Monthly Archives: June 2012
Though one day late, if you follow the link you’ll see Father Reto Nay’s interesting take on St. Peter and St. Paul.
It is beautiful to know that in the middle of heretic Mitteleuropa some strong priest acts to defend and spread proper Catholicism.
Once again, we have a small change in the Vatican and once again, the Internet is alive with speculations as to what this might mean for the SSPX-Vatican negotiations.
I am always amused at this exercise by which a huge elephant is in the room, and so many commentators stubbornly refuse to see it.
Now, Father Schmidberger may have his diplomatic reasons to say that the appointment of Archbishop Di Noia to the position of main negotiator with the SSPX might be a positive sign, and he is right in sending a signal to the Holy Father that when the Vatican abandons unrealistic demands, the door of the SSPX is always open. It is, also, perfectly fine he does not say who is, in the end, the responsible for the “ping-pong ball treatment” reserved to the Society. Once again, and even after having been abused and lied to, the SSPX shows real charity and a sincere desire for – proper – reconciliation.
What in my eyes is not realistic is to think that this or that appointment of this or that person may really change anything in the fundamental question: either the Pope (not Levada; not Di Noia; not Gaenswein; The Pope) accepts that the SSPX will not change its position on Vatican II, or there will be no agreement. Not now, not in two years’ time, and not if the Pope lives to be 120.
Please note unless I am mistaken the incardination of Ecclesia Dei under the CDF has not been changed; therefore, Di Noia’s immediate superior is still Cardinal Levada. Please also note Cardinal Levada was supposed to retire… today, and as far as I can see he is still there. Ditto Gaenswein.
Therefore, at the moment I do not see any change in the position of the Pope (not Levada’s; not Di Noia’s; not Gaenswein’s; the Pope’s) that in order to reach an agreement the SSPX must swallow Vatican II whole. We know this is the position of the Pope because we know the Pope isn’t doddering, and we know he can write, use the phone, send emails and surf on the internet. Therefore, if he were minded to consent to regolarise the SSPX’s position (leaving the doctrinal discussions to a later stage), and would – incredibly, as they are his own people, and still at their places – not entirely trust Gaenswein, or Levada, or Di Noia, or whomever else, he could simply grab the phone and be done with it in just a few minutes. Something like that:
“Gut morning, may I speak to Bishop Fellay, please? Yes, zis is ze Pope. Thanks, I’ll vait….
Hallo, Bishop Fellay? Thanks, excellency, hope you too. Zis is just to tell you I am faxing over ze doctrinal declaration. Yes, it’s all fine. How’s ze veather by the vay? Here is very varm… You’re velcome, excellency. It vas a pleasure”.
Five minutes, top; including the waiting, and the fax transmission.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Particularly if you are the most powerful man on Earth.
In this case, I begin to think there is simply no will. What is wanted here is either an unrealistic conversion of the SSPX to V II bollocks, or a rather shameless attempt to split them in the middle – as already attempted with the FSSP; I forget who was one of the main architects of the operation at the time… – dangling in front of them the bait of the reconciliation, and hoping that some back and forth and some broken promises will move them to cave in in the end.
Someone at the Vatican is being too clever by half. Not good.
Reblog of the day
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the…
View original post 602 more words
Very interesting blog post on Crisis Magazine about the biggest Catholic scam of our times, Medjugorje. I allowed myself to take the photo from there too, as it is so apposite.
As always, it is rather entertaining to see the long list (this blog post has an extremely long one) of blunders, contradictions, and outright absurdities linked to this cult for the gullible and the outright stupid.
What is perhaps more interesting – and something I had not known – is that some of the seers endorse “apparitions” which are considered “not approved” by the other seers and by the official Medjugorje site.
The thing is too funny to let it pass: the Medjugorje site is saying “only our slated apparitions are authentic; the slated apparitions of one of us, whose apparitions are authentic when they happen by us, are not approved when they happen by other people”.
One wonders: does the Blessed Virgin dare to disobey to the seers by appearing to one of them without the approval of the others? Or has one of the “seers”, Marija Pavlovic Lunetti, a split personality by which she is a real seer when her apparitions are “approved”, and a con woman when they aren’t? What do the other seers think of said Marija Pavlovic Lunetti?
But most of all: how can people be so thick to believe all this? How can any person say “I will be at your place in the days between 1 and 5 July, during which the Blessed Virgin will appear to me five times?” What is this? This is not even good as a joke! This would offend the intelligence of a six-years-old child! But no, the Medjugorje businesses (both “original” and “unapproved”; but run or supported in part by the same people) goes on undisturbed.
In the meantime the Vatican does – as pretty much always – nothing. We are told a decision on Medjugorje should fall within the year, but by the leonine qualities the Pontiff has been showing in the last years I rather think he’ll prefer to, as they say, chicken out. Cardinal Schoenborn supports the apparition and he is a pal of the Pontiff, so don’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
We shall see. What is sure is that – to use a happy Italian saying – the mother of the idiot is always pregnant.
Enjoy the link.
What would you think of a, say, Prime Minister who first indicates a draft of agreement is fine, and then eats his words and decides on second thought it is better to back pedal?
What would you think of a Prime Minister who surrounds himself with people of such falseness as to – in case; this is the milder hypothesis for the Prime Minister – lie to negotiation counterparts concerning the PM’s agreement with the draft document?
If the Prime Minister were surrounded by people without scruples, duplicitous and scheming, would you not consider the Prime Minister responsible for the people he selects to be near him?
If the Prime Minister surrounds himself with people of evidently manipulative character – Alastair Campbell comes to mind – would you not think that said Mr Campbell is there because he is exactly the kind of person the Prime Minister wants in that position?
When Blair decided to wage war in Iraq, how many of those critical with this decision blamed Gordon Brown for it? How many of those in favour praised the same Brown for it?
When a man promises to a woman to marry her, and then eats his word because he didn’t like the reaction of some relatives of his – perhaps important, no doubt; but none of them the bridegroom – what do decent people think of such a man? Do they think that bad “wolves” made him change his mind? Or do they think that a man is only as good as his word, and a man who does not keep his word is not a decent man?
Here the matter is very simple:
a) The Holy Father ate his word; or
b) The Holy Father surrounds himself – willingly, mind; and full knowing what he does – with people who do not hesitate to lie and to spend his own name and personal integrity to reach some objective of theirs: for example, in order to achieve a general mobilisation of the German clergy so as to scare the – in himself not truly difficult to scare – Pope.
Unless of course you persuade me that Pope Benedict can work with the likes of Bertone, Levada & Co. for decades without knowing them, in which – absurd – case you are telling me that he should not have been made parish priest, let alone Pope.
The falseness and duplicity of what has happened in the Vatican in the last weeks is beyond contempt, because here something much worse was done than simply saying “no” to the SSPX. In this case, the SSPX was simply used – either by the Holy Father, or by the likes of Gaenswein under the supervision and responsibility of the Holy Father – to proceed to the mobilisation of the V II crowd. The saddened words of Bishop Fellay about the SSPX being used like a ping-pong ball seem to me to clearly refer to this.
Let me tell you this once again, because I get slightly nervous when I read that suddenly Cardinal Levada should be the culprit and the Pontiff, who obviously lives on Mars, should be whither than snow: Levada is not the Pope. Benedict XVI is the Pope. The Pope is in charge. He is answerable for what he does and for what his people do. If Gaenswein has lied, he is responsible for having Gaenswein in his role. If Levada was duplicitous, he is responsible for having Levada in his role. If “wolves” are roaming around, he is responsible for everyone of them, because they are there on his decision and under his responsibility.
Make no mistake, this blunder is 100% Pope Benedict’s responsibility, and casts a huge shadow on his personal integrity in the worst of cases, and on his leadership and ability to work as a Pope in the best one.
In case, then, you should think a Pope would, oh, never ever do such things, think again: the leak is still very fresh of how Pope Benedict authorised the scandalous neo-catechumenal liturgy and simply let Cardinal Burke in the dark. Just like that. This is not only poor leadership, this justifies doubts about one’s personal integrity, and it might be useful to open one’s eyes and see reality as it is instead of chasing imaginary “wolves” accurately selected by the Pontiff across several decades to do exactly…. the contrary of what he wants.
Then the “Levada did it ” argument is preposterous, because by wanting to discharge him it simply indicts the Pontiff in the most brutal of ways. If you surround yourself with wolves all your life, can you say you are better than them? Did the Pontiff think these dogs would have no fleas? For an entire lifetime? Please.
Once again: Cardinal Levada is not in charge. The Pope is. Levada can only propose, but he cannot decide. If the Pope has come to the point that his Cardinals do whatever they please without his having the force to react, he should resign at once for the good of the Church and of his own soul. But we all know that this is simply not the case; and that frail as he is, he is certainly not an old man in his dotage.
The problem I see with the Pontiff is, very bluntly stated, one of lack of integrity. He lacks integrity if he lies (let’s hope not; but let us not be Pollyanna here); if not, he lacks integrity because he chooses collaborators who evidently lack integrity; and he certainly lacks integrity if he does not have the basic decency of sticking to his own word, as can be expected by every man who think his word has value.
“Let your yea be yea and your nay, nay” seem words unheard of in nowadays’ Vatican, from the Pope down. Instead, playing with the SSPX in this shameful way – in order to divide them, or to provoke a reaction from the other side – seems to be perfectly legitimate. For shame.
Then we are told the Pope is “saddened” that there are leaks, and plots, and subterranean schemes. Of course there are, if this is the mentality he promotes and selects! Of curse there are, if this is the forma mentis he wants in the people surrounding him! The Pontiff made this bed in its entirety, but now he is saddened he has to lie in it! This is about the same as Obama complaining his team is made of money-squandering, incompetent, atheist nincompoops; with the difference that Obama has far less liberty in choosing his people than the Pope.
We all have seen in the past how the one or other Pope disgraced his Office and the Church. In recent times, Pope John Paul II – who managed to tamper with the Crusades, be scolded live by “rock stars” and “nuns”, and kiss the Koran – comes to mind; but the old Pope was, at least on some of these occasions, probably not really there with his head anymore, and one wonders to what extent he can be blamed.
I don’t think the same can be said of the present Pontiff. Whatever has happened here, it has happened during many weeks of careful plotting. Whatever deception was staged here, it was made in cold blood and with utter disregard for the feelings of thousands of devoted Catholics, and with the arrogance of those who think to them everything is allowed.
Let us pray for the Pope, recruiter of wolves; that he may see the error of his ways and make a better use of the time left to him.
Tomorrow is the 29th June, Feast of St. Peter and Paul and holy day of obligation in the UK.
A bit of planning will go a long way in making the attendance as little inconvenient as possible and, therefore, a better savoured spiritual experience. This, besides the fact that a bit of inconvenience should actually be seen as part of the experience.
Perhaps the one or other of our US-American friends would like to profit from the occasion to vote for the reintroduction of the obligation in their country with their feet?
The Portuguese flag has no cross.
It really hasn’t. Well of course the escutcheons could be interpreted as in the form of a cross; but I’d say it takes some fantasy, and the will to see a cross, to do so.
But if you look at the shirt of the Portuguese team (as I write waiting for their extra time against Spain), it seems evident what they have on their shirts is… a huge cross.
Perhaps it is in the ensign of the local football federation. Kudos to them anyway.
Nowadays, it takes balls to even suggest a shirt like that.
In another sign of slowly changing times, it is interesting to note a central Planned Parenthood structure in Missouri is going to suspend the legal slaughter of babies because of lack of doctors ready to perform the activity required of them.
The matter becomes even more interesting if one considers that the very same clinic already had to suspend the mass murdering activity for several months, and for the very same reasons.
One wonders how viable the structure is now considered within Planned Genocide, as abortion makes a vast proportion of their revenues. Think of a slaughterhouse not managing to find the butchers to slaughter the cows and forced to repeatedly suspend the slaughtering : does it really make sense?
I must confess of feeling a bit naive at having considered the agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican a done deal. At the same time, I think I am in excellent company on this, and in my defence I can also say that I had not really considered the possibility of the Pope either lacking the courage of doing what he clearly wanted to do and indicated he would do, or being so thoroughly manipulated by those nearest to him that they can lie to him – indicating to Bishop Fellay the Pope was in agreement with the latest version of the Preambolo – with the certainty of impunity. Make no mistake, even in this last case I see the Pontiff as much more worthy of blame than every Gaenswein, because most certainly Gaenswein was never elected Pope.
We are, therefore, at this point in presence of a great quantity of broken porcelain, and whilst the porcelain can still be fixed in one way or other (one word of the Pope can, in fact, set pretty much everything right even today) , I wonder whether this fixing will take place.
We do not know whether the Holy Father changed his mind under the weight of the pressures and threats coming from Germany and elsewhere, or whether the exchange of documents was a plot to divide the SSPX and allow the liberals to rise up like a man and promise open revolt if the Pope would not obey to their command. What we know is that there can be no doubt that (emphasis mine)
On June 13, 2012, Cardinal Levada delivered to our Superior General [the] text from last April, but amended in such a way that it now reintroduces, substantially, the propositions of September 2011. Bp. Fellay immediately informed him that he could not sign this new document, clearly unacceptable. The next [General] Chapter will allow for an appraisal of the complete dossier.
One is baffled at this kind of “diplomacy”, then everyone who thinks the SSPX would accept today what they considered unacceptable yesterday just because they were allowed to smell the sweet (and difficult) flavour of the reconciliation does not understand much of the SSPX, let alone of moral integrity in general.
If, however, the main aim was to try to cause an open fracture and division within the SSPX, this will now surely backfire, as the resounding “no” the new/old text will receive in July – as it received it in September – will add to the credibility of Bishop Fellay and his friends even among those ready to doubt his actions or his motives.
Therefore, unless the Holy Father decides to take control of the matter, make a decision and accept responsibility for it, we will continue with the usual minuet of half overtures and hoped-for agreements which lead to nothing, if the Vatican is not ready to accept a workable and sensible agreement.
I would very much like to express to you the hope that the Holy Father will now rise to the occasion and actually act as a Pope; but in truth, I lack this hope as I write these sad lines, as I think the Holy Father has allowed himself to be taken hostage by liberals, or to be treated like a fool by his closest collaborators, all of them picked by him.
The SSPX General Chapter will conclude his work around mid-July. I do not doubt they will take the right decision, and the SSPX will go out of this matter as the by far more trustworthy – thought nobody is perfect, of course, and some SSPX member can also leak like plumbers have gone out of fashion – organisation.
Let us hope and pray. But I for myself will not believe anything less than the dried ink of the signatures, and even at that point will wonder how much even signatures are worth in the Vatican.
Reblog of the day
Larry Brinkin, S.F. Sodomite “Icon”, Jailed For Child Pornography (Achtung! Really Disgusting Material!)
My dear readers,
sensible people like you most certainly know when one allows the Devil to enter in the living room, the latter will make himself comfortable and occupy the entire place. You also know homosexuality and pedophilia (two of the most atrocious perversions, unspeakable taboos, considered very much akin during 2000 years of Christianity, before it became fashionable to say “gay”) are very closely linked together.
You know the explosion of homosexuality among priests in the wake of V II was what mainly fuelled the explosion of paedophile scandals in the decades following Vatican II. You also know “notable” faggot activists like Peter Tatchell have in the past become vocal for the reduction of the age at which they can have safe (in the sense of: legal) sex with very young boys.
If you are, my dear reader, the slender type, you will also know that you will attract the attention of the fags, as the latter are – as seen by the countless examples of perverts you see on London streets – rather attracted by the slender or, better still, ephebic type.
You know all this, my dear readers; but many people out there, living in a boundless ocean of ignorance – and tepid complicity – concerning perversion, tend not to know.
It turns out the main Fag Icon in San Francisco, a Mister (?) Larry Brinkin, has been arrested under the accuse of possessing child pornography. We are not talking here of perverts amusing themselves with films of barely illegal other faggots, but rather (and I warn you, this is strong tobacco; something I did not even imagine, let alone know, could exist)
images of children as young as perhaps a year old being sodomized by and performing oral sex on adult men
As you can read in the linked article, these images were sent by email, through an account allegedly paid for with Mr Brinkin’s card, and the police thinks the email address used by the culprit is directly linked to him.
Talking of perverts, Mr Brinkin is allegedly “married” to, cela va sans dire, his “significant pervert”, but I do not know whether this other chap-ess is also in trouble…
Be it as it may, it appears at least some faggots (I say this in general, as Mr Brinkin himself could still be found innocent of the accusation of possessing child pornography; though certainly not of grievous mortal sin) cannot even leave racism aside when abandoning themselves to their own satanic (read the above again, and tell me…) perversions. It appears the person operating the email account used for the transmission of the diabolic material is on record with the following:
“I loved especially the nigger 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bitch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White Dick Rules!”
So, yours truly had to reach and pass the half century of existence before knowing such things actually exist. Mind, I don’t feel stupid for that; merely normal. What astonishes me, is that the unspeakable cesspool of sodomy is still considered, by most contemporary “urban” people, something fit for a conversation at a cocktail party, perhaps mixed with good-sounding words like “human rights” and “bullying”.
Perverts, that’s what they are. No, really, disgusting perverts. And whilst the person who acknowledges his perversion and sets up to fight against it – in my eyes, basically starting a path of spiritual growth; then where spirituality goes in from the door perversion must get out of the window, in the same way as water can’t co-exist with fire – is worthy of our prayers, the faggot engaged in undermining basic Christianity and perverting souls must be flattened under a steamroller of contempt and ridicule. And please, let us stop with the usual obsession with niceness. Great Christians of the past were not afraid at all of not being “nice” and, methinks, they were the truly charitable ones.
So there you are: it is not only that some fags are paedophiles, in the same way as, undoubtedly, some heterosexual people are perverts in other ways. The fact is that homosexuality and pedophilia are intimately linked, as the shocking recent experience of the Church Herself abundantly shows. Mr (or “Mrs”; or “Pervert Partner No.1”, or “No.2”; ah, how complicated it has all become…) Brinkin is merely the last example of a diffused side-effect of homosexual perversion too conveniently ignored by the media, because to touch the subject means to slaughter the holy cow of so-called “gay culture”.
Scratch the fag, and you might discover below the skin lies a paedophile. It does not have to be so, of course. Still, the link is too strong to be denied.
Don’t believe me? Ask the Vatican…
Reblog of the day
I have received some time ago from the Catholic Truth Society some of their newest booklets. Among these one has caught my attention: “Pentecostalism”.
The booklet is very interesting because it explain to a Catholic in simple words and in rather concise form what Pentecostalism is, why it has so much success and where the danger of the approach lie. In particular, the aspect of the direct relationship with God attracted my attention.
You see, for us Europeans (let alone: Italians) people saying things like “The Lord directed me to do so and so” really sound arrogant to the point of blasphemy and therefore such expressions are, in the Old Continent, unheard of. One is tempted to ask whether the Lord has sent an email, or perhaps a text message, and whether the broadband connection is rather expensive.
It turns out that such expressions derive from a sincere, if naive…
View original post 772 more words
A shocking leak from the SSPX shows the extent of the chaos in which the Vatican is sinking. I know, it is very bad that the letter has been leaked, but this post is not about that so let us leave that aside for the time being.
The letter is not explicit, but very clear in saying what has happened: someone at the Vatican lied, or was duplicitous, or ate his words.
Logically excluding Bishop Fellay himself might have lied about his proposal of preambolo being acceptable to the Holy Father, and espousing the generally accepted opinion – and the only one compatible with common sense and basic diplomacy – that Monsignor Gaenswein informed Fellay the Holy Father had no objections to the revised version of the Preambolo, only one of the two could have happened:
1. Gaenswein lied to Fellay in order to induce him to present a document which would then be refused, fomenting discord and strife within the SSPX.
2. The Holy Father either wilfully lied to reach the same objective or – far more probably if you ask me – just did not have the gut, until today at least, to follow through on what he had said.
Alas, tertium non datur. In both cases, the Holy Father goes out of this story severely damaged, and justifying serious doubts about his ability to adequately fulfil the job description. Whether Gaenswein – the man the Pontiff is supposed to trust the most – lied in order to let the SSPX run through the test of the reconciliation whilst the German bishops were mobilised, of the Pope himself decided to eat his words, the Pontiff – of whom I cannot believe that he himself was the architect of this deception, if for no other reason because no doctor ever prescribed that he starts the reconciliation process in the first place – is rapidly resembling King Theoden before Gandalf’s visit. Alas, I can see no Gandalf around the Vatican.
Let us say this once again: there can be no reasonable doubt Fellay was informed the Pontiff was in agreement with his last draft of the document. This makes the content of the leaked letter so explosive, because it reveals a shocking breach of trust.
I only hope the usual litany of the “wolves” will now cease. The responsibility for bad – or very bad, or awful, or outright stupid – governance does not lie somewhere in the clouds, but in the one who is responsible for it.
Where I grew up a man was only as good as his word, and clearly someone very highly placed in the Vatican isn’t very good at all. Besides, he is too clever by half, because to indulge in such cheap tricks thinking that they will not come out in the open isn’t very smart in the end. Lies have short legs, and nowadays leakers have extremely long ones.
I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all.
The problem of the Vatican isn’t a problem of wolves, but rather of sheep. The Italian saying comes to mind: chi agnello si fa, il lupo se lo mangia. If one makes himself a lamb, the wolf will eat him. He then has, I am afraid, no right to complain.
One of the problems with Creation is that is tends to do things pretty much in the right way. Whilst perfection is obviously not of this world, one cannot avoid noticing, say, how a child than play football on the hard asphalt without ever breaking any bone (ask me, and millions of other Italian children of a less wealthy age), how wonderfully skin heals, and the like.
One of the aspects of this fundamental godliness of Creation is, if you ask me, how difficult it is to kill a baby. Nature (or better said: God) has made things in a such a way, that when the new entry announces himself, it is not easy at all to cancel the order. On the contrary, the soon-to-be-born baby will immediately start an enthusiastic race toward development and then birth, which will cause a perfectly formed human being to be created in less than it takes to take a serious professional qualification, or to learn the solid basis of a foreign language. How prodigious the process is after birth is, no doubt, under the eyes of everyone of us.
You would say this is beautiful and clearly godly. But this shows you don’t work for the World Health Organisation, a tax-payer funded genocidal monster now publishing a manual of instruction on how to safely abort a child. One wonders whether there is anything at all nowadays made by any UN organisation which is not extremely corrupt, extremely inefficient, intrinsically stupid, or outright genocidal.
If this is not disgusting enough, please reflect nowadays the WHO (whose remit would, I though, have to do with health) doesn’t limit itself to suggest how to best kill a baby (not an easy task anyway, thank… God), but is even active in encouraging pro-abortion legislation, so that the genocide may more easily be spread all over the planet.
The effect on the health of the millions of babies thus killed does not seem to interest the WHO.
I wonder how many ages of the past were as monstrous as this one. The Spartans did left out in the cold some of their children, but in their cruel world the practice at least had a logic which you might call patriotic, or at least unselfish: the sacrifice of individual interests to the greater good of the community. Cruel and inhuman as it was, the practice wasn’t based on nowadays’ desire to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle, giving to it some fancy name and cloaking it in “human right” language. Bad as it was, it was perceived as a matter or survival, in times in which the vanquished didn’t automatically have a right to live or to exist as culture or people.
Today we witness a completely different phenomenon: the annihilation of everything coming in the way of one person’s enjoyment of every whim, and be it that the life of a child. Absurdly, this phenomenon is encouraged by organisations whose aim should be to help people live, rather than help to kill them.
This is what happens when religious principles are abandoned and substituted for an extremely sugary, soppy-sounding, vocabulary-defying (reproductive… what??!) Nazi ideology instead.
I thought health had to do with healing the sick, not killing the unborn. One is reminded of the delightful piece of English humour above.
What a world we live in.
Reblog of the day
I never cease to be amazed at that particular form of human stupidity expressing itself in people insisting that things be the contrary of what they are. Say, I am buddhist and I’d like to think that Jesus was Buddhist, therefore I persuade myself that Jesus was Buddhist.
The problem with that is that one can’t believe one thing and ts contrary. Unless he is outright stupid or deluded to the point of stupidity, of course. If you believe in Jesus you can’t believe that he was Buddhist and if you think that Jesus was Buddhist you don’t believe in Jesus, you believe in a self-made religion to which you conveniently attach what you and many other like in an attempt to make it credible.
The same happens here. You can’t believe that you are a Catholic and that Catholicism is wrong on doctrinal issues. You really can’t. It’s…
View original post 470 more words
The 500th anniversary of the date conventionally considered the start of the Heresy of Luther (1517) is fast approaching, and the V II – ecumenical hearts are all a-flutter already.
Cardinal Koch, the man at the Vatican in charge of telling it as it is without ever telling it as it is, has started the hostilities by declaring that the Church does not participate in celebrations of sins. He would, instead, favour a kind of strange “commemoration” during which a “two-sided admission of guilt” would take place. How very John Paul II.
The Cardinal is now running the risk of being accused of not being ecumenical enough; than if you are truly “ecumenical” you are supposed to “charitably” overlook little details like Truth and Heresy, and to take part in the Great Mahatma Gandhesque Ecumenical Love-In, in which everyone loves everybody, God forgives everyone everything, and it should be good that we remind ourselves that we are, at times, all a bit naughty in one way or another.
I do hope the Cardinal does get accused. Firstly, this would have the beneficial effect of unmasking those within the Church who are openly sympathising with heresies; secondly, it might have the effect of forcing the Cardinal to tell a couple of things straight rather than always, always taking the whip out of the drawer and starting the usual public self-flagellation. This is a new fashion introduced by Blessed John Paul II, the brilliant Pope who went around implicitly criticising the Crusades (and perfectly happy to have the media understand the message in that way) whilst he protected all sort of sodomites, fornicators, thieves, and protectors of paedophiles.
In fact, one can reasonably say Cardinal Koch made the first step, but stopped with the second foot in mid-air. His warning that Luther committed “a sin” remains a very vague and very weak statement, if the Cardinal doesn’t openly tell why. Explicit, unmistakeable and insisted condemnation of heresy should be the very first duty of each and every Prince of the Church. Instead, we are served a feeble voice in favour of Truth, without a clear statement as to what this Truth is based upon. The Cardinal should have used this occasion for an open condemnation of heresy and an open call to conversion, without any consideration for the popularity of such statement. This would have been at the same time authentically charitable and authentically ecumenical, then he who does not strongly upholds the faith does not promote Christian unity, but Christian division. The watering-down of Truth through the umpteenth admission of past guilt is not really enticing for confused Christians. On the contrary, the Cardinal’s statement will reinforce in them the feeling that everyone is wrong one way or the other; and if this is so, why shouldn’t they continue to consider the Church wrong in theological matters?
We live in such disgraceful times that even these feeble accusations expose a Cardinal to criticism – a state of thing actively promoted by the Vatican itself in these last 50 years -and we must therefore be grateful for every half word of support for truth.
But make no mistake, every mention of the Heresy of Luther which does not clearly and openly attack heresy falls short of the mark.
Reblog of the day
More examples in the last days showing the indescribable stupidity of liberals.
The first one is a mother whose young son – only four years old, poor child – tells her that he wants a tutu. Promptly the mother seizes the moment, writes a book with the telling title my princess boy – a contradiction in terms of course, but liberals don’t let logical absurdities come in the way of their ideology – and embarks in a, no doubt, remunerative and sales-promoting tour with the poor child, explaining to all of us how bigoted we are. Chances are that this boy will, notwithstanding his perverted and exploiting mother, still grow up to be a healthy adult male utterly ashamed of his embarrassing mother (if you have seen the film “Laurel Canyon”, Christian Bale gives a very good portrait of such an adult); but make no mistake, mommy will do all…
View original post 257 more words
I wonder how long we will have to wait before all these rubbish feminists die.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, having access to the best private health care money can buy, might well stay with us for a long time, though one may hope starting from January 2013 in a less dangerous position.
The last antic of the old witch is the assertion that the so-called “reproductive rights” of women – that is: the right to kill their own child in the womb – is key to “sustainable development”.
I can vividly picture the old woman bending in front of the belly of a pregnant, say, Peruvian peasant woman and saying to her “have you thought about the environmental implications of your pregnancy? Will this birth be environmentally sustainable? Shouldn’t you exercise your reproductive rights instead?” Then she would speak to the baby in the in the womb and say to him “I am so awfully sorry, my dear; but you, your “when” is very wrong and we must, erm, discontinue your mother’s pregnancy”. This, of course, unless the woman believes in that belly there is only a clump of cells.
Of course, the environmental sustainability of the planet can only be achieved if not only one, but a great number of women in the same situation will decide to make the world a more “sustainable” place; which is, then, called (in a broader term) genocide, and it fits wonderfully with the Nazi thinking of your typical environmental nutcase.
In the meantime, politicians and activists of all colours generated considerable amount of Co2 to flow to Rio in order to discuss – among other things – how many babies must be killed in the womb to make the growth sustainable. I wonder how it is that places like Glasgow (excellent infrastructure, you see) never get the honour of hosting such conferences, and the privilege must always go to horrible, horrible cities like Rio, or Cancun, where no one would ever thinking of spending his holidays.
I sometimes wonder whether the world would have been a better place if Obama and Hillary had been aborted; but you see, in those time abortion was simply forbidden, and therefore the chances of birth were rather high. It is a paradox of our times that people like Obama, who today would have an extremely high probability of being aborted – as the bastard of a college whore and her black boy toy, and the product of a liberal environment most certainly encouraging the slut to exercise her “reproductive rights” – are those who fight the hardest for people like them to be aborted.
Reblog of the day
The way language influences the political discourse is always a fascinating thing to behold.
I grew up in Italy, where the adjective fascista was considered the height of the offence if you were a leftist and, as a reaction, a statement of coolness for young people who were conservatively oriented. “Fascist, that new sweater of yours!” we would say to congratulate his or her owner; “Is this your new car? Fascist!” [the car]; “where do you go today, all beautifully fascist?” (“where are you going today, as you are so well-dressed and all trimmed?”). The same word was used, even if deprived of a political connotation – there was no implication whatsoever that the owner of the sweater was, politically, a Fascist – as an insult or a compliment.
The same happens, I think, with the word “gay”, used by a tiny minority of perverts and leftist to refer to…
View original post 689 more words
I read around various posts more or less based on the fact that the degeneration (in all possible meanings) of the Church in the last 50 years is not (necessarily) due to V II, but to the changing times and the particularly hard challenges that came with it.
One would be tempted to say “yes and no” but, really, I think the answer is “no”.
Clearly, the world emerged from WWII posed great challenges to the Church. An explosion of unprecedented welfare challenged the traditional basis of society, based on charity and hope rather than on social services and long life expectancy. On the other hand, another unprecedented phenomenon took place: an entire generation grew up with a degree of instruction – at least in the traditional way instruction is measured – vastly superior to that of their parents, and as a result felt authorised to challenge their parent’s teaching in matter of religion in the same way as they challenged them in the many little ways in which a better educated person can show the less educated the error of his way. In societies traditionally based on transmission of traditional values – among which the obedience to the parents, and the awe in front of the wisdom of the elder were paramount – this had to become a powerful threat to traditional religious wisdom.
But this is only one part of the equation and is a bit – leaving political correctness aside, which I love doing – like saying that the explosion of obesity is due to the expansion of McDonald’s. With all due respect, McDonald’s never made fat anyone; fat people make themselves fat. Similarly, cars and wealth never stabbed the Church; the Church stabbed herself.
The difference between good and bad Popes, bishops and priests is not in whether they have challenges. Of course they will. The difference is seen in how they react to them. As long as he was alive (and particularly so, when he was healthy), Pope Pius XII had the situation fully under control. He could not make a trial to intentions of course, and the voices of ferments and strange thinking coming to him from various corners could not be fought more energetically than he did, considering they did not come out in the open, challenging the status quo.
But the corpse of the great Pope was, metaphorically speaking, not entirely cold that great “changes” were already planned, and clearly the modernists saw their hour coming. Still, they are not the primary cause of the mess. They were there before. The primary cause of the mess is in the people who allowed them to come out with their own subversive ideas (less so during the council; much more so after it) and these people are mainly two: Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Blaming the heretics for their undisturbed march is like blaming the mice for the infestation. I’d give a hard look at the cat.
I also know – from unimpeachable testimony of many relatives – that the Italy of the Fifties, growing in prosperity like it’s going out of fashion, also experienced a great rigidity in matter of mores, actually a much bigger rigidity than the one commonly experienced during Fascism. This is further proof growing economic security does not have to translate into moral relaxation, if there are at the helm people strong enough to understand the times and act accordingly.
The great tragedy – and unredeemable construction fault – of Vatican II consists in exactly this: that, having seen the evil coming from the new times, it chose to embrace them, in the very stupid assumption that to embrace the world means to make it more like you, whereas at the very moment they decided themselves for the embrace they had already decided they wanted to become like it.
All the tragedies that ensued derived from this fundamental initial mistake: the liturgical and spiritual atrocities of the “spirit of V II” would have never had a chance, if it had not been absolutely truethat VII ushered a spirit – not necessarily and not so openly in the official documents, mind; but in the air these documents allowed, nay, demanded to breathe – of revolutionary change. Without this “encouragement”, the “spirit of V II” would have had no more chances of sweeping the Catholic world than the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
V II and its aftermath both happened, because they were wanted and the idea of the “spirit” of V II suddenly appearing as if brought by the stork and surprising everyone is naive to the utmost. Ex nihilo nihil.
It is, therefore, clear the societal changes did pose a problem and, admittedly, a rather large one. But the great damage was not made by the problem, but by the Vatican not only ceasing to fight against the problem, but becoming part of it. Think of the cat selling out and declaring that from now on there will be no enmity between the mice and him.
Fifty years later the mice are everywhere, but astonishingly so many people keep saying the cat was misunderstood, or is surrounded by wolves, or must be oh so prudent because if he angers the mice there might be… an infestation.
Unfortunately, there is no brilliant mind out there able to act in an effective, practical way. Not only there is no “Top Cat” in sight, but if we stay to the practical decisions we are very far even from the passion and zeal of Sylvester The Cat.
It will change one day of course, as we know the Gates of Hell will not prevail.
But I’d prepare myself for a long wait.
One of the scariest features of modern Anglo-Saxon societies is the inability of people to tell things as they are. Facts become taboo on the very day that some “minority” has decided that they are “hurt” from them.
A prime example is feminism. It has always been my experience (and I ain’t the youngest, and have lived in three different countries) that feminists are ugly. I do not mean here the actresses and singers who, after getting to fame (in which way, I will not discuss) decide they’re “feminists” to give themselves some airs. I mean the real examples out there.
When I was at school, you could see some attractive young women who showed clear feminist tendencies. Young and “idealist”, you know. Probably with the wrong parents, certainly with the wrong influences around them. You saw them here and there and thought: “what a waste”. All other boys…
View original post 810 more words
Extremely interesting blog post from Father Z about the angry priest. I will possibly write another blog post on the main matter, but what shocked me most was to read the following paragraphs. Emphases and comments mine.
I am tired to distraction of having to chase young people down the aisles in church to retrieve the Blessed Sacrament because they have no clue what it is. [I did not understand this at first. Keep reading…]. A year or so back, I was offering a funeral Mass and a teenaged girl came up for Communion, took the host, looked at it, turned it over and began to walk away holding it in her palm. I followed her and asked, “Have you made your First Communion?” She said simply, “I’m Jewish.” I smiled and said, “Perhaps I should take that from you.” Quite a few of the mourners were furious with me for my discourtesy [hopefully the non-Catholics. Hopefully..].
At another funeral not long ago I saw a passel of tattooed and pierced adolescents [this is, to an intelligent priest, a clear sign they are not Christians] coming down the aisle at a funeral. It was a large funeral so a number of priests were helping with Communion. I had finished my line so I stood about ten paces from the celebrant, a visiting priest. The first of the young Goths [this is a good priest…]received the host, looked at it curiously and as she passed me I asked, are you Catholic? She said, “no.” I said “Perhaps I should take that.” So there began a curious ritual, of clueless youths. One priest would say “Body of Christ and the second priest would say “I’ll just take that.”
There are several shocking elements in these few lines.
In the US today there are evidently Masses at which communion is offered as a matter of course, to everyone, as if it were a refreshment. In doing so, not many seem to care if the recipients are Catholics, or Christians in the first place. They are given the Holy Communion in the same way as you are given lunch in an aeroplane. Priests do this and they just don’t care.
I wonder whether caning would be more appropriate for the “visiting priest”, of his dismissal from the clerical garb altogether. Probably both. I wonder what he would do if a young and unsuspecting boy wearing a kippah would appear in front of him in the communion line. No, wait, better not, it’s bad for my health.
I am curious to know whether there is any sensible man who still does not get that this sacrilege is the product of Vatican II. It is clear enough that Vatican II, whilst obviously not prescribing to allow young Jewish girl to (unwittingly try to) receive the Most Holy Communion, made it possible in the first place, or can you explain to me how, without V II and the decades of mess than followed, such a mess would have been possible in the first place, or how priests like the “visiting” one of these short lines could have been allowed to get out of seminaries (nay! To get into them!) in the first place. In the end, it is V II that brought us all this, as it created the mentality and the humus allowing this madness to flourish.
Reblog of the day
One of the consequences of the remarkable levelling to the minimum common denominator of almost every conceivable activity is the scaling down of those elements of ceremony once cherished as beautiful and today considered arrogant or elitist. In fact, one can go as far as to say that nowadays whatever is not absolutely and tragically plain is at high risk of being labelled as “elitist” or “snob”. We see this everywhere but what I would like to mention with you today is the style of Papal appearances.
There was a time where a Pope would – on certain and particularly solemn occasions – be carried on a sedia gestatoria. This was a kind of movable throne, splendidly adorned, offering the advantage of making the Pope visible by a large crowd whilst at the same time beautifully stressing his (literally) exalted position. It goes without saying that the entire exercise…
View original post 401 more words
If there’s a country where perversion is accepted as a lifestyle by a sizeable minority of the population this is, alas, the once rather uniformly Catholic Brazil. Alas, times have changed and nowadays the countries boasts a high degree of “tolerance” towards every kind of sexual perversion. You would think this is one of those country where a politician has nothing to lose in espousing the so-called “gay rights” agenda.
As you well know, the vast majority of elected politicians are legalised prostitutes, ready to approve and support every fad – no matter how morally repulsive, or economically stupid – for the sake of short-term survival. We have seen this in recent years with the “environmental” craze and with the sodomites’ movement, both episodes of a moral or logical madness accepted for the sake of the electoral return.
Sadly for the perverts and the environ-mentalists, in works also the other way around. The elected politician, always with his very fine nose in the air, will soon catch the wind of change and will react accordingly, accurately avoiding the identification with his heroes of yesterday.
Again, it helps to think of an elected politician – particularly in “first past the post” country, like England – as of a prostitute, trying to retain and, if possible, expand her client bank. Being a prostitute, morals has nothing to do with what she does to please her clients: she will simply do whatever helps her to retain them. As soon as she sees the danger of the clients going away, she will change her tune with astonishing, and utterly moral-free speed.
We assist to the same process in Brazil, where so-called gay pride parades are rapidly sinking. They sink in everything: funding, popular participation, and popular support. The (obviously) bitching remark of the president of the parade association, that
“The candidates who were not at the Parade or didn’t interest themselves in make contact and get to know us, are people who do not have a broad vision of politics, or don’t want to diminish discrimination and prejudice,”
only shows the impotence and rage of the little pervs. “Whoever is not with us is an enemy of the people” does not work anymore in Brazil, and if the Church wakes up a bit this might become a very interesting Christian battleground. As I have often written, Catholic culture has very deep roots, and even those who do not attend Mass will not so easily espouse pagan thinking, though if nothing changes their children are most certainly at risk and their grandchildren probably will.
But this is interesting: when a mass phenomenon attracts the attention of the political prostitutes (again: the majority of professional politicians, particularly in first-past-the-post systems) it means it is becoming noticeable, and it is becoming dangerous to ignore it.
If the next pontificate will give us courageous bishops and a Pope with a modicum of bite, I’ll say the Gaystapo will be liquidated in very few years, exactly as it has already happened with the Environ-mentalists.
Dan Savage is, of course, a despicable pervert.
But being a pervert does not prevent one from being, occasionally, right. Mrs Savage managed it with his recent assertion that the so-called GOPride people are “faggots”.
Of course they are, Mrs Savage.
They are, because they are like you. So, what logical conclusion will you draw from this?
Still, we must not expect any kind of logical reasoning from people like him. Hysterical bitching and hate of each other is far more probable.
Faggots, all of them.
Reblog of the day
Each one of us is, at some level, aware of the uniqueness of being “the real thing”. You can buy whatever cola you want at the supermarket, but however its advantages it will never be “the real thing”. Similarly, all those products or brands which are perceived as to be “the original” have a very special place. Monsieur Lacoste certainly did not invent the polo shirt, but he reinvented its use, and made of it a brand now followed and imitated worldwide. The same can be said for many other products and brands, of which Apple is perhaps the most spectacular seen in recent times (but there are others; for us Italians, Della Valle’s “Tod’s” is another brilliant example). There is an element of truthfulness in the “original”, that cannot be denied. A shoes which tries to imitate another brand of shoe is, obviously, still a shoe, but it will…
View original post 566 more words
As a man coming from a so-called civil law country (a legal system common to most countries in Continental Europe, in which judicial power is much more restrained than in Anglo-Saxon, common law systems) I never cease to be amazed at the power elected democracies leave in the hands of people with either none or only indirect democratic representation. The result of the system is that small cliques of “progressives” (which very often means “perverts, Nazis, and their friends”) judges can demolish one piece at a time the Christian edifice of a country, possibly for their own personal advantage (see the faggot judge of California’s “Proposition 8”).
A telling example is the recent Canadian decision about assisted suicide, with a woman behind the decision (I thought they were against the “judging”; but it must only apply when they don’t like the judgement) of striking down the law which declares assisted suicide “unconstitutional”. I hope this will have further episodes.
Still, it turns out the woman is, as you would expect, an old abortionist,and it is certainly not surprising she should now take position against the protection of life (and democratic representation be stuffed). She who is able to approve the killing of unborn children will certainly not have any problem in killing old people.
We cannot know whether the lady is planning to take advantage of her decision on her own skin (these judges hate to do illegal things, I am told) and as a Catholic I can certainly not suggest that she do so. On the contrary, as a Catholic I have the unsavoury but, in the end, salutary duty to pray for the old female ungulate.
In the end, if she repents there will be, during the appropriate punishment in purgatory, sufficient time to regret the decision.
If she doesn’t, the time will be much longer.
In case you had any doubt about the extremely repressive nature of the “gay” mafia, consider that Canada has now opened a “register” of “homophobic” expressions clearly meant to intimidate right thinking citizens from saying what they think.
Stop one moment and reflect what would have happened if some conservative organisation had proposed the creation of some “Faggot Register”, where all expressions favourable to sodomy/lesbianism/whatever form sexual perversion takes are registered for – there can be no other aim – present intimidation or future use.
Of course, everyone would have cried “Nazism”, nicht wahr?
Well, it appears the Gaystapo is intent in doing just that, and if they think we will be intimidated they must be a bunch of hysterical bitches thinking their voice must only be shrill enough and they will get their way (wherein, I prefer not to think…).
Still, and irrespective of the – miserable – prospects of success, intimidation it still is, and sponsored by the Canadian taxpayer to boot. These faggots must really be taught to behave.
Yours truly would like to be one of the first to be inscribed in the register, and therefore humbly asks to be recorded with the following:
Perverts. Faggots. Disgusting cretins. It would be better to lie than to live in such dishonour. Not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. They are even worse than murderers, because a murdered only separates the soul from the body, whereas they destroy the soul inside the body. Their sins against nature are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed.There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity. For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.
In the meantime, the taxpayer-sponsored initiative has certainly already started to localise other names worthy of inscription; all of them extremely dangerous fomenters of discord and intolerant homophobics. Let us see a couple of them (all emphases mine):
1) There is Tertullian, who is on record with the following:
“All other frenzies of lusts which exceed the laws of nature and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes we banish … from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.” (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV, in J. McNeil, op. cit., p. 89)
2) Then there would be Saint Basil of Caesarea. The poor chap was so homophobic (the new ways of saying “Christian”) that he wrote the following:
“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship … with young people.” (St. Basil of Caesarea, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus, op. cit. cols. 174f.)
3) I wouldn’t forget Saint Augustine, the daddy of all Catholic womanising chauvinists and, basically, a walking homophobic threat:
“Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.”
Elsewhere, he finds other words worthy of inscription in the bitching faggots’ register:
“Your punishments are for sins which men commit against themselves, because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is self-betrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things which You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow” (Rom. 1:26). (St. Augustine, Confessions, Book III, chap. 8)
4) Then there would be Saint John Chrysostom, and you have already started noticing that “homophobia” was rather well represented among saints. Let’s read him:
“All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic….. So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body….. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV, in J. McNeill, op. cit., pp. 89-90)
How about that, boys’ n girls? Would it do for some years in a Canadian jail?
5) This list would of course not be complete without the Doctor Angelicus. Saint Thomas Aquinas (another saint! You don’t say!) was so ashamed of this abomination – as we all were until some years ago, when the rampant homosexualism around us forced us to talk openly about disgusting things like zoophilia, or sodomy – is on record with the following:
“However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): ‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.’ For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)
and I am sure he has deserved the inscription in the above mentioned bitching faggots’ register, with a special mention.
If you want to expand your knowledge, please click the site whence I took all this useful information, which seems rather thoroughly researched, and say a prayer for the person – or the people – who have taken the time to inform us about basic Christianity, talking to us not only through common sense and basic decency, but through the voice of great men of the past.