Monthly Archives: October 2012
It says here on Kreuz.net, the biggest Catholic internet site in Europe (much-hated from the German bishops who are now trying to ally themselves to sodomites to try to get rid of them; from their friends you’ll recognise them) that in Norway “gender madness” had come to such an extent that there were people walking around and thinking along the line that the only difference between men and women lies in their…. reproduction organs. One of the gender morons actually said so verbatim.
This obvious stupidity did not escape a Norwegian comedian, Harald Eia. Being one of those still able to think with his own head, he interviewed several of them and made of it a TV programme, part of a series called “brainwash”. Norway is, interestingly, one of those countries where the separation between “men” and “women” jobs is still very much marked, notwithstanding decades of gender neutral indoctrination; so they noticed.
Following the broadcast of the TV programme in February 2011, further “research” was commissioned, and hot water finally discovered: little boys and girls have innate different behaviour from a very tender age, before being able to speak and to be “indoctrinated” by the sexist macho world outside (in Norway; think that…).
This is pure common sense to normal people, like you and I, and every kindergarten will allow you to observe (if you don’t remember yours) that no four or five years old child can have been so “indoctrinated” as to be, at his age, so markedly a boy or a girl as most of them already are.
But we aren’t Norwegians, you see; they need more research.
The “Nordic Gender Institute” targeted by Mr Eia is a creature – and an expense – of the Nordic Council, a kind of “Nordic Community” on the style of the old CEE (before it became another madness, the EU).
The interesting news is that the Nordic Council has now decided to simply shut down the “Nordic Gender Institute”. From the end of this year, the gender cretins will have to do damage somewhere else.
Perhaps I am being too optimistic here, but it seems to me that the signs are multiplying that something like a slow awakening is now taking place, and sanity here and there coming to the fore. The “Coalition for marriage” in the UK is the biggest popular slap ever given to a Government and whilst the battle still rages, victory is now a concrete possibility; the debate on so-called “gay marriage” in the US is furious, and the Church begins to mobilise in the right direction, which in time will not fail to bring fruits; always in the UK, the political correct stupidity of the “hate speech” is being vigorously targeted, and Anne Widdecombe has explained so well – in front of an audience of angry Conservatives – how our faggot-friendly PM is trying to kill our freedom in the name of political correctness and sexual perversion.
We shall see, but it seems to me we might be at the turning of the tide.
In the longer term, may I suggest some further improvement.
Gender Madness Reblog
This rather astonishingly (for normal people, I mean) article/contribution from NOT one of the people analysed by Prof. Regnerus in his study (I have written recently about it) but one who came in contact with him does in my eyes merit our attention. It does it because its mixture of common sense in some things and refusal to see elementary reality in some other is a very real warning about the – self-admitted – confusion of all kind in which people raised at some point of their young lives by so-called “same sex” parent experience. Note how a kind of schizophrenia goes through the entire article and reasoning, nay, through the entire emotional world of this man, in a continuous oscillation between a slowly found normality of thinking and the clinging to ways of reasoning instilled by the perverted environment he grew up in. The long phase of whining about…
View original post 3,188 more words
A rather astonishing news came in the last days from the Vatican. It appears Ecclesia Dei now say the SSPX needs more time, and the Vatican is ready to give it to them. Actually, they even mention ongoing discussions…
With all due respect: poppycock.
The SSPX has made very clear, in the most possible public manner conceivable, that further discussions are subject to the Vatican accepting certain conditions, without which there can be no fruitful discussion anyway.
Furthermore, the SSPX has made public that whilst one should never say never, they do not believe in any agreement during this pontificate, and I am rather sure they know why.
Moreover, the SSPX has decided that whatever (future) agreement with the Vatican is proposed, it will not be decided by a small troop of “leaders” (who then ask the other members to simply “obey”) but it will have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX members, thus making it utterly inconceivable that the ambitions of the one or the other may achieve the result of carrying the order with them.
In addition, Cardinal Mueller himself has immersed the negotiations in frozen yoghurt, making very clear he does not want to have anything to do with those bad, bad men who do not even indulge in simony, or encourage sexual perversion like his well-fed German Kollegen. (look at the graphic, please)
Once again: the SSPX has spoken, and unless there is a sudden change of mind from the Pontiff the only reasonable conclusion is that there’s nothing else to say for the time (and the Pontificate) being; then to talk is good, but to waste breath when everything has been said is not very smart.
Why, then, this sudden change of perspective from Ecclesia Dei, which even contradict their own immediate superior?
I can only imagine the following two hypotheses, but perhaps the readers will have other suggestions:
1) Someone at Ecclesia Dei would like to re-launch the discussions and – now Williamson is away – attempt to isolate Mueller, who is clearly an enemy of every sensible agreement. This might make sense because the press release comes from Ecclesia Dei rather than from the CDF itself, and the astonishing description of the discussions as ongoing is clearly an open contradiction of what the boss himself has said. Therefore, it might be Ecclesia Dei now simply pretend the discussions haven’t ended yet; which makes, in this perspective, a lot of sense, as an open offer to the SSPX to re-open them would be linked with some loss of face.
2) This is a very Italian, erm, Southern Italian message: a bit like saying, with a raucous voice, “you think you have spoken, picciotto, but I will pretend you haven’t; just for a while, whilst you reflect on the consequences… I am trying to help you before you get in serious trouble, mi capisci?“.
The second hypothesis is in my eyes less probable, as there would be no need whatsoever to do it in public in such a cryptic way, whilst in the first case the public – if not open – isolation of Mueller is probably the best message the people at Ecclesia Dei can try to send to the SSPX; it is reasonable to assume many at Ecclesia Dei want to see the SSPX reconciled, and could have made without the Pontiff’s sleight of hand when he last changed the text of the preambolo.
Far-fetched both of them, you may rightly say, and I would agree with you. On the other hand, it does not happen very often that both the SSPX and the CDF say “the matter is closed” and suddenly Ecclesia Dei comes out saying “ahem, we are still waiting for your answer then, aren’t we?”
We shall see. Perhaps it was nothing, merely someone at Ecclesia Dei has simply not been paying much attention… one is reminded of the revocation of the excommunication for the SSPX bishop without even knowing Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the Holocaust.
If this is not a case of insisted sleeping activity, I never cease to be amazed at the Vatican corridors: there must be more mines there than at the border with North Korea…
“Saints About Sodomy” reblog
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” expressionsclearly 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 –…
View original post 1,063 more words
One of the most astonishing fruit of the modern political correctness mentality is the “hate speech” legislation here in the UK. This legislation, fairly ignored in the last years, has risen to (un)popularity after a series of cases in the last months, where a number of (temporary) arrests have been made for the most ridiculous things (“homophobic” tweets; tweeting “all soldiers should die”).
The problem is here that there are more and more people are ready to cry “hate” whenever you say something they don’t like (say: that they are abominable perverts; like faggots, lesbians and other perverts).
Those who know Atkinson a bit more than from Mr. Bean know he is a highly intelligent, well-spoken, perceptive individual very much sensitive to the elementary matter of freedom of expression.
I invite you to listen to the 9-minute speech of Mr Atkinson, who deals with the various aspects of the matter in a way that makes unnecessary for me to add much more.
Mr Atkinson sees the “right to insult or to offend” as a fundamental element of a free society, and shoots against the “outrage industry” and the pressure they put on the police (OK, it is wrong for the police to panic, but they should not have the possibility of panicking by arresting people in the first place).
Again, listen to Mr Atkinson speaking against the “new intolerance”. It is a lesson in democracy and, I must say, in adulthood.
Whatever the Nazi professionals of the “outrage” may think.
As a vast and scary natural phenomenon ( “Act of God”, I think the Americans used to say; it is probably un-PC nowadays to say so) is approaching the coast of New Jersey, I would like to assure those affected that they are in the thought and prayers of many the other side of the Pond, where the matter is followed with apprehension.
Thought this might not be the best moment to say it, it cannot be denied that such events are a sobering reminder of how little we are , and how fragile our entire earthly permanence is.
Certus an, incertus quando.
It applies to everyone, even those with the luxury of praying for those affected from the comfort of a boring, mildly rainy evening.
The Siege of Vienna reblog
In the last days another, less-remembered anniversary occurred: on the 11 and 12 September 1683 a decisive battle was won to protect Vienna from a second Ottoman assault (a first siege had been attempted in 1529).
The Ottomans had arrived to Vienna (well protected, but badly manned) on the 14th July with an army 150,000 strong (butthey might have been up to double as much) and had asked for surrender. But this being the religion of peace, surrender was never a very safe matter: just some days before, the little fortified city of Perchtolsdorf had been destroyed after surrender, with many of his inhabitants killed or enslaved. The commander of the Austrian defenders, Count von Starhemberg, was not what you’d call a wimp. He refused to surrender and led the strenuous defence of the city for the following almost two months, a time marked by great deprivations and many a…
View original post 851 more words
Faggoty fraternity sues other faggoty fraternity for trademark infringement and unlawful trade.
You couldn’t make this stuff up; still, it’s true.
It confirms the well-spread notion that when homos are not complaining about “homophobia” (also known as “Christian morality”) they are bitching against each other…
Bishop Jenky Reblog
Can’t remember last time I read such beautiful words from a Bishop.
The first part, about Christ’s resurrection, is beautiful enough. But this part, I had read and heard already.
What I was not prepared for, is the barrage of the most orthodox, and most uncompromising Catholic cannons against the evil forces of our time, led by “Mr. Change” himself.
If I think that only some months ago many US bishops were timorous of speaking about matters which might have construed as “political” (that is: pretty much everything besides the need of being nice to the neighbour’s dog), the shift in attitude is nothing less than astonishing. May it be that Bishop Jenky was rather blunt in times past, this is still a sign of things to come.
Bishop Jenky is saying very plainly that the Church is now at war with the Obama administration and the enemies of…
View original post 592 more words
Bishop Paprocki Reblog
Courtesy of Father Z, this video published from Right Wing Watch, a leftist site aimed at “expossing” the activities of the “extreme Right”. In their innocence, these people must think Bishop Paprocki is “extreme right”, which really says a lot about what them.
Bishop Paprocki’s message is simple: the Democratic party promotes intrinsic evil as a party platform, whilst the Republican party simply doesn’t. There may be – there certainly are: just think of the poof division – bad apples within the GOP, but there are no position on which the Republican has a party policy which constitutes intrinsic evil.
I do not know whether this suffices to make of Bishop Paprocki a representative of the “extreme Right”. But I think this is sufficient to say that Bishop Paprocki takes his job seriously. Note at the end he even dares to touch the unspoken tabu of the years Post-Vatican II…
View original post 27 more words
Bishop Ricken of Green Bay, Wisconsin, has written a letter to his sheep. This is a short excerpt. Emphases mine.
“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals,” Ricken said in the letter. “Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”
The full text is here. You’ll find though stuff, like this:
I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete
your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be
supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.
3. embryonic stem cell research
4. human cloning
5. homosexual “marriage”
These are intrinsically evil. “
Notice a couple of things:
1) The Bishop is not interested in party politics. He does not say “The Republicans say this”, or “the “Democrats say that”. It’s not about the label, but the content.
Does a candidate promote intrinsic evil? Then voting for him endangers your soul. It is fully irrelevant if the party is called “St. Francis peace’n love party”, or “The Democratic party”, or whatever.
2) It is not only about the Presidential race. Almost as equally important is what happens with the huge amount of political positions that are up for grabs: all of the members of the House and one-third of the Senators, with 7 toss-ups which, if they make a Republican majority improbable, at least will make it very difficult to have, say, another lesbian elected to the Supreme Court. Then there is the House, where the Republican majority should be consolidated, hopefully with an increased number of pro-life candidates.
3) Green Bay is in Wisconsin. If you think this State and its 10 electoral votes are safely in Democratic hands, think again; Obama’s advantage is melting fast, and now Joe Biden has to waste precious time in a State the Democrats have won in every election since 1984. Add to this that Ryan is from Wisconsin, and you have the picture.
4) I have no knowledge of Bishop Ricken guffawing with any so-called “pro-choice” candidate, giving them precious photo-opportunities to show how very much in tune with Catholicism they are. If I am wrong, please let me know.
Bishop Ricken will now obviously be accused to make party politics and be trying to influence the outcome of the elections; but you see, the man does not even mention one single party, and the outcome of an election is clearly important if you are a Christian. These are matters of life and death, for the voters’ soul as well as for countless unborn children. A Bishop who ignores these matters is a bishop who betrays the Church.
I doubt many readers of this blog are planning to vote for a so-called pro-choice candidate; but they might have relatives, or friends, or colleagues to whom the concept of “endangering one’s soul through support for intrinsic evil” might be, if the right circumstances arise, be brought nearer.
Kudos to the Bishop. More like him.
I had noticed already that Christmas has become more and more a commercial exercise here in Blighty, but I was not prepared for what happened very recently.
Walking out of a well-frequented train station I saw some young people dressed as Father Christmas and distributing mince pies, a typical Christmas fare these parts. Of course, this was far too early in the year considering we still write October; but this is not even the beginning of the mess.
Together with the mince-pie leaflets were distributed, and a company was promoting its own Christmas offer. You’d think Christmas Caroles, and pudding, and punch, and all that.
What they were promoting was a sort of “fun day” for groups of people obviously unaware ( or uncaring) of what Christmas is about in the first place. There was a disco-entertainment being offered before the eating and various other utterly profane activities. I threw the thing straight in the next bin with a somewhat energetic movement; too late I realised the leaflet would have been, on reflection, occasion for some entertaining remarks on the blog.
This simply gives you the full measure of the point things have come to.
If you ask me, it seems a phenomenon is becoming increasingly more evident in the United States, and will one day make its appearance on European shores: the self-abortion of so-called pro-choice positions.
I would love to say to you that the growing opposition to abortion among younger voters in the US (I have blogged about this in the past, but you only need to google around a bit to be sure of this) is the result of the courageous work of the Church hierarchy to support Christian values; but I am afraid the contribution has not been near as vocal as it should have been, at least until the very last years.
In my eyes, what is happening is something more brutally simple: pro-choice supporters have simply aborted the next generation of potential pro-choice supporters. Whilst there will always be the one or other saying he is in favour…
View original post 138 more words
If you ask me, Archbishop Chaput is right and wrong in his observation that if Catholic voters had been more ready to abandon Nazi Democrats in the past, things would not have come at the point they are now. He is certainly right if we observe only the immediate cause of the Catholic behaviour; he is, I daresay, rather wrong if we look a bit further than that.
The secularisation of the American Catholics is not the exclusive result of a newly developed faith in the infallibility of the Democratic party, but rather the result of their clergy having encouraged them every step of the way toward their systematic neglect of basic Christian truths. Catholicism being a rather pervasive presence in the life of churchgoers and their offspring – and, by reflex, an important cultural element even among those who do not attend; see Italy – I cannot imagine a collapse of Catholic thinking if this thinking is actively and assertively promoted from the pulpit; similarly, in the absence of such assertive Catholicism I cannot see how the systematic neglect of basic Catholic values could not have transmitted itself to the ordinary Pewsitters. In the end, you get out of the pews what you put in them.
Therefore, if the excellent Archbishop had blamed the Catholic clergy first and the Catholic electorate second, I think he would have gone far nearer to the real roots of the problem.
The very fact that until not long ago most priests and bishops would have considered a “political interference ” to say such things of a pro-choice candidate (strangely, they never had such problems with other issues like illegal immigration or other alleged “social”, and therefore less controversial, themes) tells you everything you need to know about who were those giving the Democratic party indirect but still precious support without caring for their Nazi agenda.
A concept I will always go back to is that the fish stinks from the head down. Bad clergy will invariably produce a great number of faithful made to their own image, at least for a generation or two; this is what has happened, in the most brutally evident of ways, with the US clergy in the last decades. Therefore, the main responsibility for the continued “catholic” support of the Democratic Nazi party lies by the US clergy.
In my opinion, a serious discussion about how the Democratic electorate should behave cannot be separated by the honest admission that, if we look at the great picture, two generations of Catholics have never even been told how to behave and have therefore informed their way of thinking – human nature being what it is – to the prevalent mood they saw around them.
Bad as this is, I think their shepherd have behaved worse.
An old letter has resurfaced, in which the worst first lady ever takes a stance on child killing that would make Heinrich Himmler shiver.
You can read the letter here. Please note the woman (“lady” is, I am afraid, too much) does not even accepts the use of the words “partial birth”, which she evidently considers too politically incorrect as it reminds one that someone is being born, and there is a life at stake. Birth is clearly not a worry here; “legitimate medical procedure” is the expression of choice. With this reasoning, if the law allowed for old people to be smashed to trees like new-born kittens, this would be a “legitimate medical procedure” to her.
As the concept of “birth” must be kept away from the reader’s mind, the woman prefers to use the words “so-called partial birth abortion”. Not really a birth, then. An unwanted excrescence, more like.
I think “late term abortion” is the expression she is looking for. Funny, that. I can imagine people like her 1) advocating the right for the mother to kill the baby in the first, say, four weeks after birth and 2) calling it “very late term abortion”. The logic is exactly the same.
I wonder if even Nazis went so far as to perform abortion up to the very point of birth. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. It certainly stretches things even for your average Nazi doctor.
Also, it is true that horrible experiments were conducted by Nazi doctors in extermination camps and elsewhere, but it is time to notice all this was made on the sly, without telling the German population.
Michelle Obama does not seem to have this problem. To her, a child can be butchered when half come to light (actually, as far as I know even when come to light altogether; they just leave the baby to die of cold, and still call it “late term abortion”) and this is something that can be said very openly and written in promotional literature, taking pride in the matter.
Seriously, Hitler can’t hold a candle to this woman.
Bishop Williamson’s letter in answer to his exclusion from the SSPX has been published. I have read a German translation, and I must respectfully say that I am not impressed. Please note Williamson has many friends within Kreuz.net, and I think the translation accurately reflects his own thinking.
The way I read the document, there are two main themes and the same time explanations for his “rebellious” behaviour: past obstacles put to his work, which forced him to become active with his blog irrespective of the consequences and, more importantly, a progressive deterioration in the attitude of the SSPX under the leadership of Bishop Fellay.
The first argument is of a very personal nature, and it is impossible from the outside to see who is the real cause of which behaviour, and who is responsible for which reaction; I will, therefore, not get into the matter of who has abused whose patience more, or first.
The second argument simply does not stand. Bishop Williamson accuses the SSPX of having started to “melt” in front of Vatican cajoling since the year 2000, and to have officially left the line of the Founder (may he rest in peace, and santo subito….) at the latest in 2008. As evidence, he brings a couple of short sentences without any context, and which really demonstrate absolutely nothing.
The simple fact is that in Bishop Williamson’s view of things, every talk and every attempt to reason with the Vatican is wrong, to the point that even invitations to dinner from a Cardinal – invitation accepted from “three of the four” bishops – might constitute an inappropriate propinquity. It is clear the Bishop sees Rome as a place infected and therefore to be avoided in principle, rather than the centre of Catholicism; and the Pope, wrong as he may be in this or that matter, your ultimate boss and someone with whom you simply do not refuse to reason.
Some time ago, I wrote an explanation of the different positions within the SSPX based on the very imaginatively Italian comparison of the poisoned cake . Whilst, alas, the Vatican cook was proved a bad one, the different approaches to the cake remained and are, apparently, the main cause of this fracture.
Williamson’s position is made even more untenable by the clear refusal of the SSPX to consent to any agreement which might compromise their integrity; this for the good Bishop rather embarrassing circumstance is dismissed as a kind of fortunate last-minute effort thankfully heading in the right direction; a flawed thinking which ignores the simple reality on the ground: the SSPX has remained completely orthodox and faithful to Catholicism because this is what they are, full stop.
There is in Bishop Williamson’s reasoning also another Leitmotiv: that Archbishop Lefebvre would not have wanted any reconciliation until Rome’s full “conversion”. This simply flies in the face of reality, as the saintly Archbishop obviously sought – and obtained – official recognition for his newly created order, remained in full communion for several years and would have happily gone on that way if his wish for at least one bishop had been heard.
The reality of the last days is, I am afraid, a bit different and somewhat more cruel: a passionate but rather un-diplomatic, rather difficult, and rather grumpy old man finds himself increasingly more detached from a truly orthodox, but still intelligently diplomatic leadership and can digest with more and more difficulty the isolation and loss of influence this unavoidably means.
The reality on the ground is that the SSPX is, as I write, every bit as orthodox as Bishop Williamson.
The only difference – but a highly meaningful one – is that the SSPX will always take every opportunity to explore whether a reconciliation made in the proper way and not implying doctrinal concessions is possible, whilst Bishop Williamson considers every contact with Rome as a defilement and a danger for the organisation itself.
You see the – in my eyes – flawed reasoning also in the reproach made to Bishop Fellay to have made a mistake in trusting the Vatican to be willing to dialogue in good faith. Good Lord, if this is the worst reproach that can be moved to Bishop Fellay I hope he stays in charge for a very long time. To pick up again the “Italian” imagery, you talk with the mamma even if you have the strongest suspicion that the cake baked by her will contain poison. You do that, because she is the mamma and di mamme ce n’e una sola (“mothers, one has only one”). Of course, if the mamma orders you to eat the cake, you don’t; but the SSPX didn’t do it, either.
Up to now, I have not known of any official announcement of the creation of a separate group; but if you google around, you will find at least one internet pages created to – supposedly – “save the SSPX”, and I have not heard any confirmation that no secession is going to happen.
We shall see. As I said, I can’t say I am impressed.
The Mamma’s Cake Reblog
One of the things I love about (us) Italians is the imaginative, colourful language. A beautiful example comes from Don Alfredo Morselli’s brilliant blog post of Messa in Latino, examining the possible content of the Preambolo Dottrinale.
The blog article is very long and I will not even attempt to translate it, but there is a concept (the key message) there that is very interesting.
According to this article (I am very aligned with this hypothesis, as it can be read around the blog in several places) what the Vatican is asking from the SSPX is nothing else than the renunciation of the “poisoned cake theory”, allegedly an image invented by Bishop Williamson. Williamson’s idea is that Vatican II is like a poisoned cake: once you know that there is poison inside the cake, you throw away the entire cake instead of discussing which parts of it aren’t…
View original post 318 more words
I have written some days ago about the astonishing Feminazi murdering her baby and (allegedly) documenting the feat on the internet (satanic, one can safely say. Thankfully, I have avoided clicking the site to make sure of this).
I would like today to spend a couple of words on a phrase reported in the article. Speaking of the Feminazi butcher, the author of the article wrote:
She noted the content of numerous “hate” e-mails was some variant of the message: “Maybe you do not know God or that abortion is a sin? Praying for you!”
I sincerely hope those who have written such rather sugary words were not Catholics. A Catholic who has been properly instructed – or has simply switched on his brains – knows that there is no way a mother can kill her baby and think it’s all right. What is she, a hamster?
View original post 263 more words
The article here is a beautiful explanation of everything that is Nazi in the liberal mentality.
You see, it is not that the Nazis hated children or old people qua people. They certainly welcomed a baby if he/she was wanted (say: Aryan, or simply wanted), and certainly did not have anything against independent old people without need for extensive medical care.
They were, as every human being, very loving of their …loved ones.
The same happens with the modern Nazis, the feminists/ liberal “pro-choice” crowd. An unborn child is either a baby or a “woman’s health issue” according to whether they have, in their Nazi goodness, conferred on him the title and status of “human being”.
“How is your baby?” asks, no doubt, our “pro-choice” Yoko to her friend expecting a child she wants. In this case, it is undoubtedly a baby, already enrolled among the ranks of future peace activist and global warming nutcases.
In the other case a saw, a mallet or similarly gentle devices will take care of the baby, whose human dignity will instantly be all but forgotten.
If this isn’t Nazi thinking, I can’t recognise a Michelle Obama when I see one.
Strange news today with a mini-consistory announced and six new red hats to be created in November.
None of the new Cardinals is from Italy; five work outside of the Curia, and actually outside of Europe; only one appears – for what I know – to have a reputation of “liberal”; and one cannot avoid noticing both Nichols & Mueller have missed this train.
If I were to dare some reflections, they would be as follows:
A mini-consistory might indicate the Holy Father feels the time allotted to him might be coming to an end. I can otherwise not imagine why he would not wait another six months, perhaps twelve, and then have a more substantial Consistory. Perhaps he wanted to send a signal to countries where Christian are at risk of violent persecution. Perhaps, again, he feels his time is running out.
Archbishop Mueller has been left out. I am not very surprised as the man came to Rome mainly because he is a pal of the Holy Father, and has managed to make a lot of damage since. Whilst I am sure the Holy Father likes and protects him, there are clearly limits to the reputational damage he is ready and willing to bear.
No doubt, he plans to deliver for his Kumpel before long; Mueller certainly wishes him good health.
III) Nichols is also (provisionally) out and this is in my eyes more surprising, particularly considering the extreme prestige of his position and the fact he has been a Cardinal-in-waiting for w hile now. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is the notorious enabler of the dating service for sexual perverts usually going under the name of “Soho masses”. Rumours of action from Rome have been around for some days; I can easily imagine the two matters are linked, and the bad Archbishop is now asked to deliver at least in matter of blasphemous, openly practiced perversion.
I can also imagine the very tepid resistance put by “Quisling” Nichols to the “homo marriages” in the UK (Lord Carey is very active and the most recognisable face of this campaign; Nichols tries to be noticed as little as possible) might have not helped him much.
Again, this is a high-profile appointment of the current Pope, and a rather scarily young Archbishop of Westminster to boot. I find it entirely possible the Holy Father is now concerned about the way he will remembered, and a red hat for Nichols might – perhaps – be more than he wants to be remembered for.
IV) The news of the Consistory was leaked a couple of hours before the official announcement. If the leak was “steered”, there should be no excessive surprise at other, unwanted leaks happening; if it wasn’t, well it’ s worrying.
I will gather more information about the new six Cardinals in the next days. It seems to me, though, that all in all it could have been worse.
The video above is a collage of fragments from lessons given by Bishop Williamson to his students at the SSPX’s St Thomas Aquinas seminary in Minnesota.
You might crack an easy joke and say that these less than six minutes are all the sensible talk that his students could assemble out of many years of teaching, but in my eyes this would be more than a tad ungenerous. What comes out of this video is a man profoundly Catholic and able to make his point in a very eloquent manner. As an Italian, I find his southern-European gesticulating the more interesting… The beautiful Karl Jenkins music accompanying his words is in my eyes too loud, and I can’t understand every word he says. There might be another joke lurking here….
I heard this video and thought of what I have written often from pre-blog times: bishop Williamson is certainly a…
View original post 27 more words
Punctually on the day in which it was expected, the announcement of Bishop Williamson’s exclusion from the SSPX has arrived. I have already written about how I personally see things and will not bore you a second time; I do hope, though, that the tones remain halfway courteous – I do not mean sugary and hypocritical, but not openly insulting- at least in public.
Strong minds will have strong opinions, and passionate people will unavoidably have strong feelings about this. But even the Italian Commies managed to split without a public and open war of insults.
Let’s hope and pray.
One must really smile at the glorious incompetence of Britain’s chief muppet, the not-so-intrepid Rowan Williams. It is widely acknowledged that his decision to go (already) was inspired – possibly rather forced – by his tragic inability to have a clearly recognisable policy at least for thirteen minutes before breakfast. His weakness, indecisiveness and ability to write and talk so much without saying – let alone deciding – anything at all make of him a comic legend in his own times, and will be sung by generations of stand-up comedians’ lovers.
What will, then, such a tool be able to do, other than suggest to his successor how he should behave in the matter of bishopettes? It is as if Gordon Brown would offer his advice to his successor on how to be cool, popular and funny, or Obama would lecture his successor about how to reduce the deficit.
It’s just plain stupid, senseless, and unwittingly hilarious.
Also please note the arguments used: divisions here, conflict there; the uncertain outcomes, and the usual feminist talk (the “stained glass ceiling” is worth of Jay Leno on a bad day). That the matter be something to do with Truth does not seem to concern him.
Welcome to the world of Rowan Williams; the man without a policy, and the utter inability not to talk about one.
Once again, I suggest my Anglican readers to click here.
On the newly launched website of the new building for the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Seminary, you can see the future of Catholicism in the Western world.
Whilst the Vatican II church waffles itself into irrelevance and almost extinction, the sane parts of the Church not only resist, but grow and prosper. See the video below
to see what is happening.
It is difficult, very difficult not to see that traditional Catholicism is prospering and growing, whilst the (numerically still vaster) NuChurch is dying fast, sinking into irrelevance in the process.
The site and video explain to you nothing less than the future of Catholicism: solid, determined, serious. No laughing clowns in sight, no “daring” architectures, no waffle whatever.
Rorate Caeli not only has the video, but in a truly dramatic contrast has another blog post about the slow but perceptible decline of the Church in France. Besides the sobering statistical figures, the blog post has a rather telling photo of a huge (and, if you ask me, horrible, Le Corbusier or no Le Corbusier; see photo below) Dominican seminary now housing a dozen of seminarians.
For the dozen seminarians, the sense of decay must be palpable every hour of the day.
This is how the drunkenness of Vatican II is dying: leaving a lot of (mostly ugly) concrete in empty buildings, after deserting the Western world now under a massive attack from the forces of evil; forces of evil which the church continues to cajole and try to be friends with.
The two photos shown give a very clear idea of what the future of these two opposed vision of the Church will be, and which one of the two (the traditional, of the V II one) will survive.
The bill for the madness of the past is being presented very fast, and with the almost complete extinction of those organisations which have embraced the “spirit of Vatican II”-Zeitgeist (Jesuits and Franciscans come to mind; an awful lot of scrounging nuns; and who knows how many other minor orders) more and more bills will become due in the next decade or two.
In the meantime, serious Catholicism will continue to grow, until in one generation or two it will control the field again because of the literal, physical death of the opposing camp. A much reduced Catholicism it might be, but probably a much more effective one; than the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of priests and religious we have now aren’t doing much for Catholicism other than muddle the waters, encourage sodomy or support same-sex couples, desecrate the mass, abet heresy, being openly simoniacal and hobnob with the enemy.
In their blindness, they remind me of Erich Honecker, the deluded DDR Comrade celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DDR whilst the building was squeaking in a way impossible not to notice.
Honecker’s regime did not live to see the 50th anniversary.
Whatever the challenges of the future, we can be very confident the V II madness will not live to see the 100th.
We are informed that less and less marriages are now celebrated in so-called Church of England churches. You would expect the so-called CoE would react to this by stressing with their own people the importance of marriage as a religious institution, etc.
Their reaction is a predictably secular one, predictably making of them the asses they are now considered by the country at large. The latest idea to increase the number of marriages in church is to make the ceremony look …. less like a religious ceremony. Brilliant, uh?
In future, the Anglican (to use a fashionable word here in the UK 😉 ) plebs will be able to marry to the sound of Sugababes’ “Girls” (very spiritual, they must think it) and organise some – as the “Telegraph” calls it – “Posh And Beck Style” weddings, that is: triumphs of kitsch for vulgar rich people and for those, far more numerous, who aren’t rich but manage to be vulgar without any problem.
I can’t wait for the “disco-marriage”, in which the ceremony is performed whilst the invited enjoy the dance floor; or the X-Factor marriage, taking place whilst big TV screen broadcast the transmission with the same name, thus uniting the newly wed and their friends in a fun ceremony. Cue the green metallic waistcoats of improbable morning coats, and perhaps some fresh tattoo of the bridegroom to make the entire thing more “Beck”. I mean, like, wow, OMG, innit!?
The vicar – or however he calls himself nowadays; “marriage facilitator” would be good – would probably make a short homily – chocking full with jokes; I know they are good at that; it’s the circus training – talking of how relevant the ceremony is, and how inclusive, and how everything that is fashionable and in sync with the times.
He will probably hint at the couple that he would like to perform their next marriage ceremony, too. If the Sugababes didn’t work, how about madonna’s “like a virgin?”.
Like, really, I mean, such … FUN!
Seriously, the Anglicans are decaying to the level of circus attraction.
If you are an Anglican reading this and are ashamed – as you well should – you may read my little Vademecum for those Anglicans thinking of conversion. It is clear the decision can’t be procrastinated long without total loss of face.
Surfing around in Anglican pastures I have found an interesting article from Mr. Michael Gollop, an Anglican Vicar writing on a blog called The Anglo-Catholic.
The entry is very interesting because its author seems to guide the reluctant convert (and there must be many out there, torn between the fidelity to the church of their fathers and the growing, unpleasant awareness of ……. those fathers being actually wrong all the time) toward conversion in a way which is gentle and absolutely honest at the same time.
The main arguments of the author seem to me the following:
1) so-called Anglo-Catholicism has in the past been useful to maintain at least a part of Catholic thinking within Anglicanism, but this is now not the case anymore. He quotes the prophetic words of Cardinal Newman, that “the Nation drags down its Church to its own level…” . More than 100…
View original post 554 more words
If you click here you should be directed to the March 2012 edition of the SSPX magazine for the German Speaking countries.
Alas, I am not able to present only a part of it as I do not know how to cut .pdf documents, but if you slide down to page 40 there is a very interesting “special” concerning the Kirchensteuer, with a detailed instruction as to what to do and even ready declarations to give to your local priest.
Just as an aside, I notice the SSPX has prospered in Germany for decades now without one Pfennig (or Cent, as the case may be) of Kirchensteuer.
Why I do not agree with everything they write (they seem to mean the Kirchensteuer would be right if it was used correctly as everyone has the duty to contribute to the church’s maintenance; which is wrong or at least very badly expressed, as charity must not be imposed as a forced contribution, however good the intent) they provide the reader with a complete guide to the emancipation from the Kirchensteuer.
I suggest to my German readers they do proceed to the Austritt and give their donation money, if they feel this is the best use for it, in large part to the SSPX instead.