Monthly Archives: March 2012
Interesting article from Instapundit.
It points out to the fact that in the same way as abortionists tend to, well, abort, environmentalist with their fanatical fear for the Earth tend to make fewer children too (egotism, of course; the eternal adolescence typical of the breed; the desire to be an anorak forever).
Meanwhile, conservative Catholics (and conservatives, in general) reproduce like it’s going out of fashion. Give it one or two generations, and the results will not be late in showing up.
I liked very much the reference that Gore in 2000 (not 2004, of course; in 2004 Bush run against Kerry) lost because of the children aborted in Florida. Tragic for the murdered children of course, but ruthlessly true; apart for the fact of course that if the Florida democrats had been less abortionists in some measure, they would have been, unavoidably, less Democratic in pretty much the same measure.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the pacifist nutcases in the Eighties’ Italy, seriously (or so it might seem) telling you that it didn’t make sense to make children in a world destined to be destroyed in a nuclear catastrophe. Whereas, apart from the obvious madness of the argument, no one ever explained to me why it would be better not to be born than to be born and die in a nuclear war.
One was reminded of the vegetarian’s mantra: I love cows so much, that I don’t want them to be born.
And in fact, the clear resurgence of pro-lifers in the United States – particularly evident in the new generations – might be the result of the refusal of the abortionists to generate little abortionists, preferring to murder them instead.
As the author of the article very funnily observes,
Childlessness is inherited. If your parents don’t have kids, you won’t either.
On this day of St. Joseph (in Italy, traditionally Father’s Day), I found this on Father Z’s site.
I copy it here in its entirety so that it might be traceable in future, using the search engine.
I said mine, with all my heart, for the very same Father Z.
I allow myself to invite you to do the same.
I present to you this day
Father N., priest of Jesus Christ,
and beg you to be to him
advocate and defender,
counselor and friend.
Open your heart to him
as you opened your home to the Virgin Mother
in her hour of need.
Protect his holy priesthood
as you protected the life of the Infant Christ
threatened by cruel Herod.
In darkness bring him light;
in weakness, strength,
and in fear the peace that passes understanding.
For the sake of the tender love that bound you
to the Virgin Mary and the Infant Christ,
be for him, Saint Joseph, a constant intercessor
and a shield against every danger of body, mind, and soul
so that, in spite of his weaknesses and sins,
his priesthood may bring glory to Christ
and serve to increase the beauty of holiness
in his bride the Church.
I would suggest you skip the first part of this – still very interesting – blog post from Monsignor Pope (the part with the “oh how guilty I feel that I struggle with my weight whilst other don’t have enough to eat”) and jump directly to the serious part: the comparison between the stages leading to the physical starvation and the correspondent symptoms of the spiritual starvation in the West.
The comparison is useful and certainly a tool for reflection, though I dare to say I am far less pessimistic than Monsignore.
Particularly concerning Europe, I think we are far away from being doomed, though we are certainly in a worse shape than the United States.
Interestingly, Monsignor Pope mentions the Pope saying that the lights are going out in Europe, without telling us what this very same Pope is doing to avoid this happening. I mean, not by talking – he is, undoubtedly, good at that – but by acting. Can’t see much of that I admit; at least, by far not enough to start that reversal of fortune Catholicism in Europe needs.
And in fact, it seems to me that the initial stages described by Monsignor Pope (weakness and confusion) beautifully apply to the Vatican. Weakness, because no one seems able or willingly to declare war to the rampant secularism (they most certainly don’t; they deplore it, which is vastly different) and to start to uproot the evil among the bishops; and confusion, because the present Church hierarchy stills wants to be everything to everyone: recover Tradition, and accept the Neocathecumenal masses; enact Summorum Pontificum, and refuse to enforce it; desire a reconciliation with the SSPX, and insist in keeping the tenets of Conciliar thinking; promote orthodoxy, and host Assisi gatherings.
The lack of clarity of the European Christianity is first and foremost the result of the lack of a clear guidance from the European Church. The spiritual starvation so well described by Monsignor Pope applies to the European Church hierarchy in exactly the same way; the apathy and lethargy are those we can see every day in front of rampant heresy among bishops and priests.
It is good to notice and criticise the dangerous secular drift of the Western world. But it is, in my eyes, dangerous not to see that this does not come from irresistible forces expanding notwithstanding the Church’s resistance, but from very resistible forces which have expanded because the Church has made no resistance.
It is, of course, not too late. By far not. But the awakening must start from the place where it is most important that right thinking – and, far more importantly, acting – sets in: Rome.
Reblog of the day
I don’t like talking about my blog, which is the reason why I never write blog posts like “this is my 300th post” and the like.
Still, I have been blogging for almost one year now and have, I think, learned one thing or two about what – at least in my case – goes and what not.
As I have written a couple of times in the recent past about Catholic blogging, I thought that I may write here a couple of suggestions that might be obvious to the already experienced blogger, but not so obvious to the person thinking of starting a Catholic blog for the first time.
If you were to ask me for advice about how to start a conservative Catholic blog, I would – based exclusively on my personal experience; your mileage may vary – suggest the following steps. Others will, no doubt, have different…
View original post 1,552 more words
On the Vatican-SSPX matters, I have received a long message from Catocon, he of Hocestenim (excellent blog but, unfortunately for many of you, in German).
I sometimes delete such long messages without warning, and tend to dislike them.
Not this time.
This message is so profound, and so beautiful, that I publish it here in its entirety, with many thanks to his author:
the more loyal and loving a son, the more fiercely he will protect his Mother. Those who see their Mother weakening and do nothing but talk cheaply about hermeneutics and textual criticism of some fallible council for fear of being accused of “disobedience” do not love their Mother; they love their reputations. That is the difference between many “conservatives” in “full communion” and the FSSPX.
Yes, the Fraternity is disobedient. They won’t throw away the medicine capable of healing their Mother, even if their Mother orders them to. Therefore, there will be no deal until the Church clearly acknowledges that Her body is infested by the disease of modernism and starts expelling those responsible for it instead of obstructing those trying to fight it.
One last point: The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that this has never been, at its deepest point, a question of doctrine. You can, if you wish, twist the words of the Council until the end of time, and come up with some interpretation that fits Tradition. In exactly the same way, you can do the opposite and twist those words until they become the foundation for a new Modern Church complete with a New Faith and a New Mass. But whatever the officially taught doctrines may be, the real point is, this is not about the doctrine itself, it is about the practical fruits. If the Church were flourishing, if young people were learning the New Catechism by heart, if they were defending the teachings of this Catechism with their blood and their lives, if they were filling the seminaries, if those teachings of the Council and its Magisterium were earnestly defended, if the liturgy was celebrated according to the books and with utmost care and faithfulness to the letter and spirit of the Mass, if they were striving to become saints by living a life of prayer, penance, sacrifice, if all these things were happening, no one would be talking about some inconsistencies or problems in some of the conciliar texts. We would, of course, interpret them according to traditional Magisterium, and one or two professional theologians would be discussing them furiously, but they would pose absolutely no problem. And the FSSPX would fully accept them, as even Archbishop Lefèbvre signed them in 1965, as maybe imperfect, but fully legitimate expressions of Catholicism, and reconciliation would proceed apace. But we can see the fruit of the Council, we see an enormous apostasy among clerics and laymen alike, a vast desert of agnosticism and apathy, empty seminaries, churches and confessionals, beautiful altars vandalized like false idols of a hated heathen religion, almost as if the reformers had perceived them to be such, and when we see these fruits, we know something about the tree that produced them. We know that there is something seriously wrong with this tree. That this cannot be the real tree of the Catholic Faith. And from this knowledge we can deduce that the Council, having produced these rotten fruits, cannot have been a good thing, and that its questionable teachings were in fact novelties, even poisonous novelties, and not just some unfortunate way of expressing the Faith.
We shall know them by their fruits, because words are very flexible, but works are not. They have a crystalline clarity that cannot be obfuscated. We see the rupture of the Council in every average church we attend, hear it in every sermon, smell it in most liturgies, experience it in the divorce courts and abortion mills overflowing with Catholics, and can never believe in “continuity”, even if a proper hermeneutic can be found by theological study, because the fruits tell us a different story. Unless the fruits change, there can be no acceptance for the work that produced them, and therefore no agreement. If the fruits really change, the proper interpretation of problematic passages will follow as sure as night follows day, and the Fraternity will be in full communion before you can even pronounce the words.
Nothing to add and, as the Germans say, Hut ab!
This man is good, and he clearly lost patience with being both misinterpreted in public, and mistreated from the auxiliary bishop.
On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.
The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.
A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.
The brazenness of the fat, ugly lesbian and her (allegedly, as she can block an entrance with her mere presence) not entirely slender “lover” is beyond contempt. But most importantly, the woman throws her lesbianism in the Father’s face.
Father Guarnizo again:
I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.
In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbiter of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
This man is full of common sense. If you say yourself you can’t receive, then you can’t receive, full stop.In this case, the lady had openly admitted to be in mortal sin, and to give scandal with her openly admitted perverted “relationship”. Truly, either this is the end of the discussion of we must wonder what is wrong with us.
Note Father says confession was open to the lady on the morning. I doubt in case of serious confession and sincere intent to reform her life, Father Guarnizo would have refused communion. But she didn’t, so he did. Good man.
Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.
If there were more like Father Guarnizo and less like Bishop Knestout, the Church in the US would be in much better shape.
You read here today’s CNA article about the latest turn in the HHS mandate story.
The translation in proper English is as follows:
“Dear voters, we are more and more scared this will be the undoing of us. You see, we have tried a very strong stance at the beginning, but this wouldn’t work. Seeing we were driving against a wall at great speed, we have invented a “compromise” that wasn’t such, and have tried to sell it to the gullible; of whom we know there is a great number, because we are in office.
Unfortunately, the “compromise” tale didn’t work, and now things are getting really scary. Every week this remains at the centre of the public opinion, votes get lost. We need them, you know. And we need all Catholic votes we can get, because we are enough in trouble as it is. We thought the Catholic population would follow us after we say a couple of words about “women’s right” (it works, generally, quite well) but the bishops wouldn’t accept it and started making such a mess. Like, unfortunate, really. We tried to explain to them what Catholicism says about contraception and abortion, but those people are so stubborn, they don’t even listen to America magazine. I mean, like, really?
We have discussed about this with the Prez, and we have decided we don’t think this is going to go away, or so he read from the teleprompter. I agree with the teleprompter,erm, the Prez, though. I mean, this is going to, like, hurt.
At this point, there’s no other choice than to start preparing an orderly retreat. No rout, of course. We’ll go back in installments, and try to look as good as we can in the process. If the mess ends, we will be able to go back to normal at any time, anyway. If it doesn’t, it is better to start opening the emergency door now.
At the beginning, we’ll continue to say we’ll give contraceptives to everyone, and “women rights” will not suffer, and we want only discuss how the mandate can be improved. We’ll show ourselves ready to listen. Concerned. Paternal, even. But we’ll pave the way for those “improvement” we’ll be forced to concede anyway. As to the cows, we’ll tell them something to keep them happy. We don’t need great skills to do that. The cows are very gullible. Like, I mean, they’ve elected us, right?
So what I’ll do now is to say I want to , like, “listen more” (or some such thing; it goes down well, you know). Then I’ll wait and see, and if the mess goes on we’ll have to talk with the Prez and see what he thinks. Damn, it’s always so difficult when the teleprompter is broken, though…
I know you won’t be very pleased, my dear “wymyn”. But you see, I have my back to the wall and no intention to be shot at until November. We’ll have to make compromises. Real ones, this time.
The Prez told me the same. Like, I mean, reading from the teleprompter”.
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.
The news here
Alas, I think in order to see the SSPX in full communion we will have to wait the death of the VII generation.
I am glad the SSPX decided not to compromise. Whilst we will possibly never know the details as the famous preambolo dottrinale‘s text was never published, I think most will agree the public comments and interpretations given by the SSPX clearly indicated the SSPX was required to either officially accept V II with all its baggage of mistakes and wrong formulations, or at the very least accept to be institutionalised and lose its function of whistle-blower about the still too many bad influences within the Church.
The Vatican has asked Fellay to clarify his clarification, which would indicate the door is not officially closed. But at this point I do not see how what could not be cleared in years of discussions could be cleared with the next round of letters exchange.
My conclusion is that the Vatican is still dealing with the V II toxins and at this point it will take time, and at least a new pontificate, to heal the wounds. A pity, but it is what it is.
The great consolation in all this is that the SSPX was, in a way, tempted with an easy exit and chose not to yield to the lure of a “reconciliation” that would have gone against the spirit of his founder, and would have betrayed th every reason why it exists. If you don’t believe Williamson in this, I am sure you’ll believe Fellay.
We will, no doubt, read in the next days the position of the SSPX and many other comments.
At the risk of appearing sugary, I’d say prayers for all parties involved are in order.
I have read on another blog a suggestion to pray the Rosary every day during Lent for the end of the SSPX-Vatican controversy.
Brilliant idea, but I think I have an even better one: to pray the Rosary every day for the sake of your soul.
I have written about it here and will therefore not repeat myself. What I would like to point out today is that Lent seems to me an ideal moment to take that momentum which could carry one praying the rosary every day after the end of Lent.
As always, the most difficult phase is the start, and this is where we often need a special incentive, a kick of some sort, a special propeller. Whilst for many this can be a particular difficult period, for others it might simply be the desire to make a special effort during Lent.
You will soon notice that, as always in life, once the habit starts to kick in everything comes easier, and soon the Rosary will be part of your daily routine; a non entirely pleasant perhaps at the beginning, something lived like a penance rather than a joy; but in time, you will see this habit will become more and more dear to you, a daily companion in the midst of life’s troubles, and a welcome place of quiet serenity in the happier days.
I have starting praying the Rosary every day now several years ago, and have not skipped one single day since. As the years go by, I have a growing awareness that together with Mass attendance, the daily Rosary is the single biggest contribution I bring toward my (hoped for) salvation.
I do not suggest you start “light”, for example with two rosaries a week. In my simple opinion, th eonly effective way to form a habit is to do something every day, and to decide there will be no day without it. As I started this, I decided I had no right to sleep until I had finished praying a proper rosary. It is much easier to get the right mindset at the start than to try to stick to a half-formed resolution.
A good recited rosary will take anywhere between, say, 17 and 20 minutes. By sixteen waking hours a day, this is a maximum of 2% of your waking time. Even taking away work, this is still 4% of your non-working time.
A Rosary doesn’t have to be prayed all at once, which means you do not have to find a 20 minutes spot. You can pray it a decade at a time, and the introduction (the one with the Creed) is even shorter. The train, the walk to the train station, the walk to the office, the walk from the office, are all precious occasions for a rosary. You won’t be run over by a car and if it truly has to happen, hey, then I prefer to be run over whilst praying the Rosary, please… 😉
But really, the key to your motivation should be the Rosary promises I have discussed in the blog post mentioned above. Who would want to risk compromising his chances for the sake of 4% of his waking time?
Courtesy of the tireless Father Z, I echo his video of Glenn Beck, and would like to add some comments of mine.
First of all, take him with five or six pinches of salt, as you should every time an apostate (though, I assume, with the extenuating circumstance of a ridiculously bad instruction) talks about Catholicism. Much of the talk is, as you will see, rather superficial.
What makes the speech interesting, is the clearly acquired consciousness Catholicism is – in the US at least – rapidly becoming the rallying point of Conservatives of all denominations (and of no Christian denomination, like the Mormon Beck).
“We are all Catholics now” is the clear rallying cry here (though in the end he waters it down, to please the masses). It is followed by a passionate appeal not only to strengthen but (beautifully) to challenge one’s own priest or rabbi or pastor. Crucially, he sees this will cause divisions and contrasts, and asks everyone to take sides.
I think Glenn Beck is not the creator, but a symptom of a movement that is getting more and more momentum: as the Church puts Herself at the head of this movement, the other denominations naturally rally around her like the chicken around the hen, or like the torpedo boats around the aircraft carrier. As a result, the torpedo boats not only enjoy the protection afforded by the air shield, but at the same time protect the aircraft carrier and make it more dangerous. My impression is that here a rather impressive flotilla is rallying, and this flotilla will get down on Washington with devastating force.
Add, please, to the HHS Mandate effect the wonderful run Santorum is having and you will see that never in recent history Catholicism was so closely identified with social conservatism, with a call to the return to a clean thinking that has been lost – alas, even within the Church – for too long.
As the Church acquires a more marked socially conservative profile, more and more conservative pundits will be, I think, attracted to her. Look at Gingrich, wearing Catholicism like a good suit, and I can’t imagine anyone can say his clear conservative profile was damaged by his conversion, or is at odds with it.
“We are all Catholics now” is a rallying cry that will serve to mobilise people today, and – by the grace of God – convert the one or the other tomorrow.
Be it as it may, the Catholic Church in the US is very much in the spotlight, and for all the right reasons.
Those among you who read me with a certainly regularity will know that I am not exactly a friend of Communism. If you ask me about Cuba, I’ll tell you things you probably don’t want to hear. If you ask me about the Castro brothers, I will tell you things no lady should ever hear.
With all this, I find it utterly despicable that some Cubans would play “Occupy” at the expense of sacred buildings, with a Tabernacle inside them.
This happened in Cuba in the last days, and in various degrees in more than one location. You can read the details here. The Holy Father is visiting in September, but no political grievance – no matter how justified – can be taken as an excuse for not only disrupting church life, but taking sacred buildings as hostages of one’s own grievances.
Truly, it seems that the mentality of modern times – that as long as I have some grievance I can feel authorised to do whatever I please – is not halting even in front of the altar.
Praised as his most lucid yet.
Farewell, and good riddance…..
Tha Catholic News Agency reports about the first secular, for-profit organisation to file a lawsuit against the HHS Mandate.
The company is run by a Catholic, and if you click the link you will see his argument is full of common sense and a sincere approach to life.
Manion [the lawyer ] said that the mandate would require business people such as O’Brien to abandon their religious beliefs in order to continue running their companies.
O’Brien says that his Catholic faith serves as a foundation for the operation of his business and his company’s website explains that its mission is “to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.”
The business owner has instituted multiple programs to help his employees in purchasing homes, paying for their children’s college education and saving for retirement.
Manion explained that O’Brien is not trying to prevent his employees from accessing contraception, which is already widely available at low cost, but simply objects to paying for it against his beliefs.
Whilst the company owner is clearly a Catholic, this lawsuit makes very clear people cannot be requested to forget their religious duty – and to sacrifice their religious freedom – when they enter the office.
This is the internet site informing US citizens about the rally (multiple locations) planned for te 23 of March.
It also gathers the war cries of those non-Catholics who rightly perceive the issue is one of religious freedom, and impinges on their own freedom directly and dramatically, if not immediately.
It has been often observed – famously, by G K Chesterton – that when people stop believing in God, they start believing in pretty much everything else.
The fact is, on the one hand man has a need for belonging to some sort of faith (from the football club, to the political affiliation); on the other hand, a non indifferent part of the human race has an irrepressible desire to: a) feel that they are “good” and b) let you know it.
Again, as in Italian this is particularly obvious to me, because in Anglo-Saxon countries you see things whose existence you would not easily justify in Italy.
The invasion of vegetarians is an example. In country when people believe in God, they know animals are there to give us nourishment, and no one has a problem with a cow landing on his plate at dinner. Until 20 years ago, the infrastructure for vegetarians did not even exist, and those of that “faith” (foreigners, of course) not only had huge problems in following their creed, but were invariably followed by the mockery of the Italians: nice people, but people full of common sense, and not really into the “sensitive” thing.
It got worse of course, and now you have “vegans”, and even “fruitarians”, and who knows how many other varieties. I wonder whether they think they are better than Jesus? Still, I wouldn’t say vegetarianism damages the economy, and what they do not spend at the butcher they will probably spend in other activities like, say, clothes from stress-free sheep and the like.
Then there are the animal welfare nutcases, another category simply non-existent where people believe in God. These can reach such level of fanaticism to wage personal wars of terror against scientists involved in medical research involving animals, to the point that the attractiveness of such locations and careers was seriously ut into question, which was the stated aim of the animal nazis. As a result, the destruction of valuable know-how and a great damage to the UK as a location for medical research was before us, before Government and justice finally opened their eyes and started to seriously deal with their terrorism.
But then there is another category of “faithful” which is even more dangerous: the environmentalists. The latter are ready to believe that the world is going to the dogs the day after tomorrow, and that this is because of all those who have all they can’t afford. As a result, they proceed to the strangulation of the economy which produces the wealth they are so painfully excluded from (make no mistake: the dominant sin of the environmentalist is most often envy) and at the same time put themselves on the pedestal as the examples everyone should follow. A bit like the “occupy” people; but washed, and without the rapists.
These people seriously damage the economy, pressing for the political power to put burdens on the economy to try to reach elusive, fully unrealistic and, most of all, cretinous target of co2 emissions. Only look at the damage made in places like California, where a spate of environ-mentalist legislation has caused a great exodus of manufacturing industry, certainly not a problem for people thinking you can leave of biological chocolate cake production but a problem for all those with a brain in their heads.
The same we have seen, in a not less dramatic way, in the UK. Record taxation on fuel (justified with the necessity to “save the planet”) which is now seriously damaging small entrepreneurs, increasing taxation on flights (always to save the planet) and even the absolutely mad attempt of the former mayor of London, “Jim Beam” Livingstone, to tax 20% of the car park £25 pounds a day with the excuse of the “Chelsea tractors” suddenly killing the planet all show what happens when people stop believing in God and starts believing in the next madness which lets them feel oh so good, or less of a failure. In the end all these “isms” (vegetarianism, environmentalism, animal welfare activism) can be traced to the same root, a lack of faith in God which creates the need for new religions.
One day, of course, people slowly begin to wake up and decide they will not be the hostage of a minority of idiots, happily used by the government to increase taxation without too much opposition.Beautiful, but the damage is already done, and the idiots are already thinking what problems they can make next.
Contrast this with Italy: compared with the UK, to all intents and purposes no vegetarians, no vegans, no fruitarians, no environmentalists, no animalism nutcases, no vocal homonazis and feminazis. Just normal people, really. People who will not hesitate to tell one he has a screw loose, and will laugh at the accusation of being “insensitive”. Of Course Italians aren’t perfect (no, not even I 😉 ) and I could talk with you very long about the structural issue in the Italian way off thinking. But this kind of fanaticism is, at least, blessedly absent.
This is because o the whole, Italy still is a solidly Christian country, not much appreciative of alternative religions.
Unless it is to have a laugh.
“There has never been a conviction politician, an insurgent Christian conservative, who has won this many (primaries) since Ronald Reagan in 1976,”
I think this passage of a Washington Post article well gives the idea of what is happening (for those who were too young, in 1976 Ronald Reagan fought an extremely strong campaign, in the end losing against Gerald Ford for a handful of delegates. Gerald Ford was, must be remembered, the President), and it appears to me that Santorum is rapidly gaining not only momentum, but mainstream credibility. As the money keeps flowing – though certainly in small measure compared to the Romney aircraft carrier; apparently Romney has outspent Santorum 10 to 1 up to now and still can’t close the game, this really says it all) and Santorum gains more and more TV time and media attention, he is seen as a real alternative rather than the flag candidate. I must say I am surprised; extremely pleasantly surprised as this always was my favourite candidate, though I thought – with most others, I must say – he would be massacred after the first success in Ohio, which for me was already a miracle and something to thank God for.
We are now – incredibile dictu – at nine victories, and counting. Whilst the largely proportional system puts the concept of “victory” in perspective, I think it is fair to say Santorum is now the number one opponent of Romney, and Gingrich a strong third contender but nothing more than that.
It seems to me Gingrich is unwittingly helping Romney, and his rather stubborn decision to go all the way to Tampa – or so at least does he say now – might, even with the proportional system in place, help Romney to the nomination as a clear “non-Romney” does not emerge or, at least, does not translate in enough delegates to stop him.
What I also find notable is the enthusiasm with which Evangelicals support Santorum. What at the beginning might have looked like a sympathy vote for a nice, outright Christian candidate is now rapidly becoming all-out organisational and financial support. Kudos to them. Let’s hope Santorum will inflame so many of them that the one or other decides to convert…. 😉
I might be wrong (again) but at the moment I’d say the biggest obstacle in front of a non-Romney nomination is Gingrich, who is doing too well to force him to retire his candidature, but at the moment not well enough to compete with Santorum. If he decided to leave, methinks the clear alternative Romney-Santorum would mobilise the party to choose the Republican candidate (pun intended), but if he stays he might drain precious blood from Santorum’s campaign and, in fact, aid the nomination of a man he doesn’t like a bit.
We will see how this pans out. I find Santorum’s ascent exhilarating, and as he has proved me wrong in his ability to attract enough Republican candidates, he could prove me wrong again in his ability to attract the vote of mainstream America; at least considering that mainstream America would still confronted with the thought that the alternative to Santorum would be another four years of Obama.
Reblog of the day
After reading this CNS story titled “interfaith leaders denounce anti-islamic actions, call for cooperation” (with the explicit reference to the questionable, but absolutely non-violent Koran-burning exercise planned by a small ecclesial community in Florida) I can’t avoid noticing the double standard.
When Muslim violence (I mean here people being killed, not American flags burned) simultaneously erupts in several parts of the (Muslim) world, the accent of the Western press is generally on the offence created to Muslims, but I can’t recall any massive call to Muslim countries to stop becoming violent every time there’s something they don’t like. They basically say “this cartoon creates violence” or “burning Korans create violence”.
Wrong. Violent people create violence. Cartoons may be in bad taste, but they are not violent. The pathetic attempt to construe cartoon-publishing and koran-burning as “violence” (pathetically espoused by a Muslim chap yesterday evening on the…
View original post 281 more words
First the bad news. Besides squandering the money of honest, hard-working, mainly Western taxpayers with its own apparatus, that scrounger monster called “United Nations” also has – apparently – external “human rights organisations” as “consultants”. Some part of me wants to hope these people are not paid or remunerated in any way, but you can judge for yourself how probable this is.
In order – and this is when the fun part begins – to understand how these organisations work, you can read here that one of those “human rights” organisations (name already forgotten; thank God) decided Dante should be removed from school curricula because racist, homophobic and, of course, offensive to Muslims.
The Divina Commedia is a mainstay of the Italian curriculum. In certian types of school (“Liceo Classico”) you’ll have to get through the entire work word for word, and I mean seriously, during a three-year cycle. I did it, and my father before me. We both do not regret a minute of the time.
The more affectionate readers of this little effort will perhaps remember a blog post I wrote some time ago about when Dante met Mohammed. Il Divino Poeta was not really known for mincing his words, and if you click the link you’ll see what he thought of heretics and, in particular, fraudulent and blasphemous child rapists (Yes. I am talking of Mohammed. If you are scandalised, though. You may console yourself clicking here and I hope you’ll enjoy at least the image). On Mohammed and Dante (and Christianity in general) I have written my own considerations in the above mentioned blog post and will therefore not repeat myself here.
What I find notable in the matter is the following:
1) Dante was undoubtedly a devout Christian and proper Catholic. He would be recognised as such in every age. Depressingly, the head of the Italian teachers’ association says Dante must not be judged with the standards of today. Well in a very general sense this is obvious, but what the man misses is that Christian standards do not change and Dante was, without doubt, much fitter in his knowledge of the latter than most inhabitants of the earth today.
2) The already forgotten UN-maintained organisation got a bit of popularity, or at least notoriety. But they squandered it immediately. To complain that Dante defines homosexuality against nature is a masterpiece of stupidity. It is like complaining that one calls the water wet.
Decidedly, thinking is becoming an optional.
3) In an unprecedented show of common sense, even some (name never really read) Italian faggot organisation decided there’s too much political correctness in this. They do it, I suspect, because in Italy Dante is not very far below the Blessed Virgin, and to touch him is like playing with high voltage cables whilst drenched. Still, I feel “good” today (must be the mention of the UN. I always feel so good when I read about their initiatives to improve humanity) and want to attribute this intervention to real common sense rather than to the obvious impossibility of hysterically bitching against Dante in a country like Italy.
So, that was that. I hope this glimpse of PC-madness was instructive. I certainly think it was entertaining.
We have been all bored to death in the last days with the fantasy tale about the 98% of the Catholic women apparently using contraceptives. We have, also, been amused by the strange theories according to which this, provided it was true, would be proof that the Church is wrong on the matter.
Theology by democracy. Very funny. What’s next? Elective bishops? Priestesses? Communion to dogs? Homo marriages?
But really, as a person raised up in a Catholic country and then moved here in Blighty, I can clearly see the differences between Catholic and… wrong thinking on this and many other matters.
In Catholic Countries, it is not that people do not behave wrongly. Of course they do. The big difference is that in those Countries people know they are sinning and are intelligent enough not to try to persuade themselves they aren’t.This creates the well-known phenomenon of the Anglo-Saxon speechless at how Southern Europeans get along with their sins, which leads them to believe they just do not care. They do care, my dear boy/girl/transgender Proddie. They care, very probably, much more than you’ll ever do on your saintliest day! They simply accept that they will never stop sinning more than the sun will stop shining. It’s not about being more sinful; its about being wiser.
Different is, it seems to me, the traditional approach in Protestant countries. Here, strong veins of puritanism run through the country, even among those who don’t really care for religion. Sin is, actually, not accepted in the sense that it must be obliterated. Therefore, the puritanical oriented will ruin their lives in the vain – nay, childish – attempt to overcome their sinfulness through a straight jacket of extremely severe prohibition, and general severity of demeanour. The others – nowadays, the vast majority – will solve the problem obliterating the sin, and deciding the Holy Ghost has now told them pretty much everything goes, provided you love Jesus and don’t kick the cat.
The ones likes the others can simply not live with the simple, human, Catholic concept of just knowing that by all our effort we will never stop sinning, because sinfulness is attached to us like breath and the one will only cease when the other does. The first will try to kill their sinfulness killing joy of life and common humanity in the process; the second will act after the motto: If you can’t win it, abolish it.
This being the mentality, it is not entirely surprising – though not less stupid – there should be people around thinking if Catholic women use contraception, it means they think it is right to do so. Please!
The reality is, of course, the opposite of this funny theory. Whilst many Catholic will not be entirely aware of the sinfulness of contraception, vast numbers of them will be aware of it at some level, a level which – due to their dismal catechesis – never becomes more than a discomfort at knowing oneself at variance with the Church, but seldom becomes rebellion because the Church is at variance with them.
We are all sinners, and we are all weak. We continue to do what we know we should not do, and this we do because we are wretched sinners. As we become better instructed, a life of prayer slowly induces us to look with horror today at our failings of yesteryear; but it is a very gradual process, and a process which generally starts in earnest only when people go back to regular Mass attendance and generally ends only at death. Outside of this circle, disobedience to Church teaching is seen with no more than discomfort readily set aside and not really worrying, like the child who steals the marmalade and knows stealing is wrong, but still refuses to see himself as dishonest, and to recognise his act as theft.
Still, most children will say to you it is “somewhat” wrong to steal marmalade, and only a very small minority of Catholics will dare to tell you they are better judges of Catholic rules than the Church.
The Proddies don’t get this, and the liberals don’t get pretty much anything else so I am not surprised. In their world, one can’t be a wretched sinner: either they stop being sinners or the sin must stop being a sin; not in the theological sense of course, but in the way they approach the problem in everyday life. Thus, the abortionist “bishopesses” (Episcopalians), the homo bishops, and the catalogue of assorted madnesses, next in line the so-called homosexual marriages and one day, who knows, euthanasia.
The liberals do not even have the cultural means to understand the Catholic thinking. They apply to Catholic thinking their own utterly flawed reasoning patterns. They can’t conceive someone admitting himself guilty, when they themselves obviously never are. They know nothing of wanting to be strong enough, and failing to do it. They cannot even conceive that a person might do what is wrong, and know it is wrong. Hey, if put in the same situation they would just decide it is not wrong anymore! So there, Catholics think the Church should change Her rules on contraception!
This is the internet site informing US citizens about the rally (multiple locations) planned for te 23 of March.
It also gathers the war cries of those non-Catholics who rightly perceive the issue is one of religious freedom, and impinges on their own freedom directly and dramatically, if not immediately.
Reblog of the day
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…
View original post 874 more words
On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.
I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.
On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.
On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.
Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.
In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:
‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,…………‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’
The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.
Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.
Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.