Daily Archives: March 17, 2012
Juventus-Fiorentina, Italian Serie A. They are playing as I write.
Juventus scores a goal. After a couple of minutes, the TV (Italian sender, of course) shows a replay of the Juventus manager, Conte, making the sign of the cross.
Italians appreciate these things. By all advance of secularism, it’s in the blood of the country.
Two short considerations:
1) Would the BBC have picked this beautiful moment and showed it in replay? Thought not…
2) Would this be allowed on a British football ground? If yes, for how long? In the end, Cameron government’s would tell you it is not obligatory for a Christian to make the sign of the cross when his team scores a goal. Therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed in the work place, right?
Food for thought, I think…
This man is truly a plague. An unspeakable disgrace. A heathen. An enemy of the Church.
Read from the “Telegraph” what he has now the gut to say, utterly unafraid of sanction from incompetent people in Rome.
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock
When ever have you heard, in the entire history of Catholicism, an Archbishop saying such things?
Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives…”
experience of… WHAT??
Has the Archbishop ever heard of sodomy? Or does he pretend not to know what happens during the “experience of love”?
“I would want them to be respected, but I would want them to have a vision in themselves that what they are called to is not marriage but a very profound and lifelong friendship.”
Here, the usual weasel words. “Friendship”. Let’s pretend this friendship is not sexual. This is the usual Jesuitical Nichols for you. Let us encourage sodomy. Let us institutionalise it. Let us allow sodomites to have “rights” as sodomites. Just ignore the sodomy, would you?
With this logic, I can’t wait the day Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will praise the “experience of love” between a man and his seven years old lover, telling them he “wants them to be respected” and calling them to a “lifelong friendship”.
What society says, I believe, is the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children is the partnership between two natural parents.
God, give me strenght. This man goes on saying children can be brought up by sodomites – or lesbians – but this is not the best way. Ideally, we would have natural parents. But hey, Elton John and the other circus tool aren’t so bad, either.
The article goes on referring the delirious consideration of Nick Herbert, Home Office Minister. Things that would have been sufficient to consider whether a madhouse is not the right place for him, only two generations ago.
In this generation, madmen are in government. And in this generation, Archbishops reinforce the message that same-sex relationship are fine and must receive institutional protection with the lame excuse of wanting to protect marriage, in the very same breath as they undermine it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Make no mistake, Nichols is one of the devil.One who would have been considered evil even by anticlerical atheists in, say, the Italy of the Fifties, where even Communists had rather rigid – and correct – ideas about sexual morality.
Quo usque tandem? Alas, as the current Pontiff is occupied in saying to the SSPX they are not obedient enough, I doubt anything will happen during his pontificate.
Let us pray the next Pope will show more will to clean the Augean Stables of the E & W hierarchy, as wonderfully represented by Nichols.
And seriously: thank God for the Society of St. Pius X, helping us all to keep sanity well in mind as our shepherds want to lead us to ruin with them.
Reblog of the day
“The Committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in a Sept. 15 letter to Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.
The letter requested details on the amount of money received by Planned Parenthood under different federal funding programs, as well as documentation of policies and procedures to ensure that federal money received by Planned Parenthood “is not being used to impermissibly subsidize abortion.”
The House committee also asked for information about the organization’s policies in place to prevent improper billing and overbilling.
Furthermore, it requested documentation of Planned Parenthood’s policies and procedures to ensure that criminal conduct, including sex trafficking and sexual abuse, are reported to the proper authorities.
View original post 265 more words
Planned Parenthood says Lubbock CEO was absent from office all day.
The Government plans to oppose the case, presented by two British Christians, in which they demand the right to wear a Cross at work.
This is, says the Telegraph, the first time the Government is forced to say where it stands on the matter.Not, mind, out of its own initiative, but because the relevant documents were leaked to the Sunday Telegraph.
Note that the angry reaction came from the former so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, Carey. and from others among his colleagues, whilst prominent Muslims (Rowan Williams) and heathens (Vincent Nichols) do not seem, at least to my knowledge, equally vocal.
This is, though, the last example of how Cameron’s Government actively wages war against Christians.
And this moron should call himself, and be called, a Conservative?
What a joke.
In September, when the hopes of a reconciliation between SSPX and Vatican started to take momentum, I wrote a blog post about the SSPX, the Mamma and the Cake inspired by an excellent post on Messa In Latino.
After the failures of the talk, I felt it natural to go back to those optimistic days and try to understand – as far as we can do it from the outside – what went wrong.
In September, the beautiful comparison was made in the Italian blog between the idea that the Vatican bakes poisoned cakes (which, I agree, should not be accepted by the Vatican in the first place, and seems to me in contrast with the very concept of indefectibility of the Church) and the much more moderate idea the Vatican bakes cakes, some of which aren’t a success.
I remind you what made everyone very optimistic in September is the fact the preambolo was announced with a joint press release, whose tones led one to hope the second reading (the Church bakes bad cakes at times, and it is perfectly legitimate for an obedient son to say so, and to say he won’t have any part of the cake which tastes badly) is the one that would apply.
What happened later, no one really knows. I can, at this late night hour, only think of two hypotheses:
1) Fellay and his strictest collaborators thought the compromise was viable and would save the doctrinal integrity of the SSPX, allowing her to continue her work of vigorous – but loyal – criticism of V II; but when Fellay met with the other SSPX grandees in Albano the latter gave a different reading of the matter; then it was decided to write a counter preambolo saying “are we sure we will be able to continue to criticise V II as we are doing now?”, and the rest is history.
2) The Vatican gave the SSPX the medicine in small doses. First she released the preambolo and the joint press release indicating the way for an agreement, and in the following weeks – more discreetly perhaps, and by way of hints – gave the SSPX to understand what would be required of them if an agreement took place; not out of bad faith perhaps, but of a different concept of what loyalty requires from the SSPX. The SSPX began to smell the rat and in Albano decided to ask for an explicit consent to freedom of movement (that is: open criticism of the wrongs of V II). The rest is, again, well known.
And in fact, it seems to me in the later utterances of Fellay – a person who cannot be accused of the rigidity of a Williamson – this point came out again and again: the fear to be silenced, and to have to shut up as a price for the reconciliation. My personal impression was the problem is not so much a doctrinal one anymore, but one of practical behaviour after the reconciliation.
I have in this blog very often compared the Vatican to a drunken father and the SSPX to an obedient, but loving son; a son whose love and devotion for his father does not, cannot arrive to the point of abetting his drunkenness, and in whose refusal to agree to his father’s drinking habit I see not rebellion but love, and loyal, loving, truly filial submission to a father’s role rather than to parental antics.
As I see it, the Church is still drunk of Vatican II. Not besotted as she once was, for sure, but still not entirely sober. Continuing with the simile, it seems to me we are at the point where the father is almost sober and begins to see he has done a lot of mischief in the past, but still insists to say – as he used to say in his drunken days – his son was wrong in not obeying to him whilst drunk, and by the bye he was not really drunk, merely curiously excited nd perhaps a bit too exuberant; but really, nothing to be ashamed about.
If, dear reader, you think the Church has not – or could not – go through such phases, I suggest you delve a bit into Church history; methinks, you’ll find examples of erratic behaviour which can compete with V II every day of the week; the Arian heresy was a terrible disgrace for the Church hierarchy not less than for Christianity at large; the Avignon period can be only remembered with shame, like the end of the Templars which took place just before those terrible years; the corruption – moral, if not theological – of the XV and XVI century has been abundantly exploited by popular press and media; heresies like, again, Arianism swept away a good part of the Catholic bishops, and in more recent times Jansenism became not less dangerous, if in the end less devastating. To say nothing about modernism, of which V II is a less virulent, if in the end more dangerous version (and in fact, V II has already unquestionably caused far more damage than Modernism ever did).
In all this, what I understand is that the survival of the Church in the midst of phases of more or less spectacular corruption and/or incompetence is the bets proof the Holy Ghost supports Her. If Coca Cola and Apple were run with the same professionalism of the Church they would go belly up in a matter of years. But you see, they don’t have the Holy Ghost to back them.