Daily Archives: March 4, 2012
Some time ago, I published a poll to know the opinion of my readership about the Latin mass. Now, my blog is certainly not the Catholic supertanker of the blogosphere, but the statistical numbers I receive lead me to believe it is not entirely stupid, either.
You can click directly on the poll scrolling down the page. As I write, it turns out 90% of the respondents either already have regular access to a Latin mass, or would regularly attend if they had one. Most tellingly, only 2% of the respondents say they would not regularly attend even if they had the possibility to do so, and something tells me they are not regular readers or, so to speak, friends of this blog.
What does this, then, tell us? Are at least 90% of my readers instructed in the Latin language? Or are they so intelligent they can manage to do what other people can’t? With all due respect, I think neither is the case. What I think is happening, is that the smartest part of the Catholic population (meaning: the one taking Catholicism seriously) has by now clearly understood you do not need to have been to a grammar school to attend – and fully appreciate, and fully enjoy – the Traditional Mass, and this Mass is the one which best incarnates and transmits traditional Catholics values. In Latin, the Catholic Mass is fully Catholic, but when you start contaminating it with vernacular influences Protestant errors start to creep in.
Granted, I have attended to perfectly orthodox Novus Ordo Masses; but crucially, only in places where the Tridentine Mass was also celebrated and I have no doubt in all of these places the celebrants would go back to an only-Latin regime without blinking. It is encouraging, though, that among the readership (apparently spread throughout the English-speaking world) some 40% already have access to a Tridentine Mass. This does not mean enough is being made (it clearly isn’t), but it means being seriously intentioned to attend to a Tridentine Mass and being able to put some time and fuel costs in the exercise already gives one a good probability of being reasonably able to attend to a decent Tridentine; which – allow me to say so – automatically guarantees a good priest, sensible homilies, and no blood-curdling ecumenical crap.
The latter alone would be worth the time and the hassle.
Cardinal O’Brien is the Head of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland. Being a Cardinal whilst Nichols still isn’t (though I do not doubt he will soon get his red hat, no matter how shameless he is; he knows that too, by the way) he is the most senior cleric active in the United Kingdom.
Now, this very same Cardinal has fired with rather powerful cannons at the degenerate proposals of our Friends of the Perverts, the Prime Minister Dave “Chameleon” Cameron, to redefine marriage to suit the needs of a minority of perverts, and make himself beautiful with that part of the population become insensitive to the same concept of perversion (“orientation” is the word they use).
You can read the article here and I do suggest you click the link and take the time. I will limit myself to some short comments:
1) Boy, this is strong tobacco. I had complained only yesterday the post Vatican-II clergy can’t speak plainly anymore, and the Cardinal shows me I am wrong the very same day. The tone is more than severe, it is outright harsh: the cry of “madness”, the accusation of the government to want to “redefine reality”, the warning that the measure would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world” are all meant to show what a cretin the Prime Minster is. His Grace can’t say that in so many words of course,but the meaning is clear. Try this:
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
(I’m sure Nichols would be “nuanced” on that. But you knew it already…).
2) The Cardinal makes very clear how stupid it is to give the perverts one hand, hoping they will not want to take the entire arm. Try this (emphases mine):
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
This is the usual modus operandi of the sensitive Nazi: the demolition of Christian society one piece at a time, promising every time this is the last one.
Note when the Cardinal says “Those of us who were not in favour” he clearly implies some of the bishops were in favour. We know who they were (and are), and I think the Cardinal wants us to take notice some of the bishop naively (to say the least) tried to defend the measures, and receive now the bill of their (to say the least) naiveté.
3) An intervention of such tenor from a Scottish prelate in an English matter is an open indictment to Archbishop Nichols: it is obvious O’Brien had to intervene with energy, because Nichols won’t. The cowardice, nay, complicity of Nichols in what the Government is trying to do is exposed the more openly by the harshness of Cardinal O’Brien’s words. Of course, I do not doubt Nichols is not against emitting some vague rumour about his disapproval of the proposed measures. He simply has to. But really, he can’t fool anyone anymore.
Nichols is a shame and a daily scandal. His complicity with Cameron and the homosexual Mafia is beyond disgusting. He is the worst enemy of Catholicism in this country, then if we had a Catholic at his place a first-class coward like Cameron would not even dare to think about homo-marriages.
Please click the link and read the entire interview. It is a pleasure to read a British prelate show some teeth. And please pray we can be freed of Nichols one day, and never too soon.
This chap is seriously good.
The lesson he teaches is very useful for European Catholics, too.
In an embarrassing (for the Atheists) and rare show of common sense, Richard Dawkins admitted to be only sure to 6.9 sevenths (which, to you and I who do not have a book to promote, means around 98.6%) God does not exist. This leaves only space for the conclusion (as in such things tertium non datur) Dawkins considers the existence of God a 1.4% probability.
In my book, this means Dawkins not only maintains he is not an atheists, but maintains Atheists are wrong. Always in my book, a 1.4% probability of being wrong in your supposition qualifies you as an agnostic, albeit of a rather obdurate sort.
The moderator of this debate seems to have reached the same conclusion, and to his surprise Dawkins said he is called an atheists by other people, but “not by himself”.
Now, before someone starts the soppy song of the “pleasant surprise” Dawkins might have after he kicks the bucket, let me tell you that however your percentage estimations you can’t write a book called “The God Delusion” and think – bar an always welcome repentance, of course – you’ll get an entry card. What the exchange tells me is that Dawkins has, in fact, admitted the bankruptcy of the atheist argument. If you admit you can’t reach 100% certainty you’re right, you can’t say to believers they are wrong. And, by the way, you should still be very afraid.
Contrast this with, say, myself:
I am absolutely certain God exists. Not to 6.9 sevenths, not even to 6.99 sevenths. I am 100% certain, period.
Therefore, the following is demonstrated:
1) I can criticise atheists as “wrong” and be deemed coherent, he can’t criticise believers as “wrong” and make the same claim. Not as atheist, not as agnostic.
2) The real delusion here is – says Dawkins, though not in so many words – the one of the atheists. You can’t call a belief “false” which you know has a 1.4% probability of being true, and you must call atheism a delusion if you believe atheism has a 1.4% probability of being wrong; because in this case it can never qualify as a belief and must be called, coherently, a delusion.
At the excellent Lux Occulta blog, Shane reports statistics about the resurgence of the Orthodox church in Russia.
These are strange statistics I must say, and they are Russian anyway so you should take them with three pinches of salt. Still, the growing number of Russians abandoning, or being tempted to abandon, a purely secular view of life is a reality not even Russian statistics could entirely conceal.
Shane makes an interesting parallelism, comparing the dismal state of Catholicism in Western Europe with the robust growth of Orthodoxy in Russia.
Personally, I see the difference as follows:
1) There’s nothing so bound to lead one to Christ, as an appetizer of Communism. The Russians had much more than an appetizer, and it is therefore not entirely surprising the local church would profit from this. In contrast, Western Europe allows itself the luxury of criticising Christian values without having had (yet) a full mouthful of what they will have to eat when they have abandoned them.
2) Catholicism is Europe is, in my eyes, still reasonably healthy notwithstanding the continuous work of sabotage of the clergy n the last fifty years. In fact, if one considers the above mentioned work of sabotage, one must conclude the resilience of Catholicism is no less than astonishing. It is a kind of “Catholicism without the priest” (who many do not see anymore as a “catholic” figure, rather like a pathetic old man desperately trying to be liked) which, whilst severely damaged, still maintains many of the traits of the faith of our fathers, at least in their broad outlines.
In the traditionally Catholic parts of Europe, priests have almost completely stopped to defend Catholicism and to instruct the faithful, limiting themselves to vague blabbering about peace and luv instead; But the work of their predecessors was so robust, that a strong cultural sediment still remains, and allows Catholicism to go on, if in seriously damaged conditions.
It goes without saying this cannot go on forever, and it has now become imperative the clergy start making their job again. I trust in traditionally Catholic Europe this will gradually happen in the decades to come, and we will not need to taste Communism, or too much of the Nazi Liberal ideology, before this happens.
As to the other countries, I am less confident. If you take an Italian and an English non-churchgoer, the first thing you notice is the former is so much more Catholic in his outlook, though he will probably not even be conscious of it as he can’t even conceive how un-Catholic the latter is. In the fist case, there is a fertile soil which only waits to be tilled. In the second case, a much harder work will be required.
In case you have any doubt Kathleen Sebelius is Goebbels.2, you only need to read her shocking (providing anything concerning that woman can still be defined as “shocking”) affirmation about the fact that the more children you abort, the less Obamacare costs.
This is what she said, verbatim:
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,”
I do not even know when to start.
Firstly, I was under the illusion the Obama government had tried to persuade us they actually wanted to avoid abortions. I know it is a lie, but this is the lie they went around saying. But this is not what Goebbels.2 says. She says contraception directly translates in a reduction of the number of births, which is an economic benefit.
For the first time in history, a country thinks it good to have less children, because it reduces its healthcare costs.
I must, at this point, humbly apologise to Dr Goebbels. He would have considered such talk inhumane.
Secondly, if one follows Goebbels.2’s logic, several avenues to reduce health care costs open themselves. Try this:
the reduction in the number of Alzheimer’s disease patients compensates for the costs of euthanasia
This is exactly the same logic, expressed in exactly the same way.
It doesn’t end here. At the House hearing which originated such brilliant piece of Nazi ideology, one member posed the lady the following question:
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?”
Sebelius’ answer was:
“Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”
Notice she does not answer the question, recurring to the usual way feminists use whenever they are in trouble: throwing the word “women” around. It was interesting, though, to know the aborted children has a health benefit from being aborted, too, which must be what she meant every time the woman who wants to abort does not have children.
This woman is a monster.
In the great 1948 “Oliver Twist” film, the excellent (and recently deceased; R.I.P.) John Howard Davies gives a dramatic rendition of the famous fight with Noah Claypole, the bully. Claypole is, of course, much bigger than he, and has been provoking him for some time. On that day, enough is enough.
One is reminded of Oliver Twist when he thinks of the present conflict between the White House and the US Bishops’ Conference. Like Oliver Twist, the bishops have been bullied for some time now; and like him, they have now decided enough is enough.
In the last days, Archbishop Nolan has released a new letter to his bishops. This letter is interesting in more than one way, and I would like to examine it with you;
1) There will be no cave-in and if the President think there will, he has another thought coming. The entire letter is worded so as to not leave any doubt.
2) In the entire letter there is an insistent, almost obsessive reminder of the issue really at stake: religious freedom.The words are mentioned many times, and always in italics. Once again, if the President thinks he will bully the Church into silence by deflecting on the issue of contraception, he is a fool. What he will get is an entire electoral campaign dominated by the issue of religious freedom, which will be so insistently hammered in the American heads as it is repeated in this letter.
3) The language does not reach the summit of clearness of the great Pope Pius X but it is extremely open, and shows a very clear will to go for the fisticuffs like brave young Oliver. The White House is treated with thinly veiled contempt, and exposed as a bunch of incompetent morons with no idea what they are talking about. Try this (emphases always mine):
The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand
Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has
nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.
Meanwhile, in our recent debate in the senate, our opponents sought to obscure what is really a religious freedom issue by
maintaining that abortion inducing drugs and the like are a “woman’s health issue.” We will not
let this deception stand. Our commitment to seeking legislative remedies remains strong. And it
is about remedies to the assault on religious freedom. Period.
Take that, Adolf Hussein.
4) The attempt to persuade the bishops to cave-in are not only refused, but clearly condemned:
Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of
accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in
5) In addition the openly defying tone toward White House officials (you have read an example under point 3) teaches the White House a lesson or two about “women issues”:
(By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is
the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country.)
6) Please also note the decision to go for the legal confrontation has been taken, and it will be no laughing matter:
our bishops’ conference, many individual religious entities, and other people of good will are
working with some top-notch law firms who feel so strongly about this that they will represent us
pro bono. In the upcoming days, you will hear much more about this encouraging and welcome
Make no mistake, say the bishops to Adolf Hussein: this issue is not going to go away, we will expose it as a shameless attack on religious freedom, and if you think we are influenced by the likes of America magazine you need to change advisors.
I can remember no issue whatsoever in which post – V II European Bishops (or Popes) had the guts to attack the Noah Claypoles of the day with such spirit.
Kudos to Archbishop Dolan and his troops. I am very confident there will be no cave-in, and every letter of this sort makes such an exercise more and more difficult to achieve for those among the bishops who might be tempted to just shut up and be vaguely and ineffectually “pastoral”, as too many of them have done for too often.In fact, it seems to me Archbishop Dolan is forcing all of his colleagues to close ranks and prepare for the fight, and is telling them the fight as expected of every one of them.
Reblog of the day
The Internet is ablaze with the last feat of the first Affirmative Action President of the history of the United States.
A man who grew up in a liberal and secular environment firstly, and in a Muslim household – and attending a school for Muslism – later, thinks he can teach us what Jesus would do in matter of taxes. You can read here and in many other places the angry reaction to this pathetic attempt to masquerade Socialism as Christianity, something he might get away with purely because most of his supporters seem not to have more knowledge of Christianity than he does.
His attempt at trying to persuade the Christian electorate of his Christian credentials – or, more probably, his decision to fully embrace the tax and spend gospel irrespective of the consequences and make of this campaign a war of the envious against the hard working –…
View original post 377 more words
(courtesy of Father Z. Achtung! American spelling!)
“What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now”.