstream. When the do-gooder is “against” something, it will be something that is, in principle, uncontroversial. He will be in favour of “peace”, “love”, “understanding”, “tolerance”, “prosperity for everyone” and “the environment”. In doing so, he will conveniently forget the very reasons why he should be in favour of all these beautiful things. He will be in favour of peace when confronted with Nazism, “love” when confronted with genocide, “understanding” when aeroplanes go against skyscrapers. He will want prosperity but will criticise the very Capitalist society that produces it in unprecedented measure. He will be in favour of the environment, but will never care for the danger that stupid environmentalism – and make no mistake, that’s what he will support – poses to the economy and, therefore, to peace, prosperity, and “understanding among the peoples”. If you disagree with him, he will consider you intolerant, for disagreeing with him.
The do-gooder lives in a parallel world. He fancies a planet where human beings behave exactly as they should – which invariably means : as he wants – instead of, well, like human beings. In his world no criminal, no dictator, no genocide is evil. No one is evil, though some are misunderstood. If we would just talk to them! Oh, how insensitive we all are!
When I was at school, and later too, the do-gooders invariably – which means, without exception – belonged to a particular group of people. Not very smart, very lazy, and not much esteemed. Mediocre in all they did, and dull in everything they said, they never received the consideration they clearly craved for and which their overflowing vanity demanded. Having nothing to impose them to other people’s attention, they needed to feed their vanity by imposing their own alleged moral superiority on them.
Their desperate need for vanity fodder created on the one hand an extreme egalitarianism born of their own mediocrity – if you are mediocre every talking of aspiration, striving, application, sacrifice will be marked as evil; therefore the do-gooder will be against grades in class, against better and worse and, very predictably, against richer and poorer – and on the other hand it produced an extremely strong need to take the moral high ground, to be considered better because they could not be considered smarter, and to condemn every form of competition because they couldn’t win it.
I saw these people at work, and was dumbfounded by the extreme stupidity of their behaviour and attitude. Being a somewhat outspoken guy, I never refrained from saying so and exposing them without any reserve in the public debates they so clearly desired and were the first to ask for – Italian schools were then, alas, the mecca of the stupid debates, with people barely able to grow a beard feeling so good whilst crucifying the entire Western Civilisation -. By doing so, I caused tsunamis of indignation and, invariably, savage accusations of insensitivity. But in my simple world, if you’re stupid you’re better off shutting up than trying to look intelligent, because it never works and you’re bound to find the one who’ll make you look the ass you are. Si tacuisses…. particularly then, when your stupidity goes against everything sacred, causes Communism to advance, and makes Holocausts possible.
The do-gooder is passive-aggressive, which works beautifully with most people, though sends them straight to the wall with those who can’t stand such a behaviour. He will start a discussion immediately aiming at the moral high ground, and at the first resistance will put his tent firmly there by claiming foul play, and emotional rape. How do you dare to expose his idiocy, he only wants a world where everyone lives in peaaace!
The do-gooder is a failure, perceived or – more often – real. He will either not have done anything sensible in his life beside stroking his vanity, or he will be frustrated because he doesn’t feel his achievements are valued enough by “society”. He might be a teacher whose brother-in-law- is a successful lawyer, or the ne’er-do-good daughter of a successful businessman, that is: people earning less than the former generation, or than their peer within the enlarged family. Nothing better to stimulate socialist thinking. Being very materialistic, the do-gooder will judge other people from the economic success they have, and will think everyone does the same; but being losers, they won’t have any. Ouch! Then, they will criticise the materialistic society, consumerism, and all those people who consider them good-for-nothing; exactly as they do, secretly, themselves.
It is, I think, a sad reality of our days that most champagne socialist are, in fact, unable to afford the champagne. They only like to mix with the few who can.
My impression is that an awful lot of do-gooders have become teachers, and very many have become social workers of some kind. Even more of them have become nothing at all, and now build tents in strange places, desperately trying to attract people’s attention on how oh so beautiful they are. Their motivation is the one that drives them in everything they do: to please their vanity, and to be considered an elite of fine thinkers rather than a motley crew of lazy asses.
Very few of them will choose the clerical profession. The one or other among them might become, say, a bishop of the Anglican so-called church, and one of them actually became the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some others may become Catholic Bishops, or Cardinals, and write about their strange theories of world government, and global monetary authority. These are among the very few that will be seen, from the world at large, as authoritative.
Still, make no mistake: they are waste of space, all of them.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
John Mc Crae, 1915.
And so the Mississippi referendum did not go as I – and, I am sure, many of you – had wished. What hurts more, the result was clearly in favour of those against the measure, whereas the polls indicated a close call.
It would appear that in the last days of the campaign, prominent pro-lifers have intervened and expressed their concerns about the initiative. I have written already about this, but the concerns may be summarised with the argument that you shouldn’t fight to win, because you may lose and be in a worse position than you were before.
I never cease to be amazed at such arguments. Did the participants of the “Boston tea party” reason that if the operation had failed, their cause might have been set back? What about the Independence war: isn’t it so, that if that war had been lost an even bigger yoke would have been imposed on the Colonies? More in general, what kind of reasoning is that, that one shouldn’t fight because he might, in theory, be worse off if he fights and lose?
How can it be explained that Planned Parenthood was clearly opposed to the initiative? If it had played in their hands, they should have chosen a lower profile, right? How can it be explained that President Obama hailed the defeat? Have these people all become covert pro-lifers?
And about the argument of the Supreme Court re-affirming Roe vs Wade: Roe vs Wade is in force now. It kills children now. It can’t kill them more after being upheld that it does at the moment. It’s not that 73% of a baby is aborted now, and this percentage would have been increased to 91% after a second sentence upholding Roe vs Wade. No, when a child is aborted , he dies to 100%. He ceases to live. He is no more.
So, it is difficult for me to see how avoiding a further controversy in the Supreme Court might help a child to be “aborted less”, or help the cause in any way. In the end, the United States are a democracy, and when the public opinion decides that it wants to go in a certain direction – with an amendment of the Constitution, if must be; more probably without – there is no need to persuade Supreme Court judges. And how can you get the “right” judges to the Supreme court, if not creating a climate hostile to abortion in the Senate that must approve them, or making it more difficult for a President to propose the election of pro-choice judges? How can a battle to raise the awareness of the Holocaust that is abortion be fought with the fear of letting the issue become a hotly contested, highly controversial one?
I am baffled, really. I think this was a victory of cowardice over hope. Not so much for the end result of the defeat, which might have happened anyway, but because of the way in which this defeat has been, in a word, deserved.
What is next, I wonder? No battle in defence of DOMA because if it is lost we might end up in a worse position than we are today? If you ask me, this is Chamberlain’s logic.
Again, I am baffled.
Beautiful intervention from Bishop Conley, attacking the (aggressive) secular society at a pro-life meeting in Dallas.
“Atheocracy” is the name he chooses to describe
“a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add — the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.”
Such a society is based upon purely synthetic moral values, based on pretty much nothing as far as inviolable principles are concerned.
“Hence, it has no foundation upon which to establish justice, secure true freedom, or to constrain tyrants,”
As an example, he took Roe vs Wade, “atheocracy” in action and “the violence of the strong against the weak”. Still,
“Without God, there is no basis for morality and no necessary protections for man. The strong decide what is right or wrong — even who lives and who dies.”
Abortion anyone? Euthanasia? Why does this ring a bell?
Atheocracy works very well, of course, in matters of sexual perversion, then a society with no place for moral values is a place with no place for condemnation of sexual perversion. This is when atheocracy starts to recognise so-called homosexual marriages, because
“our atheocratic government now deems itself competent to rewrite ‘the laws of Nature’s God’ — the God-given definitions of marriage and the family”
It wasn’t always that way in the old U S of A, though, as
“the Declaration’s expressed belief in the divine origin of the human person is everywhere presumed in the Constitution”,
and one can’t say that it hasn’t served the country well. Whether this will continue, and a country where homo soldiers have the right to shower together with their straight colleagues – what have homos to look for in an army, anyway? I mean, have we all become MAD?! – might discover before too long that being a world power is nothing automatic, or due to one country.
In short, Bishop Conley hits the bull’s-eye on the protracted deterioration of democratic institutions through aggressive secular thinking. Mind, though, that when a democracy betrays Christian values, this democracy has ceased to earn the right to exist, and the time will come when it is not able to withstand the onslaught of other – and hopefully authentically Christian – forces.
The great Ronald Reagan* used to say that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. The same thinking applies, I believe, to democratic institutions. As long as there are deep and universal values sustaining them, they will thrive and prosper. When, though, these values are substituted by caricatures of Christian values – see the fake “charitee” of the pro-homo lobby, or the fake Hitler-humanitarianism of
Lebensunwertes Leben euthanasia – the basis of democratic consensus will be eroded, up to the point where democracy is not in a position to defend itself anymore and dies; it dies, then, because it has deserved to. And when your democracy goes, be very afraid for your freedom itself.
About freedom again, Reagan – one who would have liked Bishop Conley – said it so beautifully:
How can we survive as a free Nation when some decide that others are not fit to live, and should be done away with.
Food for thoughts…..
*Three Hail Marys from me, and you’re welcome.
On the 8 November, the voters of Mississippi will be able to vote on the possibility of granting “personhood” to the unborn child, with the consequences you can easily imagine. Basically, one would be a person for the law before being born, with all the protection of the case.
Mississippi being one of the most pro-life States of the US the proposal might well win, and the fact that both major parties support the initiative speaks volumes about the general climate. I wish the initiative all the best.
Surprisingly, a good number of pro-lifers do not support the initiative. The train of thoughts is that this legislative measure will be challenged, probably up to the Supreme Court, where liberals and assorted perverts will take care that Roe vs Wade is confirmed, thus making the battle more difficult.
I struggle to follow the logic. The argument reminds me of those priests saying to us in the Eighties that the Church only fights the battles she can easily win, because to be seen as losing battles damages her reputation and influence in the country. So they prefer to shut up and lose quietly in order not to be seen to have lost openly. Congratulations.
It seems obvious to me that the overturning of Roe vs Wade will not happen without a long, excruciating conflict, dividing the country in the most painful of ways; unless, of course, one is ready to wait for the death of the Sixty-Eighters, with several millions babies killed in the meantime. I cannot see any way of getting Roe vs Wade out of the way without great conflict; the possible confirmation of Roe vs Wade by the above-mentioned liberals and perverts would only exacerbate this conflict and, very possibly, lead to the appointment of other and better judges in due time. Either way, it won’t happen without people noticing, so we had better let them notice now.
As I see it, on the 8 November something huge might happen; something that – irrespective of the probability of survival of such measure in the shirt-ish term – points out to a slow but more and more marked shift in the popular feelings, and to a clear re-adjustment of the debate’s coordinates.
In my opinion, you win wars by fighting them bravely, not by hoping to win without the enemy’s opposition.
I truly hope that on the 8 November a huge cry will rise from Mississippi’s families:
Bring it on!
The ability of human being to put on other people the responsibility for their own mistakes is, generally speaking, little less than amazing. Look at the Germans inventing a mythical stabbing in the back after losing WWI, or the Greek suddenly deciding that their actual problems are, actually, the Germans’ fault.
In Ireland, though, something different happens. A class of politicians responsible for one of the most spectacular failures in the history of Europe suddenly decides that the Church is, well, so very bad, at least even worse than the politicians themselves. Someone, you see, must be used as a lightning rod to avoid the anger of the people; hey presto, let’s drum about the pedophile priests! Enda Kenny, a person so despicably populist and cowardly you’d think he is David Cameron’s civil partner (he isn’t; Nick Clegg is) now decides to close the Embassy to the Holy See.
The Embassy. To the Holy See. Ireland.
Now, every one and then a consulate or two must perforce be closed, and perhaps another opened elsewhere. Immigrants go elsewhere, tourists go elsewhere, and the like. But the closing of an Embassy is not something having to do with lost passports, or authentication of documents; closing an embassy is to do with diplomatic relations in the most direct and obvious of ways.
The Irish government says that the Embassy is closed because of insufficient “economic return”, and one wonders whether the other embassies fare so well by selling Guinness glasses and St. Patrick’s trinkets or, perhaps, brokering shares of Irish banks. The government means, of course, that they don’t see sufficient value for money in the expenses the embassy causes; which is even more offensive, because it means that in a country so strictly linked to the Church, and which without the Church wouldn’t even have been able to afford a proper school system, even the expense for an Embassy is considered wasted money.
This is a very populist move but a very dangerous one, too. The grasp of the Church on the Irish voters is certainly not what it used to be, but I wouldn’t want to have the Church against me nevertheless. Kenda’s move might be popular in the short term, but might well prove counterproductive in a longer perspective.
Provided the man is still around, of course.
For the moment, enjoy this cheap piece of mediocre populism; exactly what you expect from arrogant, incompetent, failed politicians.