Monthly Archives: February 2012
Reblog of the day
Incredibile dictu, even in the secularised, tepid, indifferent, “let’s be nice to each other” United Kingdom opposition is starting to form to the perversion of what is most sacred, driven from a Prime Minister for which nothing is sacred, but his permanence to power.
You can sign the petition here.
Please notice this might become more than a rearguard battle, as the number of people getting slowly but surely angry is – incredibly – increasing. More than 50,000 citizen have already signed, and the tom tom can make this thing become huge with – if they wake up to the huge lie called “David Cameron” – vast support in rural England, which is absolutely vital to the Tories’ permanence in power; or, more to the point, to Cameron’ s permanence at the head of it.
I will write about the situation separately. Please send the link everywhere, tweet…
View original post 61 more words
Share this:
The Dancing Priest
I could have posted the immortal David Brent’s dance in the UK version of “the office”, but as we are dealing with a person alleged to be a priest I will, for this time, let it be and subtitute for something half a notch less embarrassing.
The fact is, if you go on father Z’s site you will see everything that is wrong with the Post-V II Church.
1) The room is, apparently, a church. Really?
2) The “dancing queen” is, apparently, a priest. Really?
3) A Mass is apparently going on. Really?
Of course, this could all be a joke, reminiscent of the Colbert video posted above. Tragically, it could not be one.
if this is not a joke, the kindest thing I can say to the chap is that he has picked up the wrong job. It would be atrocious enough if a politically correct priest oblivious of all that a Mass is would ask other people to set in scene such a tragic farce at mass; but that the very priest would put himself at the centre of the attention in such a David Brent-like way is really beyond contempt.
The fact is made more censurable still by the simple consideration that at mass you are not supposed to decide whether you want to assist at the performance, and are really not supposed to boo the performer (though I have my doubts on that; and some eggs might have been properly used).
One might, if he is really, really in a good mood, try to justify this obscene self-aggrandising exercise with some “celebration” or other of some “culture” which would, for reasons unknown to me, being promoted at Mass. But this really does not even begin to be an argument, as one could then decide to celebrate a bit everything wirth of “celebrating”, from Shakespeare to opera to cricket; and truly, even a batter and a bowler along the main nave wouldn’t have looked as stupid as this, not even if they had been priests.
Summa summarum, we have in front of us the cancer spread all over the Church by the V-II mentality: desire to “celebrate” pretty much everything but Christ, forgetfulness of the sacredness of Mass and of the church, acute desire for popularity both for the organisation and, most tragically here, for the priest; watering down of the religious message in an orgy of self-celebration of the community, so “embracing” and “participating”; dumbing down of the most elementary notions of sacredness, respect, reverence.
This, my dear readers, cannot be considered an isolated accident, born out of nowhere. Whilst this might well be – and I truly hope it is; nay, I truly hope this is a joke – an extreme example of V II madness, such episode could never be even conceived if the Catholic culture in Brazil had been preserved in a halway acceptable manner.
This is very bad. This is a very bad priest wanting to act an even worse Tony Manero.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
This is bad news, and good news at the same time. Bad news, because a shameless behaviour went on unchecked for too long. Good news, because the scandal is out after it is clear that decisive steps have been undertaken to clear up the pig stall (and the pig stall was, apparently, of impressive proportions, and the stink mighty).
It would appear that in the diocese of Miami a group ofactively homosexual bishop and priests called the shots in the way you can imagine; bullying of those dissenting; favour for those willing to “favour” the bishop and his friend; toleration of live-in “boyfriends”; alcoholism; all sorts of sexual license; embezzlement of diocesan money to pay for expensive restaurants; even a commercial enterprise producing an exciting beverage meant to give young people “the best sex they ever had”, or the like, with the bishop himself having a financial interest in…
View original post 447 more words
Share this:
Mundabor and Kindle
No, seriously: you *need* to have one...
Invited by Defende nos in proelio to mention my three favourite Kindle books, I though it unavoidable to expand a bit on the matter and write, semel in anno, a post not directly related to Catholicism – though in the end it is, a lot -.
Firstly, let me say Kindle is a fantastic invention. It truly is. Kindle will change your life, because it changes the way you can access and enjoy books.
Have you seen those vaguely pathetic people with the huge (and I mean: huge) book on the train? Those in the airport with a sad face saying “I have just finished my favourite novel and have nothing else to read/had to carry extra weight to avoid it”? How many times have you been in front of the alternative whether to ruin your finances buying a well-printed book, and ruining your sight buying the paperback? And don’t you enjoy reading now this and now that, and change your reading as your mood carries you?
If you notice all these little things, the Kindle is made for you, because it is made for those who love reading more than they love the idea of showing bookshelves to their friends (I’ll come to that, too). It is made for those who love books too much to see the reading experience ruined by a paperback.
Say, I like reading this book for a while, but not for an afternoon. I can buy it for free (if I want to spend something and have a more elegant format and possibly better general quality, I can buy this for a pittance) and read it for as long as I want; after which, I might switch to, say, this (free!) or this (free!) or this (a pittance).
Whatever you read, Kindle will allow you to read it with a quality only the best printed books could give you. This, my friend, and no other is the best among the many advantages of switching to the new age of book-loving (yes: book-loving!): hHours or uninterrupted reading pleasure without straining your eyes. You wouldn’t (come on: in fact, you don’t!) spend a patrimony to buy – provided you find them – the best hardcover editions of your classics, just to massacre them on the train, in your pocket, in your office bag, in the rain, in the mess of life. What you would and in fact did buy were… the paperbacks! Bad printing quality, worse reading quality, a challenge to your health, and as near a disposable book experience as you can get. Plus, you can’t switch. Plus, it weights, and takes place. Plus, it’s generally ugly, or it soon becomes it.
Kindle is different. The very same extremely high reading quality is with you everywhere, and you have hundreds of books at your disposal at all times, in a light and elegant format, even with your leather pouch. You can have (as I do) books you’ve always loved in your kindle, just to read some lines from them whenever the fancy takes you (and I do!) . Prosa, poetry, and religion always with you. You wouldn’t carry a bible always with you for the case you have a fancy to read some lines out of it, would you now? I have it in several languages. Kindle is a book lover’s dream come through. Nay, Kindle surpasses everything a book lover could have dreamt of!
Then there are those among us who know – or love, or would like to improve – foreign languages. In past times, before Amazon, we went to specialised bookstores and spent there sums which made us cry. Amazon improved this a lot, but it still was a hassle, and not entirely cheap.
In the new kindle world, you can buy this for £2.68! Which is rather expensive, because in Germany it costs EUR 0.99! Unreal! And you know what? You really read it! You don’t have to decide “today I will read Kafka” before you leave home. You can read Kafka for 20 minutes, and switch to this in a second (the last one, I just bought! £0.77. Yes, seventy-seven pence, for stunning reading quality!).
Would you get out in the morning thinking “today on the train I will read Shakespeare’s sonnets”? How many do? Now you can, and it doesn’t even cost.When you long for something different, you can always switch to this.
I could go on until tomorrow, but you get my drift.
And what about the beautiful book, you will say? My answer is that no innovation ever did so much for beautiful books like Kindle. Freed from the necessity of spending money for crappy paperbacks and clogging your bookshelves with them, you can now dedicate your financial and shelves resources for what is really beautiful: for elegant illustrated books, leather-bound ones, miniature ones, and all those objects which always made – as opposed to a paperback – the tactile and visual pleasure of a book. To lament the demise of the paperback because of the kindle is to me the same than to lament the disappearance of junk food because everyone starts to eat in a fine way. The paperback never was “the book”. The paperback never was anything comparable to the pleasure of a book. You bought the paperback for the content, and the content is what you have now in the kindle, with vastly better quality and incomparably better reading pleasure, at a tiny fraction of the cost, with vastly increased flexibility.
Well then, what are my suggestions? Let me say first I will exclude religious books (too easy and predictable), and in my three choices there’ll be no Italian or German books. But I will at the same time be showing you how Kindle changes the way you read.
My suggestions are, therefore, as follows:
1. The complete Sherlock Holmes.
Pick an edition you like among the many available. I mean the complete editions. This is the age of Kindle and there’s no scope in buying these things in installments. I read all Sherlock Holmes in Italian, many years ago. Paperback. Then I bought a big hardcover here in England, of good printing quality, which I couldn’t bring with me on the train because the pain would have been too much. Then I bought the Kindle, and am now re-reading all Sherlock Holmes at my pace and in my time, without the hassle, and when I feel like it. Kindle is simply amazing.
2. The complete Anthony Trollope
I have bought this. All Trollope for less than a big coin. I had read the complete “Barsetshire” cycle on paperback (you order on Amazon; wait a couple of days; then have a bad reading experience and aching eyes). I am now reading the “Palliser” cycle, all delivered to me instantly and wirelessly, in excellent quality. A dream.
Please don’t read Dickens in 2012. It’s so banal.
3. The Lord of the Rings
Not sure there are good Kindle editions of this, but this is only a matter of time. I know it may sound trite, but greatness doesn’t become less great just because some superficial hollywood flick was made of it. Tolkien could last one a lifetime, and one would be able to discover ever new depths in him after forty years. A wonderful Catholic, too. Here too, to have a ponderous work like this in your kindle is a thing of beauty. Don’t look like the chap near you with the huge brick.
Be smart, and buy a Kindle.
Mundabor
P.s. there will be no invitation to other bloggers. I am too reserved for these things. But I thank for the invitation to talk about Kindle, as I am really a fan.
Share this:
What Price Prostitution?
The claret was particularly good: David Cameron
David Cameron is a little harlot of politics, the slut of every movement he thinks can help him to get or stay in power and the prostitute of every political or pressure group he thinks is in his way of reaching his aim. Like the real slut, Cameron has a calling for sluttishness: his is not the behaviour of the politician who, obtorto collo, accepts some of the sad realities of democracy, but the enthusiastic adherence to a lifestyle for which prostitution is the only way, and the satisfaction of his perceived paying client the most natural behaviour on Earth.
One thing Cameron loves to do, is to please sodomites. Whilst not being – for all we know; and it wouldn’t be the first time we end up knowing we knew it wrong – a sodomite himself, in his relentless pursuit of political prostitution he seems to think the so-called “gays” are a wealthy, well-paying client of his. In Camerons’ world, there is no downside in lending his political backside to those who, well …. He will get the enthusiastic support – or so he thinks – of a group perceived as “influential”, without causing the ires of Christians. He thinks he will only need to mention the usual mantras of XXI century’s Britain (“tolerance”, and the like) to keep the ones well under control whilst he makes himself beautiful with the others.
It might – just might – appear this game is slowly going to an end. Cameron has already expressed himself in favour of the recognition of sodo-“marriages” (I do not mean “civil partnerships” here, which in my book is pretty much every bit as bad; I mean the full monty) delighting, as always, in being more “progressive” than Labour. He thought – as he is certainly well justified in thinking – the sums would add up and he would easily brand as intolerant neo-fascists everyone who dared to go against his “new Tory”, lavender mantra.
It might – just might – not be so easy.
First of all – and this must be said for our friends overseas, who might be justified for not closely following the events in what used to be a proud Empire, and now has his soldiers taken prisoners in Iran – Cameron’s position has been rather wobbly for a while. Whilst there is no open revolt – yet – it is clear the man grates more than some within his own party and is very probably more popular among his girlfriend’s acquaintances than among his own Members of Parliament. The unprecedented humiliation received just a few months ago in Brusseler matters – another topic where he thought he could silence the opposition with some barking and some trite slogans – ended very badly for him and showed the desire to get rid of him is much bigger than he himself expected. He survived the shock, but he survived in the same way the Chinese Empire survived the British (and French) march on Peking: badly, and with his reputation irretrievably damaged.
How damaged, the next months will show. Cameron, who had started his last trollop-crusade on the recognition of so-called gay marriages, now finds himself if not positively attacked, certainly opposed by several sides: the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (apparently, one who still cares a bit for Christian values; in striking contrast to Rowan Williams) has chosen open confrontation; among the MPs dissatisfaction is wells-spread; and even the Catholic Church now begins – as Vincent “Quisling” Nichols really cannot shut up anymore – to utter some timid meowing.
Cameron gave an interview to some sodomite magazine a couple of days ago, where he showed all the extent of his incompetence and confusion (I might write about it, but take it from me: a harlot who didn’t make her homework before meeting her client) but where he basically had to admit he might have to leave his MPs free to vote according to conscience about this. In plain English, this means he fears he can’t force them to follow the line, as he knows a second loss of face would possibly cost him the job.
What might be happening in the next months is that the country finally awakens and decides Toryism (and Christianity) can not possibly have anything to do with Cameron: whilst the so-called Church of England has pushed herself into quasi-irrelevance, she can still damage the conservative credentials of our little trollop, and if you add powerful sponsors and the revolt of rural England (which might well be in the card, though I wouldn’t bet my pint yet) things seem to look very bleak for him.
Prostitute that he is, Cameron will try to do what he always does: please everyone and look for the way of least resistance. But this is exactly his weakness: the man is not made for resistance, but wired for prostitution. He has no values, only clients. He will do whatever keeps him in power and if in order to do so he has to suck up to Neo-nazis, he’ll do so without blinking.
The petition in defence of traditional marriage, which started just days ago and already got more than 50,000 signatures could be a serious problem for Cameron, and his backers seem to be more organised and with bigger coffers than he bargained for. They don’t seem to be sufficiently focused yet, but if you can judge the day from the morning the potential is there, and the day a couple of powerful sponsors decide they want Cameron’s scalp and are ready to pay for it the game might become interesting indeed.
Cameron saw a bigger challenge to his un-Conservative ideology take shape in October and November. He reacted with a “triple whip”, the severest form of enforcement of party discipline known to the British parliamentary system, and in doing so he made for himself several dozen sworn enemies at no cost, and got a “bitch-slapping” of proportions never seen before. I wonder what he learned.
David Cameron is nothing more than a little filthy prostitute terrified of discovering his clients have deserted him. Let this become big enough, and don’t bet your pint he’ll try his luck again.
A rather long shot, I know, but stranger things happen at sea…
Mundabor
Share this:
Please Sign The “Coalition For Marriage” Petition Against UK “Sodomarriage”
Incredibile dictu, even in the secularised, tepid, indifferent, “let’s be nice to each other” United Kingdom opposition is starting to form to the perversion of what is most sacred, driven from a Prime Minister for which nothing is sacred, but his permanence to power.
You can sign the petition here.
Please notice this might become more than a rearguard battle, as the number of people getting slowly but surely angry is – incredibly – increasing. More than 50,000 citizen have already signed, and the tom tom can make this thing become huge with – if they wake up to the huge lie called “David Cameron” – vast support in rural England, which is absolutely vital to the Tories’ permanence in power; or, more to the point, to Cameron’ s permanence at the head of it.
I will write about the situation separately. Please send the link everywhere, tweet it, forward it, mail it, let it come into the furthest corner of the British Isles.
I doubt Cameron will be stopped as I can’t imagine Labour not helping the lavender “Tories”; but he should be made to pay at least a high price, so that more and more people understand what a disgrace he is.
Please sign the petition.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.
1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.
2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react…
View original post 1,108 more words
Share this:
The Sensitive Catholic
Save a prayer with me for the Sensitive Catholic.
The Sensitive Catholic is committed to Catholicism, until it becomes disagreeable. He is full of his own goodness, and desires all the world to know about it. The problem is, if one wants all the world to know how good he is, chances are some people will be offended by his goodness. At that point he is in front of a choice: being good and hated, or not-so-good and loved.
The Sensitive Catholic always chooses the second way. His opinion is always expressed provided you are not opposed to it, in which case a tsunami of tolerance and dialogue will take the place of asserting Catholic values. Generally, though, he will avoid coming in that situation in the first place, as the Sensitive Catholic has already noticed this attitude will get him a deserved reputation as a coward among the real Catholics.
Therefore, the Sensitive Catholic will take refuge in utterly non-controversial matters: peace, justice, dialogue, peace, the saint of the day, Jesus The Uncontroversial Whatyoulike, peace, prayer, penance, peace and, of course, peace.
The Sensitive Catholic is extremely attentive no one should consider him intolerant: he’ll consider the vicar a person with holy orders (even if he/she/it isn’t) and will happily discuss about his distributing communion (even if he/she/it doesn’t). Most of all, the Sensitive Catholic wants you to like him. He’ll do whatever he thinks contributes to the result, and will leave whatever doesn’t.
In its extreme form, the Sensitive Catholic will talk (with other Catholics) about the necessity for the Church to go underground and transform into a small group of people who are oh so good (like him/her, of course) without having to give any public witness of their Christianity. This way, he’ll signal to you he/she has no intention of ever fighting any battle with relatives, friends or colleagues, but has no intention to depose the self-made halo for that. In fact, I never met a Sensitive Catholic who didn’t think his halo was just the ticket, and never to be touched by any controversy because they could crease it.
I would smile at the Sensitive Catholic, if he/she were just an occasional manifestation of the usual Don Abbondio– mentality requiring from one that he/she doesn’t quarrel with anyone, and gets along with the enemy with a smile. But the problem is that the Sensitive Catholic seems to have become representative of a good part of the Catholic population, people whose motto seems to be “my truth will make me beautiful only as long as it does not conflict with yours, at which point I’ll happily ditch it because otherwise what’s the use…”.
The Sensitive Catholic is always either vain and disproportionately attentive he is popular, or else irretrievably cowardly. After V II, the Sensitive Catholic has come into fashion, and he/she now seems to me just what the V II doctor ordered. If you aren’t a Sensitive Catholic, there’s something wrong with you.
The Sensitive Catholic is, I would say, by far not as bad as the Sensitive Nazi.
But he is the Nazi’s most useful ally.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
If you ever had any doubt that David Cameron is the enemy of every Christian in this country, every doubt must have been dissolved after the chap revealed of being strongly in favour of so-called “gay marriages” and to want to start consultations to introduce it next March.
Cameron’s behaviour – certainly not approved by many among his own people, but very probably accepted as part of the effeminate cowardice now become prevalent within the once glorious Tory party – is fully in line with the Cameronian idea that bed-and-breakfast owners who do not want faggots to sleep more uxorio under their roof are intolerant, and with his blatant mockery of Christian values under the usual veil of being “compassionate”.
I will not say what I think of the man, because you know already and I would avoid becoming too explicit.
What I will follow with interest in the…
View original post 581 more words
Share this:
The Sensitive Nazi
A Sensitive Nazi caught in his natural habitat
One concept I shall never tire to express is that every Nazi needs to show himself sensitive. In fact, I do not recall many examples in history (the Vikings are certainly one; some Redskin tribes another; but these examples are few and far between) of populations and ideology making of cruelty an accepted part of social behaviour.
Generally, even the most cruel people will want to show themselves sympathetic, and desirous to help.
Take the killing of babies. Monstrous, right? Certainly so, until The Sensitive Nazi appears on the scene. Being he/she a Nazi, the child who is to be killed is conveniently put in the background, and substantially ignored. He is immediately downgraded to collateral damage of the Sensitive Nazi’s goodness. But you see, the Sensitive Nazi is so good: he thinks of the suffering mother, and will create pitiful stories about abortions obtained with the most atrocious means – in Italy the knitting needles are very popular for the purpose; apparently, in the UK cloth hangers are preferred. That a child should not be aborted in the first place is completely set aside, forgotten, ignored. This has the same logic as to complain that as your robber doesn’t have the money to shoot you in the head, he should be sympathised with when he skins you slowly with a kitchen knife, and we should find ways allowing him to kill you in a humane way and at no discomfort for your killer. With the not irrelevant difference that you are not likely to be killed in an extremely painful way by a robber armed with a knife, whereas an army of babies is killed in an extremely painful way by the likes of Planned Parenthood.
At this point, the Sensitive Nazi has already managed to put the real victim very much in the background, and to put in the centre stage the “suffering” of the one who wants to kill him. I know, there is no logic or humanity in this; but again, this is why they are Nazis.
Once come at this point, the Sensitive Nazi will proceed to introduce his plan by installments. Let us admit abortion only in some extreme cases, they will start to say. In case of rape, say. This is very interesting, because the Sensitive Nazis knows once you have put the foot in the door, there is no way to avoid, in time, a complete opening. If you allow abortion in case of rape, which girl who sees herself terrified by her pregnancy will admit she has, well, not been raped? And when you have decided that life is sacred, but not always, how will you avoid the ambit of this “disposable sacredness” to be widened more and more with the time?
As always, if you compromise with the principle at the beginning, you will end up losing the entire principle at the end: divorce in cases of horrible cruelty and bla bla becomes divorce at will; abortion only in strictly circumscribed cases becomes abortion on demand; decriminalisation of scandalous sodomy becomes “civil partnership” and from there, the step to the “homo marriage” is but a short one; next on a screen near you, the euthanasia initially practised with the thousands safeguards now promised everywhere becomes killing by order of those who are deemed to be in charge for the poor old man or woman.
You don’t believe it? Strange, because this is exactly what happens already in the case of abortion.
The Sensitive Nazi is around you. He talks in a mealy-mouthed way about being tolerant and progressive, and sensitive to the suffering of people. He will sell all that is Christian one bit at a time, telling you all the time how good he is. In England, he is Prime Minister and is planning to attack another mainstay of Christian civilisation – marriage – in order to show himself oh so tolerant, and sensitive.This, after he commented favourably a sentence forcing the Christian owners of a bed-and-breakfast to have sodomites under their roof.But you see, he presents himself as the “sensitive” guy all the time. Seriously: what a little Nazi bastard.
After the end of Communism, the Sensitive Nazi is the biggest single threat to Christian civilisation.
Mundabor
Share this:
Missionary Goes Native And Refuses To Baptise
Radical Missionary
This is not a joke, but apparently something some kind of people are even happy to talk about.
As we read in Rorate Caeli, a wannabe “missionary”, now 90 years old, refused to baptise the natives. I report below the English translation of this delirious – or as at Rorate Caeli is commented, satanic – reasoning below:
It is a project with a radical view of the evangelization that expresses itself in a unique way: “We do not baptize any Yanomani – Sabatini says – because we are convinced that it would make no sense to baptize a person outside the community, and that it is the culture that should be evangelized: man has the right to have his culture, and he must find in it the way to express himself christianly. Baptizing outside the community would have meant establishing a double personality in Baptism.” Which is why, Zaccaria says, “Sabatini responded thus that monsignor anxious to know how many Yanomami he had baptized: ‘not a single one, thanks to the Good God.’ “
Note here the following:
1) The person interviewing the wannabe missionary describes the unbelievably un-Christian attitude of the man as “a radical view of the evangelisation”, which actually consists in not evangelising, “that expresses itself in a unique way”, which actually consists in not expressing it.
It is as if sodomy was called “a radical view of conjugal love”, or murder “a radical view of brotherly love”.
2) Christianity is seen as an exercise in socialism. It does not make sense to baptise individual, says this vecchio malvissuto, and unspeakable ass. We all know Jesus said “go and do not baptise anyone unless the entire culture has been evangelised”, don’t we?
Seriously, what an unspeakable ass.
3) The novel concept of “dual personality in baptism” is introduced. I never heard of it, but it must be my fault. It would appear most baptisms performed in all regions on their way to evangelisation has a “double personality”, including all those performed in the times of the Gospel. One never ceases to learn, does he?
4) An anonymous Monsignor apparently knows our “missionary” isn’t baptising anyone, “thanks to the Good God”, and does… what exactly? We aren’t told and he may, in fact, have informed the chap’s superiors something is seriously wrong with the man.
Personally, I would have thought – being a mistrustful person, which latter trait serves me rather well in life – that someone who wants to be a missionary without baptising might well be someone who went out there in the amazon forest to have sex with the local women – or worse, boys – without running the risk of being exposed, or with some other sort of grave perversion requiring him to live retired from the western civilisation. Seriously, such a one can’t be normal, and “progressive” religious turned out to be, say, lovers of boys rather than of Christ are, pun not intended, legion. Also, consider a chap like this is solidly in the hands of Satan, and when this happens it generally shows in a plurality of ways.
I have reflected for a while how to write about these events and remain charitable in my approach. But seriously, in front of such abominations the most charitable attitude is to speak the truth and point out that whilst perversion does not have to hide behind such astonishing thinking, it is rather often the motivation behind the “radical views” of their proponents.
Please pray for the doting ass. He is in dire need of prayer, and hasn’t much time left.
Mundabor
Share this:
SSPX: Decision Before Summer?
It would appear the moment of truth (better: of not having the nerve to say the Truth) is rapidly approaching for the Society of Saint Pius X, with the Vatican expected to end the matter before the end of June.
Those who have followed the discussions up to here will know that very probably, at this point not much is going to happen, at least for this round of discussions. The SSPX have been offered golden bridges if they accept to compromise on the role and reach of Vatican II, and implicitly accept the muzzle in the matters related to the Council. They have gently but clearly answered this is not going to happen, but have presented a document asking the Vatican to clarify some of the statements therein contained, for the case a common position which does not compromise the SSPX could be found.
But with the progress of the talks, it seems to me the issue looming in the background was less and less the doctrinal differences – which would probably be rapidly worked out with the more conservative elements of the Curia – and more and more the matter of the new role which would be expected from the SSPX in case of full communion. I do not doubt that, if this is wished from both side, an agreement can be found. What I doubt is the SSPX will be able to renounce to the full freedom in criticising the ruptures with the past represented by Vatican II, and the ability of the Vatican to accept they do not want to silence their criticism.
What I think is easily neglected, is that the reigning Pope is – though certainly from a conservative point of view – through and through a VII man. Whilst he has the best intention towards the SSPX, it appears to me less than probable he will allow them to continue to drive the hardline position that VII be – together with its orthodox parts, which are in harmony with the Magisterium and therefore not the work of VII itself – at times not better than a homily in the Sixties, and a very bad one at that.
In my eyes, I think we enter here the inscrutable workings of our deep nature, with men in perfect good faith able to disagree on such momentous matters because of their past history and cultural heritage. It shouldn’t happen, though. Goes to tell you what damageVII still continues to inflict on the body of the Church.
I am, as always, a long-term optimist. It seemed to me this things might have had a happy end, but I am now much more cautious on the matter (remember the text itself was never published, so the room of manoeuvre was never to be fully gauged) as it seems to me the unread preambolo was worded in a way which made the agreement not really acceptable for the SSPX. A pity, because the initial joint communique’ about the preambolo itself was certainly encouraging.
It seems to me this matter will approach solution only when the VII generation has, literally, died.The fact people like Vincent Nichols continue to be called in good standing whilst Bishop Fellay is not in full communion really demonstrates the size of the problem.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
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…
View original post 50 more words
Share this:
Reblog of the day
Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
In the last days two events have contributed to remind us of this simplest, most important of realities of our lives. First was Ash Wednesday, the yearly reminder of the crude reality of this earthly existence ( a reality which should be clear enough to most of us but that is, as life is, easily and conveniently forgotten), and second the powerful earthquake in Japan, once again posing the world in front of the caducity of human existence, however sophisticated the technological solution to protect it may be.
On such occasions I can’t avoid thinking (and make no mistake, I am prone to making the exact same mistake as almost everyone else and to see my death as an event certainly destined to take place in some extremely remote future with no connection whatsoever to my actual circumstances) “what if”. What…
View original post 343 more words
Share this:
It Sounds Better In Latin
Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
With my congratulations to the happy few who today had or will have the possibility of being reminded of the sobering truth mentioned above, in the proper language.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
I received a message with these lines:
I was made aware of the event at Assisi from an acquaintance in California (I am in Tennessee now) who is into all the New Age religions. I found it amazing that she was looking forward to seeing the Peace Gathering in Assisi and at first I thought it was a bunch of New Agers taking over our Beloved Hallowed ground of St. Francis and St. Clara! Then when I saw it announced as being covered by EWTN I was shocked. I watched it for a while and had to turn it off as I was getting horrible feelings from it.
I can’t stop thinking of these words, because this simple episode shows in a crude way what happens when we – or the Vatican, or the Pope – play with fire.
The fact is, that we Catholics spend far too much time…
View original post 711 more words
Share this:
The Real Thing
The Real Thing
Each one of us is, at some level, aware of the uniqueness of being “the real thing”. You can buy whatever cola you want at the supermarket, but however its advantages it will never be “the real thing”. Similarly, all those products or brands which are perceived as to be “the original” have a very special place. Monsieur Lacoste certainly did not invent the polo shirt, but he reinvented its use, and made of it a brand now followed and imitated worldwide. The same can be said for many other products and brands, of which Apple is perhaps the most spectacular seen in recent times (but there are others; for us Italians, Della Valle’s “Tod’s” is another brilliant example). There is an element of truthfulness in the “original”, that cannot be denied. A shoes which tries to imitate another brand of shoe is, obviously, still a shoe, but it will ruthlessly branded “a fake” nevertheless. It is fake in that, whilst still a shoe, it fails to adhere to truthfulness, and people love truthfulness. The very adjective “authentic” is often used in the sense of “truthful, devoid of lies” rather than “original”.
All over the planet, people pay a premium for the original, because the original is “the real thing”, because it is – at some level – truthful. What comes later is merely a by-product, a me-too imitation, an attempt to ride a wave of success. Nowadays it seems pretty much everything must have an “i” as prefix, and even my freeview box is called “i-Can”; but all this, of course, only reminds us of the original.
People all over the world know this. They even feel this. They certainly pay for this.
Isn’t it strange, then, that such a tremendous force of attraction be struggling there, where it should be strongest? That it should be I do not say waning, but dozing along even if it concerns what is most important, what makes it absolutely vital to be right, and to choose “the right thing”? How can it be that it is so clear human nature longs for truthfulness, and the Catholic Church, the most granitic, self-evident example of Originality and Authenticity ever created, struggles to even persuade people they must show up on a Sunday?
The answer to this is, if you ask me, that no organisation is promoted in such an incompetent way as the Catholic Church.
Instead of promoting and propagating the Truth of the Catholic faith – and people need truth; they yearn for it; look at how well the Evangelicals fare – they do everything possible to water it down. Instead of stressing the unique nature of the Church, they drown in a sea of senseless ecumenism. Instead of asking that the world embrace Christ, they try to make Christ follow the world (Jesus the Ecumenical Chap; Jesus the Global Warmist; Jesus the Socialist; Jesus the Animal Rights Activist, and all the other “Jesuses” happily invented in the last decades, of whom blessedly I only miss Jesus the Vegetarian). People don’t show up on a Sunday, because most priests and bishops are too cowardly to tell them they must.
What is, without question, the most powerful “brand” on Earth – so powerful that no one can escape being fascinated and awed by it at some level; not even hardened atheists – is made ineffective by the most tragically ineffective body of deciders of the planet. It is a great testimony of the indefectibility of the Church that after five decades of systematic sabotage and ruthless work of destruction from within, the Church still stands strong – though not as strong as it should – and able to put a fight – not so deadly as it should – when she chooses.
The level of incompetence, cowardice, stupidity or sheer heresy we experience on a daily basis would have killed the Coca-Colas and Apples of the world many times over. It is, as I speak, killing the Anglicans and Presbyterians, whilst the Methodists are, at least in the UK, already a purely geriatric exercise.
The gates of hell will not prevail, and The Real Thing will never stop to attract and fascinate.
But for Heavens’ sake, dear Bishops, get a move on.
Mundabor
Share this:
Addiction, Brain, “Judgment”
Cautionary tale, in a snapshot
Not many days ago a famous, extremely successful, beautiful, very talented singer and actress died in circumstances which are not yet entirely cleared but will very probably have to be retraced – directly or indirectly – to her crack cocaine addiction. I liked Whitney Houston a lot in younger years, and was saddened (though not very surprised) as everyone of us. I would have written the usual Mundabor-like article with the usual cautionary tale (nowadays called “being judgmental”) but alas, I had better things to do and it slipped.
Reading around, though, I found here and there some very questionable concepts expressed, and at that point I felt a “judgemental” blog post would be rather in order.
First of all, let me say that I know already that crack cocaine changes one’s brain. All drugs do this, and every child knows that. This is the reason why the popular language is full of expressions reminding one of this very simple, easy to observe fact. I am also aware that if I throw myself from the seventh floor my brains will be, after the impact with the sidewalk, somewhat changed. This is one of the very many reasons why I have never tried it. Apologies, but I do not buy the concept the deceased did not know this beforehand. If she – absurdly – didn’t, this can only have been because there was the absolute absence of those cautionary tales, “judgmental” warnings like the one you are reading now.
Secondly, whist I did like the woman, I have some problems with the affirmation that crack cocaine, with its exaggerate stimulation of dopamine production, would make this drug particularly dangerous for celebrities. It’s not about celebrity here, but sheer stupidity. Being a celebrity does not authorise one to be stupid. Ask Amy Winehouse. On the contrary, celebrities with beauty, success, money, and adulation wherever they turn already get a dose of dopamine way above the one of the average guy or gal, let alone of the housewife with four children and unsteady husband who doesn’t know how long will it be before the eviction. I assure you the latter are to be found much more frequently than celebrities of any description.
Thirdly, I though once upon a time there was something called values. The values people give to us, and the value we give to ourselves. Drugs don’t just happen. One is never introduced to drugs (an extremely hypocritical, politically correct, guilt-free expression). No drug ever told me “how do you do”, nor would I have ever answered to such a greeting. The simple truth is that before one touches drugs for the first time, all kind of moral fuses have already blown, and the drugs have been touched exactly because the fuses have blown. To say that a drug addiction is something that “happens” is the same as to say that pregnancy is something that “happens”. Hail “happens”, not crack. One can, to an extent, become an alcoholic very slowly, inadvertently increasing his drinking over many years and without really noticing a problem is being created. But one can’t become a crack addict without a conscious decision to do something very, very bad. Crack goes in when values have gone out, it doesn’t sneak into your life together with your steak.
This is not understood anymore in a world unable to think in term or self-responsibility, let alone coercion to it. These things aren’t done nowadays. What is expected is some slight, sensitive suggestion about the opportunity of avoiding “bad choices” (another extremely hypocritical expression; as if one were talking of chocolate, or vanilla) and nothing more than unrestricted, strictly “non-judgemental” understanding and moral support once the choices have been, well, bad. Strangely enough, I know a lot of people who grew up in an environment where the idea that taking drugs could have been a “choice” was utterly inconceivable; something that wouldn’t make it in the stupidest fantasies of a person, let alone in the vocabulary and everyday language! It’s not a choice, it’s in-con-cei-va-ble!
The political correctness, the refusal of being “judgemental”, the culture of never forbidding anything and never coercing to anything is 50% of a drug addiction. The other 50% is, of course, the stupidity and immorality of the individual, and there is no way of denying that even if the first 50% were to be absent, someone would manage to get to 100% of the recipe purely out of his own stupidity. But a lot of lives would be saved, because even stupid people would be helped to be saved from themselves.
And so here we are, with political correctness continuing to kill people, and everyone so desirous of feeling good whenever an addict dies and thus piously paving the way for the next one, who will let them feel good again. All the while, our brilliant politicians will criminalise all of us for our glass of red wine, a beautiful way to increase nanny-ism and taxation at the same time.
Please, please do not plague me with those stupid messages saying “have you ever had a drug addicted relative”.
No I haven’t. Not among my siblings, my cousins, my chosen friends at school or university.
It was never in the cards. It really wasn’t.
We were raised in the proper way, by people who loved us more than they loved “feeling good” and “non judgemental”.
Mundabor
Share this:
The Bishops’ Lowdown On The “Contraception Mandate”
The US Bishops have decided they'll stay in Hadleyville and wait for the Obama Gang.
From The USCCB blog, and put together for your own convenience, our own edification, and the shame of the English bishops. The blue is theirs, the green is mine.
1. The Mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them “religious employers” worthy of conscience protection, because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.
2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.
3. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” HHS’s mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And, by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as “Ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.
4. Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate. Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its healthcare policies have publicly criticized HHS’s decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields, and Michael Sean Winters; college presidents Father John Jenkins and Arturo Chavez; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.
5. Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, Protestant Christian, Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Jewish groups–none of which oppose contraception–have issued statements against the decision. TheWashington Post, USA Today, N.Y. Daily News, Detroit News, and other secular outlets, columnists, and bloggers have editorialized against it.
6. The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.
7. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths arestill not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”
8. The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.
9. The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.
10. Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.
11. The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”
12. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.
What clarity of language. What admirable directness. What absence of the usual beating around the bush.
What a shame to have the bishops we have in England, where the Prime Minister is openly planning to introduce “gay marriage” as a matter of course; and no gauntlet in sight.
Mundabor
Share this:
Kathleen Sebelius Or The Triumph Of Complacency
Cruella De Vil
As most of you know or have understood by now, I am Italian. As such, I have coped with eighteen years of arrogance, vulgarity, complacency and at times outright stubborn stupidity from Berlusconi.
Still, one point must be clear: superficial as Berlusconi was, the government machine worked pretty much in the same way – by far not as inefficient as many seem to think, I assure you – and the rules of constitutional decency had to be observed out of fear of a complex system of checks and balances who would never allowed Berlusconi – though he loved to say so at time, or to threaten he would give it a try – to be prime minister, legislator and judge.
In short, even when Berlusconi was tempted not to do things properly, he had people around him telling him that he would have been eaten alive if he didn’t, and the needs of a coalition government meant he could never decided to do as he pleased.
Not so, it seems, with the Obama administration. Here we have a government attempting an unprecedented assault at religious liberty, and it turns out not only the bishops were not consulted beforehand, but even a legal opinion was not obtained. From the Catholic League:
Kathleen Sebelius
Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.
Honestly, this seems to me to confirm what I had written here: this row is not the result of a planned confrontation, but rather of unplanned complacency, superficiality or outright stupidity and absence of the most elementary common sense.
Sebelius can, perhaps, gain some bonus points with her knife-lipped feminists if she says she didn’t feel she had to consult the bishops because she thinks the president had done it on several occasions, which actually turned out to be one meeting with Archbishop Dolan (what a monster of professionalism we have here, anyway; though knife-lipped feminists can’t be expected to see this). What she can never expect, is to be considered a halfway acceptable professional after she has admitted not even a legal opinion was obtained, in a matter whose constitutional relevance is such that even jewish and non-denominational organisations are suing the government.
I cannot imagine a more blatant admission of arrogant, stupid incompetence.
Berlusconi himself would be, no doubt, appalled.
Mundabor
Share this:
The Land Of The Sensitive And The Home Of The Fake Breasts?
Brilliant cartoon. Tragic reality.
The time European Countries will have to start seriously paying for their own defence is getting near.
Don’t believe me?
Seriously, what kind of soldier is this mentality going to attract?
Mundabor
Share this:
Adoption Agencies And The Soul Of The Country.
Thanks but no, thanks
Leftfooter has an interesting observation about the matter of Catholic adoption agencies. Go here to read his point and please note, once again Trevor Phillips chooses the wrong side (a speciality of his, this).
I understand Leftfooter’s argument, and agree with him; but I would, personally, choose a different perspective, one which has to do with the very soul of the country.
Muslims (or Hindus, etc) should have no right to be treated absolutely in the same way as Christians, because this is supposed to be a Christian country. Individual freedom rights can only exist within the fabric of a country, not be the negation of it.
We have been conned into believing that “equality” means the lie has the same rights as the truth, and whatever applies to one must apply to everyone else.
This is just plain wrong.
The battle for Christian values must be fought *defending Christian values as such*, not in the name of an abstract “equality” which, at some point, does have to end. There will always be a point in which two different cultures come to a clash.
If we make of “equality” the metre of what is right and decide everyone must be free to follow his religion as they please, because we want to be free to follow ours as we please we’ll soon have infibulation galore, no obligation to work on Fridays in the office, the occasional Suttee in the heart of London, and “sacred cows” on the North Circular.
In the end, no country can do without basic values, which then inform the entire system, including the way “equality” is lived, or “freedom” exercised. The sooner we get this, the better. The alternative is an endless squabble about respective “freedom” and “liberties”, at the end of which there can only be blood.
Mundabor
Share this:
Medjugorje: Day Of Reckoning Approaches?
Pray for us, who have recourse to Thee
I have written about the greatest hoax of our times, Medjugorje, here and in other places (to find them, please use the search function).
We are now informed Cardinal Puljic of Serajevo, a member of the Ruini-led commission “studying” the hoax, says “we need to finish [our work] this year”.
Well congratulations, say I, this is very fast by Church standards, though it is not entirely clear to me whether the Cardinal expresses a private wish or rather gives publicity to the commission’s objectives.
Be it as it may, in this matter I have a certainty and a fear, both of them – as I immodestly think – solidly grounded.
The certainty is that this ridiculous joke of a hoax will be exposed, and the lack of its supernatural character made plain once and for all even to the thickest, for whom two diocesan bishops – the ones who are supposed to know, and to be obeyed in such matters – are not good enough . The very idea the Church might endorse a “phenomenon” involving the Blessed Virgin inciting to disobedience to the bishop, taking the sides of a fornicating priest, and appearing with astonishing frequency to some of the world’s specialists in lies and contradictions is too daft to even contemplate.
The fear is that in the usual effort of not displeasing anyone, the commission will not refrain from the accustomed sugary words about how pious and in good faith are those who flock to Medjugorje in order to live their Christian faith bla,bla. As the Medjugorje fan base is largely made of rather thick heads – a fact of which you will immediately persuade yourself with a short Internet tour – ready to believe all and everything but what the competent bishop, Catholic rules and common sense say, there is no doubt in my mind the smallest quantity of sugary “approval” (even if only given, so to speak, to the intention) will immediately be wilfully misunderstood as the umpteenth excuse not to understand plain words, and to go on as accustomed with the daily fake telefaxed miracle they so desperately seem to need as a surrogate for their, well, lack of Christian faith.
On the contrary, in my opinion if the Church wants to go beyond the minimum objective of setting things straight, and proceed to set up to recover these poor deluded souls to Truth, nothing less than the strongest condemnation is necessary, and nothing else will achieve its aim.
They can do it softly softly of course, and by doing so they will satisfy the overwhelming majority of those who tell themselves Catholic, and the totality of those who are; but the latter don’t need to be satisfied as they are already persuaded.
In order to let the fan base see reason, the commission will need to be brutal. If they don’t, there’ s no hope such specialists in self-deceit will not find ways to continue to deceive themselves.
Alas, I very much doubt the Commission will have the guts.
Mundabor
P.s. This blog doesn’t give voice to heresy. Intelligenti pauca.
Share this:
Pelosi Seeks Excommunication, Archbishop Niederauer Still Fast Asleep
Quo usque tandem...
Now it’ s official. Nancy Pelosi wants to be excommunicated. She is literally doing everything she can to achieve this objective. She will not relent until she does.
Please follow this interesting exchange:
At a press conference, Leader Pelosi was asked by THE WEEKLY STANDARD: ”The Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., is a self-insured institution. Should the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., be required to pay for these morning-after pills and birth control if they find that morally objectionable?”
Pelosi talked about the importance of women’s health, and then said, “Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”
Yes, this is not a joke and yes, this is the self-proclaimed “ardent Catholic”.
Good Christians of the past would wholeheartedly agree about the “ardent” thing, but in a different way.
I do not know when it was last time Mssss Pelosi showed to vaguely understand the meaning of the word “Catholic” but it must have been a long time ago; with some strange disease in the middle, which now induces her to believe pregnancy is a disease and abortion a matter of “health” rather than, erm, homicide.
To cite the author of the blog post:
If not now, when? If not for such public statements, then for what?
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
The Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has died and, of course, his death has been saluted with regret and sadness from Catholics all over the world. Countless Catholic bloggers/ tweeters/ whatever-ers have expressed their opinion that the Korean dictator might be “surprised” and might “see the light of God”. It is easy to understand why they would say so: on the one hand there can be no doubt that the man was absolutely persuaded about the Communist ideology, and we all know by now that God likes conviction a lot and will therefore probably want the chap near Him for his celestial Afternoon Teas. On the other hand, it is clear to everyone that if there is someone for whom invincible ignorance could apply, this is a chap born and bred in North Korea and most certainly sheltered since his tenderest age from every Christian influence in the same uncompromising way…
View original post 480 more words
Share this:
Every Single US Bishop Condemns “Contraception Mandate”
There are 180 dioceses in the United States.
Every single Bishop leading one of the 180 diocese has now condemned in public the “contraception mandate” (in reality, ” abortifacient mandate” too), as reported by The American Papist.
I could now make some comments as to what on earth moves a US Catholic Bishop to wait for weeks (if we are good and let the count start from January; which we really shouldn’t) before he makes a move, and be preceded by many dozens of his colleagues. I could also, at this point, make some rather cynical consideration about herd mentality applying now in one direction as it applied in the past in the other.
I could, but I won’t. This is, I think, something to be remembered: the Bishops of a Western countries doing their duty as one man.
The times, they are a’-changing…
Mundabor
Share this:
Nazi Nanny Cares For Your Lunchbox
Adolf Hitler
This blog post is, alas, the twin brother of the one explaining to you that Nazi nanny cares for your milk. It truly beggars belief that the very same department spending so much energy to effect abortions and prevent pregnancies be obsessively “concerned” about the health of those to whom it was benevolently granted not to be aborted (there was a screening, probably; and one was found to be fit enough for the nation).
Kathleen Sebelius
That the same Nazi department should think of imposing you how much fruit to eat and at the same time plan a genocide of unborn babies is not really a contradiction: it is the expression of the same Nazi mentality.
In a Nazi world, what seems absurd to us becomes natural. Nazi Germany allowed abortion (only country in Europe) but was obsessed with physical strenght and health.
Nazi HHS does pretty much the same.
The linked blog post appropriately comments:
To answer your question, no. There is no end to what liberals think they know better about. No limit.
This obsession with knowing everything better, making everything differently and creating a new humanity with it was, by-the-by, just another Nazi pet.
Mundabor
Share this:
Reblog of the day
I do not like quoting from the CCC (a text that can be defined fallible in his worst parts, and sprinkled with populism and VII-ism in all his parts; google “Abbé de Nantes” for instructions on the matter ) but on this day it seems to me the CCC tells us in a concise and rather easy way what happens to those who die in mortal sin and without repentance.
CCC1033 […] “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.””
If you do not accept God’s love you remain separated from him forever. It is your choice. You have time for as long as you breathe. After that, time’s up.
CCC 1034 : “Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna”…
View original post 860 more words
Share this:
Small things
This is a church. A Sign of the Cross is certainly in order.
It has become fashionable in the last decades to question the many small ways of the Catholics. People wonder whether it makes sense not to eat meat on a Friday, or to make the sign of the Cross when seeing a church or a crucifix, or to say an Hail Mary whenever we see a crippled man, or an invalid.
But the fact is, you build a solid edifice out of many small bricks. The single brick in itself might not be so terribly meaningful in your life, but it is an effective way to remind yourself who you are, who you want to be, where do you want your life to go.
Let us take Friday abstinence, and divorce. When the obligation of Friday abstinence was generally observed, I am sure there weren’t many Catholics – even in Protestant countries, which allowed such things – who divorced and remarried. There weren’t, because Catholics were constantly reminded of their duties as Catholics in the smaller things, and this obligation was even enforced. This created both an internal brake and a huge external pressure not to contravene to the duties of a Catholic in the big societal questions, like divorce. Also for this reason, I think, the wilful and deliberate refusal to observe Friday abstinence was rightly considered a mortal sin: then when one deliberately refuses to comply with his obligations, and be that in something he considers of small relevance, a revolt in already in place and divorce and concubinage cannot be very far away.
Our wise ancestors knew this, and a sound tradition of respect in small things (there were many, then; for example, even I remember the time when the children were supposed to say “good morning” to their elders without waiting for them to do so) took care that people grew up with a rather straight spine in the bigger one.
Obviously this is no guarantee, and I could tell you of the southern Italian woman living in London always making such a fuss that she renounced sweets during Lent, and who subsequently went to live more uxorio with the first man she could put her hands on. But on the whole, I think it’s fair to say being scrupulous in small things will greatly help one to avoid trouble in bigger ones, and when the societal pressure is added – which was, alas, not the case for the London woman – things will be even easier.
For this reason, I can only recommend Friday abstinence – as usual Friday penance, or in addition to it – even for those living in countries where the obligation has not been reintroduced. I have the persistent suspicion that the day we die what will have – hopefully – saved us will have been not our attempts at heroic efforts, but the way we have trained ourselves to live in the right way by many little habits.
A Hail Mary for the poor chap when you see a crippled man doesn’t take much time, and some basic fridge planning for the Friday will soon be mastered. A sign of the cross reminds you of where you want to be heading when the time comes, and the habit of at least an “eternal rest” a day will count for more than something on that day. But most of all, if you do that the constant reminder of the Catholic Faith of which you are part will make it much easier to stay within the straight and narrow when temptation comes, and your friends give you ill advice.
Mundabor
Mundabor's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.