Daily Archives: May 25, 2012
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?