Monthly Archives: May 2012
This blog post from Queen Of Martyrs Press is now everywhere, but I think the excitement is very probably undeserved.
I do not read the letter that you can see by clicking on the link as saying that Mass attendance at an SSPX chapel is now not in order anymore.
If you read the letter attentively, you will see the question is very short and very dangerous:
[…] would a Catholic fulfill his Mass obligation by assisting at Holy Mass by attending this “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel called __________ Roman Catholic Church in _______,_______?
Mind: a “chapel” of “friends” of the SSPX. Now by definition a friend of the SSPX is not a member of the SSPX. If a priest is a member he is a member, not a “friend of”.
Who are, then, these “friends” of the SSPX? For what we – and the CDF – know, it can be any sedevacantist group on earth, as I assume many of those – and many of those attending by them, possibly in perfect good faith – would define themselves without any great difficulty as “friends” of the SSPX. Are they enemies of the SSPX? Certainly not. Do they think they would refuse an invitation to lunch from an SSPX priest? I don’t think so. Granted, you will find Sedevacantists saying they are not friends of the SSPX because they support a usurper etc., but in real life I think it far more probable even the majority of Sedevacantists would express their disagreement with the SSPX, but still consider them “friends”. This is in my eyes confirmed by the well-known episode of Archbishop Lefebvre adopting the Missal of 1962 to avoid having the SSPX chapels invaded by Sedevacantists, a clear sign the SSPX’s acceptance of the Pope as the head of the Church would not have stopped the Sedevacantist “friends” of the SSPX from filling their pews!
Now put yourselves in the shoes of the members of the CDF who had to answer the question as it was posed: if they had answered yes, a simple open claim of friendship with the SSPX would have been enough to consider the attendance at such masses fulfilment of the Sunday mass obligation.
Is it so surprising the CDF answered the question in the negative?
EDIT: from Rorate, the confirmation from the US District of the SSPX the chapel in question (deleted in the letter, but known to them and clearly to the CDF) is not among their “friends”. Therefore, they simply call themselves – or were called by the writer of the letter – in that way. Which is, understandably, not enough. Even if they had been, I would still say there is a difference for a faithful Catholic whether he attends to a SSPX chapel or to a chapel of friends, but not part of the order.
What about the price of a cinema ticket?
Too much to ask?
Remember, folks: the three days starting on Friday are decisive.
On Monday it will be too late.
And yes, everyone else has things to do, too… 😉
EDIT: The press has already started dissing this movie as too Catholic, and spitting the usual hate. As I write, the critics (ok, you’ll say they are irrelevant; perhaps they are, perhaps they aren’t…) on rotten tomatoes only give it 4.5/10.
Please, please help give them a lesson!
EDIT II: As the weekend starts on the East Coast, please please please twit the link of the movie to all your friends and acquaintances! Put it in your blog! Tell everyone you are going to see this movie! Go to see the movie and tell encourage others to do the same! On Monday it might be too late!
Benedict XVI’s decision regarding the return of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to the full communion of the Church will take place from now up to the end of the month of May 2012, Vatican sources close to the dossier have indicated to I.MEDIA.
It would almost appear the “Vatican source close to the dossier” was, basically, the valet (whom the press insists in calling “butler”) Paolo Gabriele…
I am joking, of course, but it certainly seems we will have to live with this further period of waiting, as there has been no formal decision or commitment of the Holy Father to decide within the month.
If you ask me, this is another piece of rather questionable Vatican (internal) diplomacy. It being squarely inconceivable that the Pope has not made up his mind about the matter – and barely conceivable that he may have wilfully misled Bishop Fellay into thinking Fellay’s reply to the preambolo was fine with him – what I think is happening is a reprise of a well-known Papal tactic: the delaying of a momentous decision to make clear to the opponents their objections have been taken into account and attentively considered.
This is, if memory serves, what happened in 2007 with the long-awaited decision which then became Summorum Pontificum, and I remember reading that Paul VI reacted in the same way to the famous (and reported on this blog: as always, please use the search function if you are interested) Ottaviani intervention, merely delaying what he wanted to do anyway. Basically, it seems a way to soothe the feeling of the losers by letting them feel they are not neglected.
I am at a loss to understand how this may soothe any wound, rather than encourage the wounded to fight harder. I am also unable to see how the long wait for Summorum Pontificum made the opposition to it less bitter.
Still, not my rules.
I think at this point we must arm ourselves with patience and prayers, whilst remaining confident things will, in the end, adjust.
Reblog of the day
The strange almost human-looking chap above is, very probably, what will give the Pro-Life Army final victory in the battle against abortion. It is an ultra-sound machine, and it allows to see a baby in the womb with a clearness never experienced before by the vast public.
In societies like the Western ones, where technological innovations are massively applied to the field of medicine and rapidly spread to everyday life, it is unavoidable that this machine will, in time, make more and more mothers truly, emotionally aware of what happens when they abort.
Every blathering of “reproduction rights” must surely pale, when a small human being is visible on a screen not three feet away from you. Every argument of “right to choose” must surely be exposed as cruelly selfish, when it is clear that this supposed right is to choose to kill a human life clearly, indisputably existent.
View original post 140 more words
“There’s no difference between killing a fetus in the mother’s womb and killing someone after birth,”
These are the (true) words of the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan. Erdogan’s clear positioning on the matter seem to have “prompted” his government to examine new anti-abortion legislation. If the strong man of the Government takes such a strong position, there is little doubt the matter will end if not with an abortion ban, with a clear improvement on the present situation. Already a reduction from the actual ten weeks to four weeks would actually, if seriously enforced, start looking somewhat similar to a ban.
In case you would think, though, that Erdogan can lead the way, please reflect what his – also rather outspoken – health minister has declared:
“There are similar laws that have been passed in many societies in the West in the same vein. Now that is what we are working on, too. This has a place among our values, for one. This cannot be permitted. May God forbid, things such as threat of death are a different matter.”
I have reported on similar initiatives in the Ukraine (which I would hesitate in calling “West”) and Poland (which I would not), and it is clear there is an aggressive pro-life movement in the United States. Be it as it may, it is nice to see a powerful minister of a Muslim countries mentions the West as at the forefront of the movement.
Some say Erdogan is only trying to distract the attention from other internal matters, but I wonder whether such a controversial issue would be the right way to patch a short-term crisis. It is in my eyes more likely Erdogan & Co. want to tackle the matter seriously.
Well done, and let us hope this becomes a rather strict law able to inspire the less perverted among the European governments.
On the usual Rorate Caeli (Good Lord! Where would we all be without them!?) a very interesting excerpt from an article dealing with issues of governance (or we would say: proper administration) in the Vatican.
I note in this article the mentality present in so many commentaries concerning the Vatican: the responsibility is apportioned pretty much everywhere, but where it belongs. Which is, of course, in flagrant violation of the very principles of governance that are discussed. Put in more simple words, the expression “the buck stops here” seems to be simply unknown in the Papal chambers, and never heard of in the Vatican corridors, or among Vatican commentators.
The first example of this unfortunate thinking is the “explanation” that after V II, the Vatican machinery has become more complicated, with the numerous “committees” now dealing with pretty much everything (and being effective in pretty much nothing) and the Secretary of State reduced to be an arbiter and “team manager” rather than a decider.
These discussions all forget a very important factor: reality. If the Vatican’s human dynamics are in anything similar to every other government’s on the planet (which, make no mistake, they are), the committees are there exclusively in order to be perceived as doing something whilst doing nothing, and there is no way one can become I do not say Pope, but coach of the parish football team without understanding this very clearly.
The idea, therefore, the Pope be “prisoner” of a structure he has inherited is a typical example of bad governance: those responsible are exonerated from any responsibility, whilst the problems are considered as a given, or as caused by someone else.
This is even more evident in another rather enlightening phrase of the interviewed expert, Father Levillain, in the simple assumption that it be not possible today to do what the great Pope Pius XII once did, namely: to be at the same time Pope and Secretary of State.
This astonishing utterance completely neglects another great division in everyday life, self-evident to everyone who has worked in a halfway complex organisation: the one between the talkers and the doers. The talkers are those who create – or happily live with – the committees; the doers are those who are not afraid to take responsibility, and to let all the world know they (not a committee, that is: an alibi) are in charge, and will be answerable for what they do. Pope Pius XII, a doer as few others, was a classic example. This was a man not afraid of infallibly proclaiming a dogma, just think how much time he would have had for all the committees of the modern Curia…
Another – not very savoury – aspect of the interview is the rather questionable attempt – morally as well as practically – to apportion the guilt of the undoubtedly bad governance in the Vatican to… the dead.
Please realise John Paul II died more than seven years ago: this is a longer time than any of the two World Wars, and a time long enough to completely re-do the Vatican administration not one, but several times. Besides eluding the simple problem of…reality, the argument has a huge logical flaw: if it is not in the power of a Pope to change things, one cannot proclaim anyone guilt of the present problems. If – as it is logical – it is, then one cannot blame JP II without automatically apportion the greater blame to the one who has been in charge the last seven years. The reality is, few – and possibly: no one – men on Earth have the power of a Pope: not even a President of the United States could re-mould the entire structure of his government and state apparatus without need to get consent from every possible quarter, and not even the most ruthless Middle-Eastern dictator could do so without fear for his safety and life. The Pope is the most powerful man on earth – and I mean here from a purely secular point of view – bar none, and his responsibility when the structures don’t work should be measured accordingly or, at least, not apportioned somewhere else.
The (alas: very human) reality is that whilst some are strong leaders, some saintly men and some good theologians, very few get to achieve excellence in all three fields. Pope Pius XII was an extraordinary man – a man clearly put by the Almighty in a very delicate position at a very delicate time – in that he was great in all three fields; but his successors were certainly – at least, those who lived long enough – clearly deficient in one or more of them.
Pope Benedict runs the risk of being remembered as the Pope who revoked the excommunication for Bishop Williamson without even knowing all the controversies the latter was involved in; who managed to have his most private drawers sniffed by those he trusted most; who continued to appoint extremely bad bishops to appeased the local hierarchies; and who discovered himself totally unable to act against openly heretical Bishops and/or Cardinals, because he had some sympathy for them. By all the merits of his pontificate (Summorum Pontificum comes to mind and, bigger still, the imminent reconciliation with the SSPX, certainly the crown of this papacy) one can’t say his was an example of good governance tout court, much less of strong leadership in the style of a Pius XII.
Mind, I am not saying he is a bad Pope. He is, in fact, probably as good as a Pope who lived the Council as a “conciliar father” could be. I merely find it more than vaguely questionable when it is simply assumed whenever something goes wrong the responsibility must be looked for pretty much everywhere – even in coffins – but where it most obviously lies.
I know the BBC is not what it used to be, but I read today if found sane the man risks, incredibile dictu, full twenty-one years in jail. That’s the same one gets in Italy for a “standard” homicide.
Now let us make some simple calculations: the man is around 33 now. Add 21 to the 33 and he has freedom at 55 as his worst case scenario. Best case is, of course, he is declared insane, spending his 21 years (or more) in some comfortable hospital, surrounded by creature comforts and an aura of heroism among those ready to see in him a paladin of some mad Nazi cause.
He will then, very probably, still be a free man in his mid-fifties, and his statistical life expectancy will be counted in decades; that is, a much longer time than the majority of his victims had lived. He will probably make some not inconsiderable money writing memoirs for the morbidly curious and the Neonazis; but even if he won’t, the Norwegian nanny state will throw further money on him allowing him to live in relative comfort out of the taxpayer’s purse.
If he has been in jail – which in a Country like Norway must be a radically different experience than, say, in the Guantanamo prison – he will be, erm, hailed as a victim and a martyr by the other nutcases; if he has been in hospital, he will be celebrated as a smart guy who has outsmarted the system for many years and is preparing to do the same for the rest of his life.
He might, of course, stay in hospital indefinitely, but seriously: a) how likely is that, and b) would this be really so bad for him?
Clearly, people like Breivik have such an inflated, deformed ego that the feeling of notoriety and admiration – make no mistake, this is what he will get from those nearly as nuts as himself – will easily compensate for the lack – for only a fraction of his life expectancy – of a freedom which must be to him less valuable than the desire of self-aggrandisement. Breivik got a kick for his ego to last him for the rest of his days; he knew that, and lucidly accepted to pay the price.
Whilst this is obviously an ideological nut case, I can’t imagine him as mad. Evil is not mad, and can be very lucid. It is clear everything is going according to his calculations; he knew what expected him and is now going to ride the tsunami of social workers for the rest of his imprisonment/hospital days.
On the other side, we have the Norwegian justice system. A hugely expensive trial. A certainly controversial sentence. The alternative between a couple of decade in jail, surrounded by many comforts and the attention of countless taxpayer-financed social workers, and a possibly even longer permanence in a hospital, surrounded by even more comforts and even more social workers. Years of confinement during which he will feel a hero, and after which he might get comfortably provided for.
This is, clearly, the result of a system which has a problem in even admitting evil can exist, let alone exist on such a scale, and is desperately trying to put Breivik’s behaviour within the usual comfortable box of an ill-guided person who can, of course, be reformed.
If the Norwegian public opinion decides the man is pure evil, they will have to wake up to the existence of evil, and confront their own ideological blindness. If they decide the man is mad, they will make a mockery of themselves in front of the entire planet for, possibly, many decades to come.
All this is not surprising from a country which cannot even conceive the death penalty, and might give Breivik the ride of (literally) a lifetime, but is in the first line among the countries trying to impose abortion everywhere. This is what happens when a country reduces Christianity to a mockery, and starts thinking in a pure secular way. They have created their own Breiviks, and will now have to live with – and pay for – the consequences.
Take it from me: Breivik is evil, but not mad. He is, actually, rather smart, in the way a Himmler was smart.
The Norwegians, on the other hand, are certifiably insane.
I always feel slightly embarrassed and a bit awkward when writing “please pray for this or that”.
Firstly, it has something sanctimonious, as one should actually already be aware that people do pray, particularly in case of events with vast media echo, without the need of anyone’s prompting; secondly, because every day is heavy with tragedies all over the planet, and it seems very media-driven to pick the tragedy which happens to be picked by radio and TV.
Still, as I am a human being and, as they say, my own toothache worries me more than the earthquake in China, I cannot avoid feeling more solidarity with the victim of today’s earthquake in Italy than I would with the other, unnamed and certainly even worse tragedies which have happened today.
Now, you might or might not have other toothaches, and you are very likely not to be Italian.
But I still dare to ask for a Hail Mary firstly for the victims, and secondly for those whose life has been affected by today’s events.
P.s. I personally am also reminded, in such cases, of the fact that much as we think technology, safety and doctors have everything under control, we still do not know the day or the hour. A sobering thought to carry with us by our night prayers.
Reblog of the day
Archbishop Gomez has accused Americans of being angry and “judgmental”, unloading on his poor listeners such a load of commonplaces and fashionable words that they must have thought themselves back in the early Seventies.
“Everywhere in our culture, people seem so quick to condemn. It is very hard to find words of mercy or understanding for someone who has done something wrong,” says the oh so understanding bishop; “many good people out there saying things they know they shouldn’t be saying”, he went on in a rather, well, judgmental way.
“People make mistakes. They sin. Some people do evil that causes scandal and grave harm. We can condemn the offense and work for justice — without trying to destroy the person who committed the sin,” says the bishop again and seems to have found some solid ground, but then forgets what he has just said by stating that “We…
View original post 872 more words
If you thought you knew how bitchy a fag can be, wait until you read this. In short, some homo-activists running the place (the place is, clearly, in San Francisco; I bet he/she/it votes Pelosi) has decided that “any celebration of straight marriage” is banned. Basically, perverts are supposed to be the only one who have right to “celebrate” what they (being pervs) call marriage.
This is not even the stupid – and to be refused, erm, straight – idea that marriage as God intended and that abominable parody attempted by perverts be “equal”. We are already beyond that. This is the idea that there is only one marriage worthy of celebration, and it is the non-existent one.
I am tempted to tell you where I think these people have their brains.
Of course, I must also disagree with the idea of the author of the article, who has no problem with what the wannabe girls are doing.
I have. I can’t imagine a Christian society “ok with perversion” and if it must be that we Catholics have to live with such abominations until the time comes when sanity prevails and sodomy laws are reintroduced (astonishingly, this appears to be now a very naughty things to say; two thousand years of Christianity look at us and cry), this does not mean we are ok with it. Freedom can only exist within the boundaries God has given us, and freedom of this kind has simply no right to exist.
I thought I was an unapologetic man, but this is truly good…
1) Log in your Facebook account
2) Find the Starbucks account (extremely easy).
3) Send a very short message: like “forget me as a client as long as you continue to encourage sexual perversion and to attack Christianity”. No gentle words. The brutal truth.
How long will it take? One minute? Ninety seconds?
Hardly ninety seconds, really…
P.s. Thanks RM, text corrected; hopefully right this time…
I never understood the argument that if the SSPX is reconciled, it will stop acting as they always did. This thinking seems in my eyes to consider that the SSPX never was in what the Vatican calls “full communion”, or that once it wasn’t anymore this constituted a sort of improvement.
If you ask me, the SSPX just does not work that way: they are now what they were forty years ago, and when this reconciliation comes they will be reconciled exactly as they were forty years ago, and will not be a iota “softer” because of it.
If you want another confirmation, please read the excellent excerpt of Bishop Fellay’s Pentecost speech on the usual Rorate Caeli.
A casual observer, who had just been informed the SSPX and the Vatican are very near reconciliation, would be nothing less than astounded at the tones chosen by Bishop Fellay. Please consider this is a man of some diplomatic talent, not an emotional steamroller flattening everything on his path. The words he uses, he has chosen carefully.
You can read in every word a very clear intention of showing – to his own troops of course, and by reflex to the entire Catholic world – that the SSPX is not going to change anything in the way they operate. This is what they have always made clear, by the way, so that if anyone in the Vatican has nurtured some illusions of making the SSPX “house trained” by the means of the reconciliation, he must blame himself for the mistake.
This man is made, if you ask me, of the stuff great Popes are made of: prudent but firm; patient but clear; never closing any door, but never allowing anyone to let him in from the servants’ entrance.
I can’t imagine a better shepherd for the SSPX.
A sadly interesting article on the Catholic News Service. The article deals with something I have not lived, but some of the older and wiser of my readers might recollect; the “adoption” of a “pagan baby” encouraged in past decades.
I can’t see anything wrong, anything at all, with converting to Christianity pagan (as in: pagan) babies; but this is obviously not really good nowadays, in the era of the 12-lanes way to heaven only closed to Dr Goebbels and (many would have told you in the past; not for long, I think….) Archbishop Lefebvre.
Father Small, national director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in the United States, does “not apologise” (how brave is that, uh?) for the past campaigns, but he clearly takes the distance from the tones and the spirit of the initiative:
“We can smile at it now at perhaps how silly it was,” says the good father, feeling so superior to those generations of good Christian children sincerely depriving themselves of what was at the time much more scarce than today to help a pagan (as in: pagan) baby to grow up as a Christian. You can, in fact, clearly taste in him the same airs of smug superiority he (clearly, if implicitly) accuses past generations of having. Father also talks of “apparent condescending tones at times”, which might appear an unbiased comment if it had not come from the one who has just reflected on “how perhaps silly” the entire exercise was.
In fact, what the good priest does is to stress the good that was meant by those poor insensitive Catholics obsessed with a white (or westerner) sense of moral superiority but in the end desirous to do some good. We, the post-hell generation, look at them with a mixture of self-satisfied sadness and condescending sympathy.
To give you an idea of how bad the situation is, and how secular ideas have now infiltrated every small expression of Catholicism, please note the following passage (emphasis mine):
“Through their action the proclamation of the Gospel also becomes an intervention on behalf one’s neighbor, justice for the poorest, possibility of education in the most remote villages, medical aid in isolated places, emancipation from poverty and rehabilitation for the marginalized, overcoming ethnic divisions and respect for life in all its stages,” Archbishop Vigano said.
The good archbishop knows evangelisation isn’t really cool nowadays. In order to validate what the Church does you must always, always mix it with the deities of modern times: social justice, education, health, wealth, and the likes. You see here the “proclamation of the gospel” is clearly reduced to a side effect, and its salutary effect is not even explained: what is put in the centre is the worldly result of the activity.
This is something which never ceases to anger me of the modern “work” of Catholic hierarchies:
1) the continuous need to let you feel everything they do is linked to V II (cue the JP II Catechism, made unwieldy and impractical from the endless notes, all meant to show you NuChurch is behind everything they say) and (particularly evident here)
2) the uninterrupted need to show you the Church is “engaged” in pretty much everything but what should be her primary practical task: the salvation of souls.
The words of the Archbishop are a short explanation of everything that is wrong with the Church of today: the desire to be friends with the world by substituting the church’s world for the world’s. Hey, look at how “social” Jesus was! And he loved the environment so000 much!
Even the expression “pagan babies” is now a no-no and Father Small does not seem to care to explain to us why this should be so: where I grew up a baby without Christ was a pagan baby, and the fact was as hard as it was incontrovertible (and yes: this nowadays includes a number of our relatives, friends and neighbours; Pagans all of them, babies included: may God have mercy of us all…). Not so in the post- V II, “the Holy Ghost does all the job”-Church, where the phrase “an appellation that would never be used today” is used to describe a factual truth so self-evident that it does not even need an explanation.
Mala tempora currunt. Decidedly, the reconciliation of the SSPX – and with it, hopefully, the possibility to act more effectively against the errors of neo-Modernism – cannot happen a day too soon.
From the UK site of the SSPX:
a) the press release of the Vatican Press Office
Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:
“As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.
In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.
Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly”
Last Updated ( Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:48 )
b) the comment of the Society’s District Superior of Italy:
Comment by Fr Pierpaolo Petrucci SSPX, District Superior of Italy
on the CDF Press release :
“…the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made public today (May 16) a press communique. In the text, on the one hand, the will is displayed of moving forward in “further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X”, on the other, it is affirmed, in reference to the letter of the three bishops, that, “regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly”.
“This way of acting clearly manifests the intention of dividing our Priestly Society in its highest representatives. For this reason, we invite all the friends and faithful to intensify their prayers and, in particular, the Holy Rosary, in the Crusade called by our Superior, so that the Society of Saint Pius X may remain united in the battle against the errors infiltrated in the Church.
Fr. Pierpaolo Maria Petrucci
I leave it to the readers to make an opinion as to the degree of plausibility of Father Petrucci’s reflections. I for myself have no doubts.
Some of you know – and the others will soon know – how the cinema distribution in the US works.
Basically, many films have one weekend to show if they can survive. In the brutal war for cinema screens – and with the expectation of the screen owners not to waste resources on unsuccessful movies – three days (the Friday, Saturday and Sunday) may be all the opportunity you have to see a movie in the cinema theatre.
When the money is counted and the movie was a disappointment (an awful lot of movies are, though certainly they are not as bad as this disaster here) it generally disappears from the big distribution, and the producers will try to make some money (generally: to recover the costs) from the foreign markets and the DVD/online distribution. But the US market is king for both influence and sheer numbers, and if a movie production does not work in the US the probabilities of it becoming an international success are limited. Sometimes, a movie is discovered when it is, so to speak, too late: “Scarface” became a cult long after having bombed, and the beautiful “Reservoir dogs” (you see how unbiased I am… 😉 ) gave Tarantino more praise than money at the time. We don’t want this to happen in this case, I hope…
You will be surprised to know the movie industry is not really dissimilar from the publishing one: like most books, the majority of film productions actually lose money, and like in the book industry the game is to contain the losses on the majority, and to hope to land a big success every now and then when it goes well.
With these premises, you can understand how brave Andy Garcia & Co. are in putting their money in a venture not directly linked to any topic which “moves” the American public opinion. Unless, of course, it be the issue of religious freedom.
“For greater Glory” (the title of the movie previously known with the provisional name of “Cristiada”) plays its cards on the 1,2 and 3 June. This is not a mammoth movie, and may have a more exclusive distribution with, perhaps, a more lenient evaluation time. But there is no denying if the weekend is bad the movie risks to disappear from the US cinema screens straight away.
It is, therefore, in my eyes very important that my very esteemed US-American readers:
1) seriously consider seeing the movie during the weekend of the 1-2-3 June, as even the following weekend might be too late;
2) spread the words among family, friends and colleagues, and
3) If they are bloggers, drum this movie as they think fit.
I do not know how big the distribution will be, but Andy Garcia being rather a name I’d say many will not have to travel too far to cast their vote for Catholicism and religious freedom, because this is what it is all about.
I also hope the Protestant machine – which worked so well with “The Passion of the Christ” – will mobilise again, but in the end I think it is Catholics who should be the first to put their money where their religious freedom is.
If this movie is successful – certainly not like the “Passion” was successful, but successful in a way the political world takes notice – this will contribute to shift the attention of the public opinion to what should be the main theme of the 2012 Presidential campaign: freedom.
Please consider casting your vote at the ballot of the cinema till. A vote for religious freedom, a vote against he liberal Hollywood machine, a vote against the rhetoric of emasculating “peaaaace” at all costs, a vote for more movies of this kind to be produced in future, and a vote to allow many more people to understand more of Catholicism, and to admire those who chose to risk – or lose – their life for the Church.
The main headline of the trailer you see above really says it all: “When the Government outlawed Faith, the Faithful became outlaws”. I think this is very pertinent to the actual political debate. Also please think how many conversions could be engendered by a movie so clearly espousing the fight of brave, faithful people to defend Catholicism.
I wonder if I will ever see the movie in our cinema screens in old, tired, atheist, seriously confused Europe . I will certainly buy the DVD as soon as I can.
Please pray for this wonderful woman and her beautiful family.
Look at her eyes, her smile, her attitude.
What a wonderful mother.
Try not to cry, of course.
Though I know you’ll fail.
Reblog of the day
In keeping with the spirit of pacifist co-existence and tolerance of every abomination, every fanaticism and every attempt to undermine or destroy Christian values that is proving so beneficial to all of us, this Andrew Klavan video helps us to reach towards the more lively among our Muslim friends; through a series of easy-to-understand steps we are guided to embrace their different values and cultural climate and are therefore effectively helped to be better prepared for a peaceful outcome of our small disagreements.
Isn’t this beautiful?
Take this as Mundabor’s little contribution to the cause of peace in this days of Holy Week 2011.
To put it mildly, Hans Kueng does not age gracefully.
This vecchio malvissuto, who has thrown away his entire life (and, unless he repents, his soul) prowling about the world seeking the ruin of souls has now decided to burn the last bridge and, in two words, declare Pope Benedict’s papacy illegitimate if a reconciliation with the SSPX becomes reality.
As always, this blog will not say things half, and I must say that there are two scandals here:
1) a liberal madman going to always new extremes in his madness, and
2) a Catholic hierarchy utterly unable to punish in an exemplary manner anyone related to the Holy Father by way of friendship, or acquaintance, or former professional activity.
It is beyond belief that in 2012 this man has not been excommunicated. This is not meekness. This is cowardice, incompetence, and a huge scandal.
Every time some nut case like Kung speaks, others follow him, souls get lost, and Christians get confused. The fact this man is not allowed to teach anymore is an almost insignificant detail compared to what the entire planet clearly perceives: that this is a priest in good standing and has been so his entire life. Every time such things happen I wonder who will be judged more severely, the nutcase talking dangerous nonsense or the sane man who did not warn others of this danger, and whose job it was to do just that; then the particular menace with these people is that the nonsense apparent to an adequately instructed man sounds perfectly reasonable to those not taught to think properly.
If a couple of dozen hotheads among politicians and theologians were excommunicated, they would clearly not stop spreading their manure; but Catholics would not be confused, and the nutcases in question would soon fall into irrelevance like those occasional former bishops with wives, and other similar deluded cretins who make a couple of headlines for some days and are then considered too irrelevant even for the boulevard papers.
As it stands, the Church screams from the rooftops she is not interested in being taken seriously, in caring for good catechesis, and in protecting the simplest or least instructed among the faithful from such ravenous wolves.
Reblog of the 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.
Reblog of the day
If you want to make your worst to let your child grow with insecurities about his natural tendencies, you might consider moving to Sweden and sending him to Egalia, the taxpayer-funded preschool recently opened in Sweden.
At Egalia, every effort will be made to let your little boy grow up as a homosexual, and your little girl as a lesbian. These attempts will – nature being what it is – mostly fail, but the indoctrination of young minds and their introduction to sexual perversion from the tenderest age will not fail to show some effect anyway; moreover, even when you can’t ruin a child you can still hope to leave him with some more or less permanent damage.
The motivation for such exercise (which takes place, let us remember, in one of the most de-Christianised Countries on Earth) is the assumption that little boys get an “unfair advantage”, and…
View original post 674 more words
Catholic.net reports of an interesting point made by the Holy Father from his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo: the beauty and utility of having a special Saint.
“Each one should have a saint that is familiar to him, to whom he feels close with prayer and intercession, but also to imitate him or her. Hence, I would like to invite you to know the saints better, beginning with the one whose name you bear, by reading his life, his writings. You can be certain that they will become good guides to love the Lord ever more and valid aids for your human and Christian growth.”
Besides being a beautiful thought in itself, this exhortation of the Holy Father leads us to some rather sad reflections about the neglect of a proper cult of the Saints, still another poisoned fruit of Vatican II. In the desperate effort of the Church to…
View original post 270 more words
Part II of the video born of the CNS interview with Bishop Fellay is now out. You can see all of it above and as it goes on for little more than five minutes I suggest you invest the time.
My small considerations are as follows:
1) Look at how young, and motivated, those seminarians are. I wonder how many within the conciliar church have the same purity of intent. Some certainly have, but not many.
2) It is, if you ask me, no coincidence a mainstream outlet like the CNS exposes his readers/viewers to minutes of SSPX arguments without any counterpart; say, without the usual V II bishop saying to us how much they are in error, and perhaps schismatics. It truly means the CNS thinks the reconciliation is very near.
3) Note the very dry, realistic, absolutely beautiful attitude of the SSPX personnel regarding the reconciliation: beautiful if it happens, but we will not change. The rather open tones used in this interview (most certainly with the approval of Bishop Fellay) make it very clear not much will change within the SSPX should this reconciliation happen.
I looked at this brave people of God and realised – like, I am sure, many of you – I would rather have the SPPX not reconciled, than reconciled and muzzled or in any way whatsoever “sanitised”.
Perhaps not very interesting abroad (or not, as the case may be) but the Corriere has the story of the presumed talpa (the Germans say it in the same way: Maulwurf; that is: mole) within the Vatican. That would be no one else than the Pope’s valet.
I feel as if I were reading a P.G. Wodehouse novel in which it turns out Jeeves sold Bertie, and I mean really sold him, for vile money.
Still, we must on these occasions reflect that such scandals, when they happen, do not reflect very well on the person who had so spectacularly misplaced his trust. Even Bertie Wooster knew he could entirely trust Jeeves, and knew Jeeves would never have had the possibility of operating as Jeeves without having the full confidence of his friend and employer.
In our case, we still do not know whether Mr Gabriele was the one who gave information to the press, but apparently he was caught red-handed with extensive information he should not have had anyway.
O for a world where you can trust your Wooster to select your Jeeves. If a Wooster cannot select his own Jeeves – a person with whom he lives in strict contact every day; the first he talks to in the morning and the last he talks to before going to sleep; the one who shares with him unofficial meals; certainly a person of some confidence, and in an unofficial way of some influence, though certainly not nearly as much as the “real” Jeeves – how probable will it be that he makes even worse mistakes when selecting Bishops and Cardinals, and the people he listens to?
I stumbled upon the comments of an old blog post of mine, and you can read there some interesting comments about the way Catholics react when the Church is attacked.
The comments start from Shane’s (he of Lux Occulta; see also the link on my blogroll) fear the Papal visit of 2010 could have become a disaster because of the rabid anti-Catholic activity it would unleash (and was already unleashing), with myself espousing the opinion the Church actually thrives on this kind of confrontation.
In my eyes, it is fair to say the events of 2010 seem to support my own view: the Pope was welcomed by huge and enthusiastic crowds, and it is not far from reality to say at least some of those who attended were there as a reaction to the rabid anti-Catholic messages invariably launched from several media outlets; first of all, as always, the Broadcasting Basket-cases Corporation.
As I also noticed in the comment section, a similar phenomenon had happened in Easter 2010, when unusually strong attacks to the Church had caused the churches of the realm to be so packed as I had never seen before (or have ever seen since).
What do we conclude from this? Is this just a “gesture” people do to “feel good”, or is there something more profound at play?
If you ask me, episodes like Easter 2010 and the Papal visit the same year show us a very clear pattern: many Catholics feel uneasy with their own relationship with the Church. They do not go to Mass and they know (at some level of consciousness, just there among the things one doesn’t want to think about; like, say, cancer…) it is wrong, though probably they can’t even remember the last priest who had the gut to tell them so. The way they react is to simply remove the problem and not think about it, but when a provocation comes which forces them to say to themselves on which side they stand, most of them have no doubt. They won’t become observant Catholic the next day for that, but they will show they don’t want the Church to be attacked.
I remember several other episodes of the kind; the Crucifix-controversy in Germany in 1994, and the similar confrontation in Italy in the last years. In both cases, the crucifix-party won, and in both cases the popular support went far beyond the churchgoers.
I can’t take out of my mind the simply infuriating thought the Church does not win many battles simply because the clergy does not have the gut to fight them; out of sheer cowardice, or underestimation of their own power, or simply because they side with the other side.
We will know in November the way the US Catholic have reacted to the HHS mandate controversy and, now, to the “Outing” of President Obama. It can certainly be more time is necessary, but if the English, German and Italian experience is any guidance, this will be another demonstration that many tepid, inattentive, or “peripheral” Catholics are ready to take a stand when they feel they can’t ignore the problem anymore.
I still think there is a huge cannon out there, just left unused.
You had, I am sure, never imagined some priests actually side with the sodomites. I understand you are shocked at this news, as it known to all of us the Church has remained, in these 2000 years, blessedly free from heretics of all sorts.
We all know now (when the “Spirit” incessantly talks to us, letting us say all we wanted to think anyway) Judas was actually misunderstood and the victim of “judgemental” people, Luther merely a bit of an emotional chap, and all the others presumed heretics merely good intentioned Christian moved by the “Spirit” with whom the Church failed to deal with the due pastoral care.
Alas, Minnesota State Radio now mentions – incredibile dictu – not one but even three (three! Imagine! What has the world come to!) priests who side with the sodomites for reasons, erm, it would be better not to investigate.
One of them is particularly shocking for us, because the extreme depth of his argument makes the case for the blessing of sodomy extremely compelling. The chap (a priest ordained in 1957, and who should know better) is on record with the following earth-shattering observation:
He said his views on homosexuality changed decades ago after he watched an interview with a lesbian woman who described how she was different. “She began to cry convulsively and I said, ‘We’ve got the wrong position on this,’ ” Garvey recalled.
This had a aha-effect on me. Suddenly, it became clear to me how priests and bishops have covered perverted clergy for decades: the perverts must have started to “cry convulsively” and the priests and bishops in questions then said “”we’ve got the wrong position on this”.
Take my napkin, boy/girl/however you define yourself. If you’re crying convulsively, we must we wrong. There’s really no alternative. It stands to reason.
Tellingly, the chaps (they are, says the Minnesota broadcasting thingie, around 80. Can’t believe that. They have forgotten a zero or two, surely?) express themselves (with the words of one of them, ordained in 1966 and, therefore, in highly suspicious times anyway) in term of “party”. Let us read his enlightening thoughts:
Power said he was compelled to speak out by the collective silence of other priests.
“People [were] saying to me, ‘Where is the voice of the priests that believe the way we do? They can’t all believe the party line,’ “he said. “And I’m thinking too, ‘Yeah, where are they?’ That’s us.”
“The party line”. “Us”. “Believe the way we do”.
Really, this alone says it all.
The author of “The Exorcist”, an alumnus of Georgetown University and former theology professor in the same institution, is preparing a canon law suit against his alma mater, because it fails to act in accordance with the name “Catholic”.
If you have any doubt about the real thinking of the man, Mr William P. Blatty (a Hail Mary for him is in order, surely?) , you must be informed he has created a society meant to, as they say today, “create awareness” about the attitude of the Sebelius pals.
You want to know the name of the organisation? It appears to be the “Father King Society to Make Georgetown Honest, Catholic, and Better”.
Isn’t it fitting that Father King, another former theology professor at Georgetown, is rumoured to have been the priest who inspired the character of Max von Sydow in the film?
I wish I would be able to point out more parallelisms but alas, I really, really can’t stand horror films.
Unhappily, Georgetown University provides me with the same show without even having to pay.
Best wishes to the “Father King Society to Make Georgetown Honest, Catholic, and Better”, and congratulations for the name!
Reblog of the day
Dum Romae Consulitur, Saguntum Expugnatur, reports Titus Livius that the ambassadors from Saguntum said to the Romans. “Whilst in Rome they discuss, Saguntum is taken”. History tells us that the Roman hesitation in acting decisively in the defence of Saguntum led to the ultimate destruction of the latter without doing anything to avoid a confrontation that clearly had to come anyway.
Fast forward to AD 2011. Another Curia Romana is in power now, and a similar situation is presented to them. Whilst in Rome they discuss, Austria gathers supports for an open revolt to almost every conceivable Church rule (from male priesthood to male celibacy, and from apostolic succession to Church governance) without any noise coming from Rome, and the weakest of ex officio criticism from the Austrian clergy.
The blog post of E F Pastor Emeritus about the 313 priests and deacons signing the open appeal to rebellion is…
View original post 583 more words
Less than two minutes into her “look at me” speech at Georgetown university, Adolf Sebelius was heckled by a pro-life activist (I do not approve; I merely report…) and called “murderer”. The activist was escorted outside.
Later he made a very interesting comment:
“Georgetown University claims to be a Catholic school and it’s an outrage that somebody that supports the murder of unborn babies would be invited, and somebody has to stand up for the babies and if it’s not this Catholic University then it’s got to be Christians,” said Lewis.
Beautiful words, and a pity that he should have disrupted Hitler to get the media echo for his words. But he is absolutely right when he says if the Catholic University doesn’t defend basic Christianity, Christians will have to do it.
Kathleen Hitler wasn’t pleased, I am sure. There she was, telling everyone how much money you can save by killing babies (she did it; no, really; use the search function…) and there comes one and says something that tomorrow will be on the lips of half the nation, and might stick to her for a long time.
Ah, what a shame. Should have been such a beautiful day…
From Ite ad Thomam, some clear words about the proper way to understand Catholic doctrine. They are from Chapter 4, par. 13 to 15 of Dei Filius. Emphases mine.
13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
Once again: this is short and sweet, and presents a very important point of Catholic understanding in three short paragraphs.
Decidedly, this lucidity of expression has been lost nowadays. If you ask me, this is because in past times such documents were written with no consideration for the feelings of those who might have been – or have told themselves – offended by them.