Monthly Archives: August 2012
And so we are informed the Holy Father is now launching a new initiative to further the study of Latin, with the creation of a new Pontifical academy. There are of course several organisations which should occupy themselves with the matter, but they do not work. Therefore, a new institute with a new name must now come to the rescue…
One wonders, though, why what has not (really) worked in the past should work in the future. Latin studies will take off again when there is greater need for Latin, and this will only happen when the Traditional Mass is more widely celebrated.
In my modest opinion, the way to increase the diffusion of Latin is to increase the diffusion of the Traditional Mass: this will create greater need (and curiosity) which will be promptly filled from public and private institutions of all kind, without any need to wait for a Pontifical Academy.
The Holy father does (emphatically) not encourage the diffusion of the Tridentine (or Traditional) Mass, because he allows Summorum Pontificum to remain lettera morta, as I suspect was his intention from day one.
As long as the situation remains the present one (and it will remain as long as this reign remains) the creation of a Pontifical Academy will only be one of those official initiatives meant to show the Holy father wants to really do something, when in reality he merely wants to be perceived to do something, as abundantly proved from Summorum Pontificum.
Latin will flourish again when it is restored in its proper place in real life, in the liturgical praxis of the Church; not one day before, irrespective of how many facade initiatives are undertaken to show the Church “cares”.
Your typical Novus Ordo church (not the Brompton Oratory, of course; or any very conservative church), ten minutes to nine on a sunny Sunday morning.
Some people are trying to pray in the pews. They are on their knees, and it is obvious to the most obtuse moron they are praying because they are in a church, before Mass.
This doesn’t interest a group of people, generally rather old, making conversation out loud as if they were in their own living room and only the scones and cream were missing. They are there in groups of two to four, and chatter like it’s going out of fashion; they do not even make any attempt to – at the very least – keep their voice a bit down.
They obviously see the people kneeling on the pews, and clearly trying to pray; they just don’t care. Much more importantly, they see the tabernacle in front of them, and do not think they should behave any differently than on the fish market.
Were they at the presence I do not say of the Queen, but of one among her more or less unworthy progeny they would be utterly intimidated at the majesty of the event, and would not dare to utter anything else than, perhaps (perhaps!) the most feeble whisper.
But they are, erm, merely at the presence of Our Lord and disturbing a handful of people praying, so they don’t care and go on with their, no doubt, extremely stupid talking until the Mass begins.
This happens, I assure you, with ugly frequency here in Blighty. There’s no saying the priests aren’t aware, because you see every now and then the one or other appearing and checking that this and that is in order whilst the salon goes on unabated. They know, they just don’t care. They seem to think it’s part of some mysteriously discovered “social atmosphere” of the mass.
If you have the patience to wait, you will often notice some of the loudest old women are “involved” in the Mass in some way. They bring the “gifts” (I will write something on this one day) to the altar, or regale us with their own dramatic rendition of the readings 9I must have written something on that), or stand at the side of the priest with the chalice, possibly wondering why you don’t see their halo but certainly peeved at the way everyone wants to receive from the priest.
They clearly think the mass and the church space belong to them. They might not even be aware of their astonishing lack of reverence, because they have forgotten what “reverence” is in the first place (only, I think they’d remember if they were invited at Court; but I digress…), but they are certainly aware that they own the place, and will show to everyone they are part of the landscape, which is why not even those kneeling and obviously praying are considered worth of the slightest consideration.
A small, but embarrassing episode (about which I have been alerted by an excellent reader) allows me to give two words about the way we Southern European, blessedly free from Protestant and puritanical influences, see this kind of things.
So Archbishop Cordileone was found above the legal alcohol limit for California. Big deal. If the California alcohol limits are anywhere near the European average, we are here far, far away from anyone being defined, by any reasonable person, as “drunk”.
Concerning the “guilt”, we Southern European never had such a high expectation of our leaders, even spiritual ones. In these disgraceful times Padre Pio would have been arrested countless times (violent behaviour in public, violence against children, “hate crimes” no end), and even Jesus (a clearly above average drinker in times of massive alcohol consumption) would never have a chance to pass the same alcohol test poor Archbishop Cordileone fell through. Coming to more recent times, Don Camillo would have been possibly defrocked after several periods in jail (another violent type, and no mistake). I could go on, but you get my drift.
The point is that the Nazi Nannies now demanding to control every minute aspect of our life, being Nazi, tend to set limits way below what would be considered reasonable by a reasonable person. The logic of ruthless repression does not allow any other behaviour, and the logic of nannyism is not satisfied with anything else than ruthless repression.
Of course, a certain stigma will be “linked” to the one who is found wanting: he will be rapidly depicted as a danger to public safety, whilst very probably (I think I can safely say so for the Archbishop, and I am sure this is what happens in countless other cases) the “culprit” was, being a sensible person, not even aware he was in danger of being above the limit or – for which I would applaude him – decided to be reasonable anyway.
It appears now the Archbishop has apologised – with words I find utterly disproportionate to the circumstances – and nothing will happen – thank God – to his appointment.
Still, this should let us reflect about the stupidity of laws an extremely respected Archbishop may be found in breach of, and which is in my eyes more evidence of the stupidity of such laws than of a real failing of said Archbishop.
Archbishop Cordileone is in front of a very tough time, and does not need to be shot at (I do not say the above mentioned reader did this; I am merely afraid of Puritanical currents running in the American blood) because of such a small incident.
If anything, this incident makes him more pleasant in my eyes. A small “Don Camillo”-like embarrassment every now and then can only be good for the soul, particularly if you are Archbishop.
Here’s to your health, Excellency, and I hope the wine was worth of your courage.
1. In my old age I am becoming more and more wary of always linking to posts I have already written. Fortunately for me, there are reasons why this must not deter you from deepening the matter a bit. The search function you find below allows you to search keywords. These are not always the keywords I have tagged, but every key word. You can, therefore, type “Vincent Nichols” and you’ll find more than you ever wanted to know without necessity for me to build endless links to the antics of our well-known enemy of Catholicism.https://mundabor.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post
2. The “Catholic Vademecum” has now grown to several dozen blog posts. Whilst it is natural that a blog will prevalently deal with actual matters (the last madness of mad nuns,; or the last parody of Catholicism from evil bishops; or the like), in the end a blog should be there – I think – for the improvement of a Catholic’s instruction, so often a problem in these troubled times. Whenever there is no new post of mine to waste your time, you may want to waste some minutes – if you really insist in wasting time on my blog – on the “Catholic Vademecum” instead. It is my opinion that only a robustly equipped Catholic can withstand the tsunami of sugary common place now going around (you know what I mean: the “niceness” and “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” stuff). If I can give a contribution, it would be an honour to know I allowed you to show some charitable, but well-sharpened teeth to the enemies of Christ.
3. I feel that the “Online Breviary” is more than a bit neglected. As I see it, this is not meant exclusively for those who intend to pray the entire Breviary every day. In my eyes, this should be a useful resource for those who have some spare minutes to only dip in a beautiful patrimony of prayer for a short time: when you are waiting for the water for the pasta to boil, or if you can access this blog underway – say, from a tablet or smart phone – during a short wait for the train or the bus. A little, made many times, becomes a lot.
4. The “saint of the day” might perhaps also deserve a bit more attention. The site to which I link keeps everything slender and practical for the “busy man”. Again, summer and the unavoidable quiet day might be good occasions to read some interesting and instructive lines.
5. I am rather satisfied with the clicks to the “Daily offering to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary” and am glad to be of assistance to those who decide to regularly spend one minute in the company of the Blessed Virgin through my link. I think the exceptionally good “spot” within the blog page helps a lot.
6. Dulcis in fundo, the Rosary link. The link to the Rosary is by far the most important link of this blog, and again it is my opinion if this blog achieves the only results of educating some readers to the habit of the recitation of the rosary (daily, I hope: the habit can be taken without too much difficulty, and the “Catholic Vademecum” has several posts on the matter) then all the work has not been in vain. Apart from the Mass, I struggle to identify a single habit more conducive to our salvation than the recitation of the rosary, which is why the spot numero uno of this blog is dedicated to a very convenient, pretty well made online version of it.
I see my affectionate readers as soldier friends, sitting together with me in the trenches of these difficult times and hoping to get at the end of our active service without excessive damage to our fighting spirit and hopefully in a way conducive to the health of our immortal souls. I believe most of my readers are satisfied with my blog – the statistics being rather flattering notwithstanding the very immediate, direct and rather brutal style of this blog, which is certainly apt to discourage the delicate souls and PC plastic flowers – and value the contribution to their Catholic life a click on my page can give them. Therefore, it can’t be wrong to suggest to them how they can make the best of it.
My two cents on the so-called “rape exception” is that there can be no exception to the protection of human life.
There cannot be, because a human life is valuable as God’s gift irrespective of the circumstances which factually led to the conception of this life. Every life is God-Given and wanted by God, full stop.
Therefore, every discussion about “exceptions” is fully beside the point, and particularly despicable if coming from people who dare to tell themselves “pro-lifers”. Under no circumstances should abortionists be given victory on this battleground.
One is either for life, or against it. One either thinks that men do not dispose of the God-given gift of life, or he does. In the first case he cannot even think of possible “exceptions”; in the second he is not pro-life.
Simple logic, methinks.
In an age where effeminacy prevails at all levels and a more than alarming level of “sensitivity” is the fashion of the time, it might seem unusual to read about someone calling for the enemy to be “beating with fists”, without “counting” or “measuring” the blows, and striking “as one can”.
Utterly, utterly inacceptable, says the teacher is Islington. What will her unavoidable “gay friends” think? Urgh, monstrous!
Well, you only need to click here to persuade yourself that these words were pronounced (fists, blows, and all) by one of the best Popes of all times.
What does this teach us? Very simply, that the Popes of the past – more importantly, the greatest Popes of the past – thought and spoke like men instead of limiting themselves to the whining of their during- and post-V-II successors, who regularly are oh so “saddened” and “hurt” and generally passive-aggressive, but never think they could do with manning up a bit for a change.
Unavoidably, their pansiness translates in the pansiness of the entire Church, which will then perforce be infiltrated by either pansies, or positively evil men.
Hence the “saddening”.
Oh for a Pope with attributes, like the ones we used to have.
Reblog of the day, Part II
I have examined here the traditional understanding of the theological virtue of faith as based on the intellect.
This has changed after Vatican II, when faith started to be presented more and more as something:
1) emotional; pertaining to our world of feelings rather than asking us for serious intellectual work, and
2) consisting in a process rather than in a result, or to use Amerio’s words in a tending rather than a knowing.
Please read what the French Bishops published in 1968 because what they have to say is indicative of so much that has been taught afterwards:
“For a long time faith has been presented as an adherence of the intellect, enlightened by grace and supported by the word of God. Today […] faith is presented as an adherence of one’s whole being to the person of Jesus Christ. It is an act of life and…
View original post 709 more words
Reblog of the day, Part I
One of the poisoned fruits of Vatican II is the watering down of the faith. This has happened because after Vatican II the Church has stopped teaching what faith is in the correct but technical way used in the past, and has started talking of faith in more “emotional” terms instead. This entry deals with the correct understanding of the theological virtue of faith as adherence of the intellect to revealed truth. A separate entry will be devoted to the purely emotional, “searching” approach all too often taught after Vatican II.
Faith as a theological virtue is nothing to do with emotions. It is not something you attain by crying hysterically and waving your arms in the air. Faith as theological virtue is a process taking place exclusively in your intellect.
We can see it as a process by which the will is the starter. To acquire faith…
View original post 674 more words
One never ceases to be amazed at what is found in one’s comment box (and I do not divulge my email; because then things would become funny indeed) when one opens a blog. Every reader who has a blog can probably relate.
I wonder at times what motivates people. I do not go around visiting atheist blogs and trying to post there, nor yet trying to get some publicity for my blog; nor do I search for sodomite blogs and invite them to repent; least of all I try to, hear this, promote my blog among them. Believe it or not, some people truly do this. Astonishing.
Then there are the interminable ranters dreaming of global judeo-masonic persecutions, and you can smell the vodka from the other side of the ocean (they tend to be Americans, I have noticed; vodka is cheaper there than in Blighty).
Then there are the…
View original post 637 more words
Yours truly has often written that if one accepts to be “inclusive” of the lifestyle of a sodomite it is difficult to see how those who have an attraction for a very young (and assenting) boy or girl (or for a dog, or for a ship, obviously with no “violence”) should be denied “inclusiveness” and see their “differences” “embraced”.
Predictably, the pedophiles have now taken the same road as the homosexuals (though you must be aware in not infrequent cases the two categories coincide, to the point that very many pedophiles are homosexual. If you don;t believe me, ask your bishop…) and demand to be considered “minor attracted people”.
As the latter definition is rather long, they will soon come to the idea of giving themselves some good-souding name. “Gay” being already taken, they will probably choose “smart”, or “happy”, or whatever else is one word long and sounds positive, modern, utterly cool.
When that happens it will be interesting to observe the reaction of the liberals, many of whom do have – notwithstanding massive contraception – children; then when the “gay friend of the family” starts to screw the liberally-raised young heir I can easily imagine the one or other long-cherished idea of “inclusiveness” will be forgotten, sharpish.
Also, the homos will be forced to either throw away the mask and awaken their straight contemporaries to the intrinsic perversion of their thinking, or be accused by the “smarts” (or however they will call themseves) of dealing with the “smarts” as the conservatives have been dealing with themselves. Of course the same words will fly around: “smartphobia”, “hate”, “bullying”, “human rights” and the like. The entire armoury of rhetoric words is already there, they will only need to apply it to them.
Unfortunately for both the “gays” and the “smarts”, the vast majority of people – who are, let us remind ourselves of the fact, neither the one nor the other – might well awaken to the horrible maness of both these perversion, and start acting as they should have done many years ago.
Interesting years ahead.
This blog post here is a beautiful example of everything that is wrong with the blasphemous concoction of victimhood and passive-aggressive heresy nowadays going under the name of “progressive Catholicism”. It is, therefore, unsurprising the blog post would come from a “Tablet” contributor.
The lady is then, one day, told that her son is bent. Her reaction?
“complete acceptance on my part and happiness that my son had felt able to tell me; anxiety, knowing the negative reaction he would no doubt receive from some other people”.
Complete… what? If her son had told her he is a paedophile, or a zoophile, would she have been “accepting”? If no, why on earth? If it’s not about perversion, but about “acceptance” we should be “accepting” of everything under the sun, surely? But no, the boy being her son, he must clearly be above criticism. It is the others, those evil “some people”, who are oh so not “accepting”. Tut, tut.
Obviously – and to express it in the usually brutal Italian way – every cockroach is beautiful to her mother, and this is not the first mother defending her son against evidence and reason. The big difference, though, is that once upon a time a mother would still have had an inkling of the danger for her son’s soul; whilst perhaps saying other are too harsh on him she would have never even conceived to say that homosexuality is fine, because her son is homosexual.
Alas, we live in times of “acceptance”, as if it were some sort of virtue. No it isn’t. A homosexual boy must be told to pray and pray that he might be freed from this terrible affliction; that God did not make him a pervert because God doesn’t do perversion; that it is on him to embark on a prayerful journey toward sanity and normality rather than to be “proud” – or in any way “accepting” – of his perversion; that sodomy is a lurid abomination sane people cannot even think about without feeling like vomiting; and so on, and so forth.
I can vividly picture Padre Pio “accepting” homosexuality. What you did you say? Really? Oh well, he must have been one of those “some people”…tut tut to Padre Pio too, then…
It goes on with almost every line.
My other children, my family and my friends have been completely accepting. Other acquaintances, including some church goers have raised eye brows while being embarrassed to discuss their views. A loyal priest from another diocese quite understandably reiterated the Church’s teaching including the need for celibacy.
Look, nowadays one does not even have the right of being embarrassed in front of sexual perversion. They are supposed to say “hey, your son is a pervert, let’s celebrate our acceptance”!
I wonder what “some people” drink in the morning.
As to the very feeble but at least apparently half-orthodox Catholic priest, one is happy to know the lady finds the teaching about celibacy “understandable”, only one wonders why. If homosexuality is ok, why should the “natural expression” of the homosexual’s “love” not be ok too? Where does the tale come from that homosexuality is just fine and only sodomy a problem?
True, inclination (read: perversion) is in itself not sinful. But this does not mean that the inclination is good, or even neutral!
The inclination is, literally, perverted (per and versio, “wrong direction”) and a terrible deviation exactly because it can easily lead to a sin crying to heaven for vengeance! Because it goes against nature even before committing sodomy! Because it is repellent to common decency even before every act of sodomy having been committed!
If one would tell you that his son has an inclination to rape hens, or to have intercourse with dogs, would you think that the “inclination” is fine and dandy, and worthy of “acceptance”, provided the son in question does not act on his “inclination”? And please let us stop accepting the trite argument of the sodomites “not hurting anyone”. Firstly, they do hurt each other, a lot! Secondly, a sin is measured by its offence to God and not by the harm made to other people, or animals. The word “inclination” is also in itself suspect. One can have an inclination for tiramisu’, or strawberries with clotted cream. If he is attracted by people of his same sex this is actually called, erm, perversion.
Still, the lady seems to accept the idea of celibacy… apart from the fact that she doesn’t. Try this
While the Church teaches that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ – in my opinion, a very wrong view –
Apart from the absurdity of saying “it is (traditional) Church teaching, but this is very wrong” (the lady writes for the Tablet, therefore she is perfectly at ease with absurdities) , you notice the underlying current of thinking: if my son desires to insert his penis in another man’s shit hole, why should the Church tell him not to do so? Amazing, nicht wahr?
I wonder which mother in the past would have ever dared, however strong her affection for her son, to help him to go to hell in such a way. But then again nowadays a mother feels free to give scandal saying that her son is “gay” and is even offended when others are “embarrassed”. What narrow-minded “some people” they are. They should be joyously accepting! Mala tempora currunt.
I would like to go on commenting, but I would go on until tomorrow morning and this threatens to reach 1000 words already. You can have a go at the countless absurdities disseminated everywhere (“My son is generous, loving and kind and I am proud of that”: what is this to do with the matter? When has being “kind” helped someone in mortal sin to avoid hell? In the “church of nice”, perhaps! In Christianity, nope! And how can a mother who even thinks the Church is wrong in condemning sodomy hope to avoid being considered accessory in her son’s sins, sins she encourages with everything but openly spoken words?). If I had had such a perversion, I truly hope my mother would have remained at my side with true love and charity, rather than helping me to go to hell (and probably going to hell herself in the process) so that she can feel “accepting”.
Again, continue the reading yourselves if you so wish. This is not even angering, merely amusing. The lady writes for the Tablet.
By all the noise about the heretic and constantly bitching witches we hear so much about, it is good every now and then to be reminded that scandalous as they are, the above mentioned witches are not a fair depiction of the, if you allow me to say so, breed.
This here is just another example – and not the first I have posted, if memory serves – of nuns who are devoted, obedient and, well, Christian.
Their communities are getting bigger and younger, and the author of the article says they have the same number of vocations of the LCWR (if the latter can be called vocations, rather than a way for old frustrated feminists to live comfortably for the rest of their lives) without saying they are around a quarter of the latter’s number.
It does one good to know there are still orders around who can afford to accept women below 30, and still grow (let the LCWR-type “communities” do the same and see what happens to their vocation figures…).
Devoted, obedient, and Christian.
In one word, nuns as God intended.
Paul Ryan reblog
A beautiful blog post on Rorate Caeli about the way Capitalism and Catholicism are compatible (or not).
The matter is, of course, one of definitions. If by Capitalism we mean, with dictionary.com
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
then it is clear that not only is this system not in any way in contrast to Catholicism, but by encouraging the production and distribution of wealth and free time like no other system in the hystory of humanity (you would not, and I mean not, find any other system allowing so many to become so successful by so humble origins; not a system creating such a huge means to support the less fortunate) it is certainly conducive…
View original post 813 more words
There are a couple of interesting blog posts around about the “meaning” of those horrible giant puppets we see every now and then in the videos of more or less blasphemous parodies of the Mass.
In my eyes, the meaning is very simple: desecration, irreverence, trivialisation of the sacred, of the Mass and of the Consecration.
In a rigidly organised ritual like the Mass, every subversion of the ritual must pass through the subversion of the seriousness which always accompanies sacred ceremonies. If you want people not to take the Mass seriously, you must make of the Mass a circus. Excuses for this will obviously always be available in great quantities: the “children” who need to be “amused” or “entertained” (why? They can’t be already as stupid as their parents…), seasoned with a bit of waffle over the “joy” and sprinkled with a bit of “spirit”; but in the end, these exercises mean to achieve exactly what the “show” looks like: an exercise in the the desecration and trivialisation of the sacred.
A further element to desecrate the Mass must be given in the possibility – which the puppets are, no doubt, often given – to enter the sanctuary. The sanctuary is precluded to the pewsitters, but the nuChurch born of the “radiant” experience of V II cannot tolerate that there be anything seen as “off-limits”, though of course to invite the “faithful” to simply have a walk might have unpleasant consequences. What better, then, than to allow figures of “mirth” and “laughter” to desecrate a sacred space and make of the sanctuary a place of entertainment for everyone, even those who must stay out?
You will possibly now expect me to say that it is inexplicable to me how V II could be perverted to this extent.
Well, I won’t.
The puppets are not a perversion, but rather a continuation of Vatican II. They travelin teh same direction of V II, only a bit further. They are the unavoidable development of something which had all the germs of the rot in itself, which is the only reason why the rot could expand so rapidly.
How many times have you heard of these puppet-masters justifying their shows with the pre-V II church? How often with V II? Why is this not entirely absurd to their parishioners? Why do the latter not talk among themselves and say: “Father must be out of his mind: there is no way this can be presented as a development of the “Spirit” of V II”?
They don’t, because “Father” is right: this is a development of V II! If it were not, it would have been killed decades ago by those who made the Council! Instead, you will notice that those who refuse the puppets and the “spirit” of V II tend to have a very low opinion of V II itself, and those who “embrace” V II tend to embrace, in a more or less marked way, the puppets and all the antics that can be compared with them: from “laser masses” to “liturgical dances” to God knows what. The video above shows a “good” bad example, and might even have been recorded at a (wannabe) Catholic mass.
This is why the puppets are there: to destroy the sacredness, the reverence, the very idea of Transubstantiation, the very idea of belief in the Lord.
Please look at the video and tell me whether you can come to any other conclusion.
I linked to my blog tonight and a window appeared on the top right hand side inviting me to subscribe to my blog (ha!) per email.
The worst was that the dratted window did not want to offer me any opportunity to just close it or click it away. It just stayed there, waiting for me to write my email address inside (you wish!).
The little show only ended when I clicked on another page altogether.
Let me point out that this is not my initiative (I couldn’t care less how many read me by email rather than by visiting the site directly) and that I do not like – as, I think, many of you – obnoxious windows wanting me to “do” something I do not want to do.
Feel free to complain to WordPress about this if it goes on, though I think they’ll be swamped with complaints already.
Anyway, as the man said: “my hands are clean”
Reblog of the day
Absolutely brilliant blog post from the “Little Catholic Bubble” about misguided compassion.
The author of the blog first describes her observation that
The culture has quickly moved from complete aversion to gay “marriage” (which was unthinkable even fifteen years ago) to the beginnings of real acceptance. I’ve noticed that most who have moved towards acceptance have done so out of a misguided sense of compassion.
We see here the poisoned fruits of a culture that has substituted Christianity with a wooly “let us feel good” mentality, where too many believe that, provided one “doesn’t harm anyone” (I didn’t know sodomy doesn’t harm, by the way), then it is all fine because we are oh sooo charitable.
When you have to explain to anyone that a sin is harmful because it offends God, you know that Christianity is in trouble.
But the fact is, the author continues, that such…
View original post 488 more words
Today’s newspapers/internet magazines are full of the story of the man who asked the court whether he could be legally murdered. The court said to him “no, you can’t” and the chap apparently cried in front of journalists (there are photos on the internet, at the very least) at being informed England is not so Nazi yet and he will have to leave until it pleases God in His wisdom (that’s not what the judges said; but you get my drift…) to put an end to his days.
Only one week or so later, the chap has… died, apparently of …”natural causes”. Pneumonia, says the coroner. Oh well. As the coroner says so and risks jail if he invents tales, we will assume that there was nothing fishy in this death and will proceed to make some consideration from this point of view.
You can calculate for yourself the probability of salvation of chap who one week ago showed a sovereign despise for his god-given gift, and has kept this attitude even in his instruction for tweets (you won’t believe it, the chap had a vast twitter following; morbid) to be sent after his death. I don’t bet my pint about his salvation, because Mr Nicklinson seems to me one of those who seek damnation with the lantern and easily accomplish their objective; and no, I simply don’t care two straws whether he had thirty-eight different paralyses and forty-nine legs not working: his life was as sacred – and as much a divine gift – as everyone else’s, and every differentiation in this respect is purest Nazi thinking.
What enrages me most, though, is that in nowadays’ England a man can decide to send himself to Hell with lucid and stubborn determination and not only the media and the fora are full of the usual satanic idiots supporting him ( though why they should be sad is beyond me; “we rejoice at your death” is what they should write…), but in addition to this very public madness no public warning should come from our bishops about the sheer nazi horror of what these people think they can do to their immortal souls.
In a twisted way one could still understand ( if never justify) the atheist thinking “who should care if I want to hitlerise myself and be done with that. I’m fed up of living with (add here your favourite disability), I don’t believe in God and I just want to be terminated”. This is certainly shocking, but in itself not entirely stupid. It is the necessary conclusion of a wrong premise, but the conclusion is not absurd in itself.
But that those who are supposed to believe in God should just shut up when people damn themselves in such a public way, under the eyes of the nation, and are cheered by others for doing so is truly beyond belief. So much so in fact, that one can seriously wonder whether they believe in God in the first place.
Mr Nicklinson’s case is very indicative of this satanic madness: a man insists in getting rid of himself and spending an eternity in hell, and is cheered by Neonazis feeling – like the original ones – oh so good in the process. “Yes, get rid of yourself!” they say to him. “We can clearly see your life is worth crap, and not worthy of being lived! An obvious case of Lebensunwertes Leben! It is a shame the courts would not allow you to get rid of that rubbish you have become! Come on, old boy, try at least to get a pneumonia! You wouldn’t want to go on like that, would you now?”
Apart from the – let us say it again: repetita iuvant – satanic attitude of Mr Nicklinson and his supporters, I want to point out to the utter uselessness of our modern, cowardly clergy, in this respect as in pretty much all the others. If the bishops don’t shout from the rooftops how evil suicide is, how can they persuade the masses that it should be avoided? If the only answer they have is waffling about the “sufferance” of the person who wants to die, how will they persuade anyone that he should not want to be killed? If they never speak about eternal sufferance (compared to which, I am sure, Mr Nicklinson’s earthly sufferance was a walk in the park; and very probably he has already realised this as I write) and always use the easy way of focusing on the earthly one, how can they hope to persuade those on whom the devil is so actively at work to desist from their foolish ideas?
Mind, I am not talking here about the atheist hard-liners: they will continue on their Nazi line whatever a bishop may say. What is getting lost in this ocean of “niceness” is the mainstream of those (more or less vaguely) Christian who get Satan’s version of the story, whilst those who should speak about the heavenly one stay silent lest they be unpopular.
The clergymen of the “church of nice” never talk about evil, satan, and hell. They only pander to people’s feelings. Oh how much you are suffering. Oh how much I feel for you. Oh how good I feel whilst helping you to feel good with your own (once again) satanic intent. Oh how popular, and sensitive, and caring, and pastoral I am! I must be a good priest/bishop, surely?
They should take heed. Not a long time will pass, and many of them might well find themselves in the company of the Nicklinsons of the world.
Reblog of the day
Perhaps the best “Vortex” I have ever seen, this one deals with the “nice people” poisoning the Church.
At the beginning of the video there is a photo of a great man the one or other of you might find somewhat familiar, and the Fulton Sheen citation is stellar; but this short video reaches an explosion of politically incorrect truth at the end.
Don’t miss this beautiful video.
I have written several times about the scandal of the Kirchensteuer, which besides being absurd in itself is the main cause of the generalised prostitution of the German/Austrian/Swiss clergy, so fearful of losing the extremely generous income it provides.
It now turns out already in 2009 a rather conservative Swiss bishop had unilaterally decided to set an end to the Kirchensteuer and to substitute it with a voluntary contribution.
Let us listen to the press officer of this excellent man:
„Noch immer wissen viele nicht, daß die Katholische Kirche als solche für die Mitgliedschaft keine Steuern verlangt und daß sie in fast allen Ländern kein mit der Schweiz vergleichbares Steuersystem kennt.“
“Many still do not know that the Catholic Church as such does not demand any tax for her membership, and that in almost every Country she does not know a tax system comparable with the Swiss one”
The astonishing in this phrase is what I had already written about: that there should be country where people consider it normal that one is only then a Catholic, if he pays a tax!
Similarly, those who decide to get out of the Kirchensteuer system are not considered, or demanded to declare, that they are not Catholic anymore.
„Auch darf ihnen unter keinen Umständen mit der Verweigerung der Sakramente gedroht werden.“
“In addition, not under any circumstances can they be threatened with the refusal of the Sacraments”.
Common sense to you and I, I very much hope. Not so in Switzerland, in Austria, and in Germany. Just ask around.
Think of this: in a time where the clergy of the German-speaking countries bends over forward ( actually, bend over tout court) to maintain their scandalous privileges, a bishop has the gut to willingly renounce to them! In nearby Austria, Cardinal Schoenborn must be terrified…
A very short googling shows Bishop Huonder as rather conservative and not really loved by his own clergy (always a good sign). I do not now how truly conservative the bishop is, but it seems to me he is doing the right thing, and does not seem to fear any collapse in his diocese’s finances (long-term, probably somewhat of a diet; a very healthy thing for the Church in Switzerland, no doubt).
The days of the Kirchensteuer are clearly counted, in Switzerland as well as in nearby Austria and Germany.
Think of that, all that whoring around of the German-speaking clergy (I do not write one tenth of what I read, because my liver is dear to me; believe me there are no words harsh enough to describe them) for … for…
“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
‘One of the amazing things about London is that not only have we got a declining crime rate, declining murder rate, more theatres than New York, less rainfall than Rome, it’s also one of the few places in the country where the rate of marriage is actually increasing.
‘I see absolutely no reason why that happy state should be denied to anybody in our country and that’s why I’m supporting the Out4Marriage campaign.’
The last “hero” ready to sell himself to the Gaystapo is our once not at all unpleasant Major of London, Boris Johnson, known simply as “Boris” a bit everywhere.
Boris has made a great, hopefully fatal mistake: he has openly endorsed so-called gay marriage.
No doubt, Boris is very popular, and he certainly thinks this plunge into sexual perversion will help him to consolidate his support among the vast cohorts of the perverts & their friends. I do think, though, that he might have made a stupid statement too much for the following reasons:
1. Boris isn’ t Cameron. Even babies know Cameron has built his political career on duplicity and flattery. Johnson built his on sincerity and political incorrectness. When he forgets who he is to become a bad copy of Cameron, one can’t see why those who want to kick the man out should support Boris instead.
2. Cameron is losing ground not because he isn’t “pleasant” (he can be glib enough) but because more and more Conservatives want to see Conservatism again, and the voters on the ground clearly start to have enough of this stupid marketing exercise merely benefiting a couple of hundreds,well, prostitutes. How they should change their mind because Boris is a nice chap is beyond me.
3. Alas for them, prostitutes tend to be despised even when they are liked, and I can’t see why Boris should be considered any better than a street worker from true Conservatives, whom in the end he is going to need if he wants to be a real alternative to the Chameleon.
Summa summarum, I think (and hope) the party will realise Boris never made the step from pleasant clown to serious statesman; on the contrary, the power went on his head and caused him to renege his entire persona for the sale of popularity and power, becoming just another little Jezebel. I doubt this is what a growing number of Conservatives (in Parliament and, most importantly, on the ground) wants.
In Dickens’ “Bleak House”, Mr Nemo receives a pauper’s burial, having been found a corpse without any relative, or significant money.
I suppose pauper’s burials are still in place in the British Isles. Even at the point we are, I would be very surprised if they weren’t.
What I wonder is how long it will take until some strictly atheist moron (like, say, Cameron) will decide that it is too much of an expense to offer a burial to the poor deceased rather than putting him in the oven, which is certainly the cheaper solution.
In the end, a government that does not care for the unborn life and is trying to find every way to start killing old people must get rid of expensive traditions like a burial, surely?
Just a thought…
In one of those rather funny development our modern “a court for every fag” system is creating, the so-called European Court of Civil Right, with seat in Strasburg, “condemned” Russia to pay damages to a local faggot insisting to have so-called “pride” parades held in Moscow.
On the same day of the Pussy Riot sentence (your humble correspondent reported) another interesting sentence was made public: so-called “gay parades” (generally a show of public lewdness, besides being perverted in themselves) are still forbidden in Moscow, and the local judges don’t give a … fag about what some strange “court” in Strasbourg thinks.
The Buggers Broadcasting Communism are, of course, devastated.
Away from me the thought that Russia is a happy land of free and prosperous people. But I can certainly say they seem to be the only ones willing to maintain some sanity in these disgraceful times.
Beautiful collection of instructive quotations from the mother of all feminazis: Margaret Sanger.
Choosing only some of the many pearls available on http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm , I would mention the following ones:
The genocidal baby-killing machine
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
The eugenics Hitler forerunner
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
The racist terminatrix
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by…
View original post 265 more words
Cardinal Dolan invites his own (official) enemy to speak at a dinner meant to collect money against… him.
Cardinal O’Brien even refuses to meet his own chief of government, who has invited him to “talk” about “sodomarriage”.
I know only one of the two can be right.
I wonder who? Hhhmmm…
Seldom have I read such pithy exposition of Catholic thinking from a non-specialised media outlet.
Try this (emphases always mine):
Wealth and poverty are catalysts for bringing the rich and the poor together in community, and community is the hallmark of the church’s mission on Earth. Government is not community. Government is one of community’s tools, a coercive one we use when it is necessary to force people to behave in ways they would not otherwise behave voluntarily.
Already these three lines are of devastating effect for all those – very many in old, tired Europe – identifying Government with “good”, and the vehicle through which every “good” must be, well, coerced.
It goes on:
But that word—voluntarily—is key, and it’s where Mr. Ryan’s religious detractors go awry: Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution. And if one really is as good as the other, the Soviets demonstrated long ago that it can be done far more efficiently without the trappings of church and religion.
This is another good dollop of sanity which would (I assure you, oh fortunate American readers) surprise many a European, because they have been trained to think basically from the cradle – and from elementary school at the latest – that coercion is the way to achieve an outcome considered “moral”. This is at the root of the oppressive Nanny-ism present in particular in the English society, with an army of busybodies intent in trying to crucify perfectly normal drinkers and smokers out of the completely bonkers persuasion that they must be saved from themselves.
We see an extremely disquieting reflex of this thinking – Government legislates about morality, therefore morality is the monopoly of the Government – in the more and more automatic desire to ban whatever the Government does not approve of. For example, once Government has given sodomites official recognition, the questioning of their perversion should be made illegal – under the guise of “hate crime”, “homophobia”, or “discrimination” – because if the Government has decided for the morality of a behaviour, this morality cannot be publicly questioned without being subversive.
The article mentioned echoes this with the following words:
All people have the moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate. But replacing morality with legality is the first step in replacing church, religion and conscience with government, politics and majority vote.
When you replace morality with legality, you give the legislator – and in modern terms, the Government – the monopoly over morality. A dictatorship of government-given oppressors ensues, because this mentality unavoidably tends to make opposition to one’s own moral positions illegal. It there is a menace to freedom nowadays, it is this tendency of thinking and legislating in terms of “hate”.
Then the hammer falls directly on the genitals of the US Church hierarchy, so short-sighted and enslaved to easy populism for many decades and now about to pay the price of their inanity. The WSJ authors put it in these words:
The bishops dance with the devil when they invite government to use its coercive power on their behalf, and there’s no clearer example than the Affordable Care Act. They happily joined their moral authority to the government’s legal authority by supporting mandatory health insurance. They should not have been surprised when the government used its reinforced power to require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions and birth control.
The Church asked the government to be the coercive enforcer of morality, and now the enforcer wants to do the same with them. In a last beautiful warning, the article states:
To paraphrase J.R.R. Tolkien (a devoted Catholic), the government does not share power. Paul Ryan knows this. The bishops would be wise to listen to him.
Three cheers for the WSJ for hosting such enlightened minds on their columns.
Reblog of the day
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…
View original post 801 more words
We all know we live in very stupid times. But the times must be stupid indeed if a group of exhibitionist bitches can think they can desecrate a church and stage an act of (it is very reasonable to say, though my Russian is, erm, limited) open blasphemy, in church, in front of the faithful.
Thankfully, the Russians seem to have kept a least one tiny bit of the sanity which should be understood all over the West, and have decided to jail (and it appears to be real jail, not parole or the like) the exuberant girls so that next time they enter a church they know how to behave.
Let me say that I do not care two straws that they were protesting against Putin, or that they believe they have some “humanitarian” agenda to promote. Russia isn’t so bad that one cannot give vent to his dissatisfaction in public, without the need to behave in a desecrating and blasphemous way.
Add to this that according to the excellent LifeSiteNews:
1) the song had several open attacks to religion as such (not Putin!), and obscene references.
2) the “pussy riots” have a history of exhibitionism, and I mean not only in the usual sense, but also in the sexual one. How else can you describe people having sex in public in a museum, or simulating a masturbation with a chicken leg in a supermarket.
The article also has a rather eloquent video (caution: strong tobacco) in case you think the “ladies” only have a problem with Putin.
This has been happening not for the last couple of weeks before the church “incident”, but for the last several years. Therefore, it is obvious the real scandal is not that the “pussy riot” have been arrested. It is that they have not been arrested before.
Still, it can be no surprise that such sex-obsessed nutcases are the pets of the Western liberal media and of those organisation (like Amnesty International) always ready to support the wrong causes.
Well then, the “ladies” (ha!) will now have some cooling times in jail where, no doubt, the one or other chicken leg will not be denied to them. I truly hope they do not get “pardoned”, thus thinking they can continue with their antics more or less unpunished.
Kudos to the Russian judges, and let us hope when this happens in Western Europe (which it will) the reaction will be comparably firm.
The appointment of a practicing Catholic clearly in favour of fiscal sanity for the position of Vice President should the US get a change from the… change will very probably cause a lot of discussions about the so-called “preferential option for the poor”. Let us, therefore, see a bit more in detail what this “preferential option” is, whether it can – once properly intended – teach us something new, whether it represents something in harmony with what the Church has always believed and, most importantly, whether lefties have any right to try to take Catholic social doctrine as hostage to push their own socialist agenda.
A rather clear (not easy to find: post -Vatican II documents are always such a senseless waffle…) definition of the “preferential option for the poor” is, in my eyes, this one:
As followers of Christ, we are challenged to make a preferential option for the poor, namely, to create conditions for marginalized voices to be heard, to defend the defenseless, and to assess lifestyles, policies and social institutions in terms of their impact on the poor. The option for the poor does not mean pitting one group against another, but rather, it calls us to strengthen the whole community by assisting those who are most vulnerable.
The “preference” here is not in the conditions themselves (that is: you do not have to give the poor any “preference” because they are poor, which would mean to discriminate against those who aren’t), but in the kind of enhanced attention that a Catholic society must give to the problem of poverty. Similarly, the assistance is not, in itself, assistance through statual, forced redistribution.
Notice that – as so much of the post V-II slogan-producing machine – if intended in this rather sensible way this “preferential option” doesn’t really mean anything new but it sounds good, progressive, flattering, and of easy abuse for those who want to misunderstand it. To sound good and to mean nothing is something the Church post V-II has perfected to a true art, though the stench remains.
If we reflect, we understand that one must be really ignorant (wait! Many leftists are!) in order to to believe that in past Christian societies poverty was not at the centre of public consciousness. In fact, this was so much the case that no one had to starve, even in the total absence of the extremely expensive, wasteful and self-serving social apparatus nowadays so common the leftists think it indispensable for the poor’s survival. If anything, then, the “preferential option” (as just described) was much more spread in former times than it is today, though the Cardinals and Popes of the past did not consider necessary to pander to the masses by letting them understand (because this is what they will understand, and the post V-II clergy know it) that they have some right to be “privileged” on earth because they are poor. In fact, the “poor” are nowadays led to believe – though this is not openly said – that the Beatitudes are not “social” enough, and a more aggressive “preference” is needed (like for example taxing the rich stupid so that the poor’s “preferences” may be financed).
Once again, mind an important point: this is not explicitly said; it is merely the way things are made to sound. How very Vatican II…
Take then the traditional doctrine of wealth as our grand-grandmothers knew it. Of course they were very much concerned about poverty, probably more than we ourselves are (“poverty” in England has a rather abstract significance nowadays); but in the end they believed in solidarity and subsidiarity, rather than expecting that an omnipotent and extremely expensive machine decides and administers how much must be forcibly taken from the ones and given to the others.
If, on the other hand, we were to say that the “preferential option for the poor” would mean something different from what has been explained in the quotation above – something, that is, rather more socialist, or calling in any way whatsoever for the right of the “poor” to take what belongs to the “rich” – the argument would be utterly destroyed by the simple consideration that such a “preferential option” is… nothing to do with what Catholicism has always said: namely, that solidarity born of charity and subsidiarity are the best, most Christian and most efficient way to deal with the (earthly) problem of poverty.
And so we are at the starting point: the slogans about the “preferential option” are either opposed to Catholic teaching, or mean nothing new by still remaining susceptible of wrong interpretation; they are susceptible of wrong interpretation because the Church wants to be popular rather than tell things straight; the “Catholic” way is the only one by which we can keep the slogans in line with the traditional teaching, and therefore Obama fans and other rabid socialists have no right whatsoever to criticise Paul Ryan’s fiscal responsibility as “un-Catholic”.
On the contrary, every step toward the liberation from the marxist re-distribution machine and the return to the traditional approach of solidarity and subsidiarity can only be defined as a Catholic regeneration of a marxist mentality; a mentality nowadays so spread, and so generally accepted (cue the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, with the National Health Service celebrated as a great British achievement rather than a monstrous exercise in socialism) that people must be re-educated to think Catholic in the first place.
Probably many bloggers know what it is like: you end up writing late in the evening more asleep than awake, and then mistakes creep in. This time it was not just the odd typo or forgetting to tag (which, by the way, I have also done), but much worse.
I have selected yesterday’s photo from google (very little pic), have put the caption without looking at the photo, have clicked “publish” and then I have gone to bed, the slow connection has not motivated me to give a last check.
This early afternoon I wanted to look on my phone how the page looks like (I never do; but today I was curious) and the picture looked very strange. Zooming, I saw with horror that a devil was there, in a “representation” of the Last Supper certainly extremely disquieting, and very possibly inspired by some satanic motive or sympathy.
I tried to cancel the (literally) damn photo, but my extreme inexperience with this kind of exercise from the phone did not allow me to do so. Then I decided to put the entire message as “draft” so it would disappear until I managed to put the right photo on.
I am a very impressionable person, and to see the devil looking at me when I expected to see the Last Supper wasn’t a pleasant experience at all.
It was a mistake due to sleepiness and, well, lack of proper care in posting.
My apologies to all those who, no doubt, had the same impression I did from seeing the horrible, very probably blasphemous photo. I won’t even try to fish it again from google to see the background, then the thought is very uncomfortable.