Monthly Archives: November 2012
My six readers are certainly aware (they should be at least, as the post is prominently displayed in my right hand column) that the heresy in Austria has been going on pretty much undisturbed for now far too long.
I do not report about the minutiae of this endless non-story, as the only thing worth nothing is the absolute inaction of Cardinal “I support Medjugorje” Schoenborn, here and there interrupted by some positive non-action like pointing out to the rebels their careers might suffer if they continue rebelling. Their careers might suffer? You don’t say? Ah, there must really be some smart people at work in Austria. It must be the mountain air.
It has now transpired the Vatican itself has finally moved with devastating energy, and is going to fall on Father Schueller with all the weight and the lethal energy of a timid pussycat. The meowing is, in fact, so terrible that the entire Catholic world is astonished at this show of feline determination.
What has happened is that Monsignor Schueller has been… deprived of the title of Monsignor.
What a fall. Sic transit gloria mundi. Words fail me.
I must say, this display of ruthless determination reminds me of the most glorious days of the Spanish Inquisition, and no doubt the present Vatican hierarchy will be remembered as an example of ice-cold willingness to ruthlessly meow against heresy. Nil inultum remanebit.
My own cat could not have done better, I assure you.
Father Schueller himself feigns indifference and says it’s no big deal, he never cared for the title anyway, and he will continue undisturbed to organise a revolt against the most basic principles of the Church (whilst obviously continuing to be a priest in good standing). We do believe that he will continue to spread heresy undisturbed; but come on, being deprived of the title of Monsignor must be a terrible, terrible blow. I shudder at the thought. Ugh!
In case, though, you would think the Vatican is being too harsh in their meowing, and that it is utterly insensitive of them to not only ignore, but even cruelly punish the sincere cry for “reform”, “inclusiveness” and all the other words ending with “ness” coming from the country who gave us Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and … Hitler, please consider the Vatican is not always so unbelievably harsh.
They are, for example, extremely gentle with the SSPX, allowing them in their wisdom not to be in full communion, and demanding from them that they become a bit more like
Mons Father Schueller in order for them to be allowed to be in full standing again. Now, this is smart, isn’t it?
I must now leave you, because the terrible news coming from Rome forces me to go and have a camomile tea.
The times are changing, for sure.
We must not be afraid of inaction anymore.
If anyone has any idea how to re-reblog an already reblogged post, I am very grateful.
As it is now, I read “reblogged” in my top bar and can’t do anything with it other than posting a new blog post with the link to the desired page, which is beyond ugly.
I have tried the WordPress forum, no answer.
Again, I am thankful for every help.
I never liked Berlusconi. What I think of him, you don’t want to read here. But after following his political career for almost twenty years one thing has become clear to me: that this corrupted, corrupting, thieving, liar, bastard pig is an exceptional salesman and is, like all exceptional salesmen, obsessed with the satisfaction of his clients.
This is, in the end, what has kept the nano pelato (“bald dwarf”) in power all these years: even most of his voters have realised that he is a pig and a (former, at least) thief. But they also know that the man is well aware of who keeps him in power, and does his best not to disappoint them.
Italy has not only no homo-“marriage”, but not even “civil partnerships”. In a world where even Spain, Mexico and Portugal do not know better, this is an achievement. Italy is a country where…
View original post 721 more words
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in “endangered” constituencies to wake up a bit before it’s too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
Let us take the controversy about “gay adoption”. A UKIP politician says he is against to his local newspaper in Croydon; predictably, the usual crowds starts to bark; the man tweets desperately around saying (more or less) “gay” is fine, but “gay adoption” isn’t.
If it is fine being “gay”, it really can’t be seen why such a “fine” man could not enjoy all the rights the law gives to his heterosexual counterparts. He should, then, be allowed to adopt as everyone else, and Christianity was simply wrong in maintaining that a homosexual is a sexual pervert. Those heretics and hypocrites like our beloved Archbishop Nichols could then “charitably” assume they live a chaste lifestyle, and give a child in adoption to a sexual pervert (or perhaps two? Nichols is even nuanced about “civil partnerships”…) without blinking.
If, on the other hand, the idea of some “gay” (that is: a homosexual; a man suffering from a very grave form of sexual perversion; a perversion so abominable it has been a taboo for 2000 years, up to this pervert generation) adopting is repugnant and utterly abominable, this is not because gays happen to be, say, “inhospitable” or overly grumpy, but exactly because…. they are sexual perverts!
The argument of “gayness” being fine and “gay adoption” wrong is, therefore, entirely contradictory and rather the fruit of the omnipresent fear of the Gaystapo than of reasoned thinking. The fear the UKIP people have of the Gaystapo shooting the usual “hate” and “homophobic” salvos is what prevents them from saying what they clearly think: homosexuality is a perversion. If it were not so, why would they not support “gay adoption”? How can they say with a straight face to homosexuals “you are fine, but you can’t adopt”? Why, then, can they not adopt? Will it not be because………Yes! That’s why!
We see here at work a disease much spread among politicians: the irrational fear of saying the truth. Therefore, they say half the truth, but refrain from saying the other half. Their argument remains unconvincing, because it is contradictory, and their reputation will suffer, because they will be rightly seen as pliable to the mob’s wishes.
I think this is the wrong strategy. In my eyes, the UKIP should give itself a solidly and rigidly conservative programme in all social and religious matters, and should go and harvest their votes among the disaffected Conservative voters in rural England, where people still (more or less) have fear of the Lord and believe in traditional values.
I can’t see them winning a seat in, say, Croydon any time soon anyway; but if they did, they could only do it at the price of “Cameronising” themselves, which would mean sure death outside of the London area, or a life at the fringe of the British Conservative life.
I truly hope for the UKIP that they will grow to become a seriously conservative Party, but if they keep trying to avoid the serious questions they will never be an alternative to the Tories, and their men will be forgotten as soon as the Conservative party comes back to sanity. Better be a good replica of the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher, than a bad copy of Cameron’s. That it doesn’t really work anyway we can see at what is happening to Cameron himself.
To do so, they must stop the nonsense of allowing a perverts’ group in their midst. It is a matter of common sense and of elementary dignity. If they avoid taking stance on controversial issues, they will soon be forgotten.
a) Barack Obama
b) Bill Clinton
c) Ronald Reagan.
There are no prizes for winning.
(with kudos to Green Mountains Scribes)
Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a Nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our Nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow. Both as individuals and as a people, we join with the Psalmist in song and praise: “Give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good.” One of the most inspiring portrayals of American history is that of George Washington on his knees in the snow at Valley Forge. That moving image personifies and testifies to our Founders’ dependence upon Divine Providence during the darkest hours of our Revolutionary struggle. It was then – when our mettle as…
View original post 343 more words
If you need further proof the EU is a satanic machine meant to nanny all of us out of Christianity, you only need to read this Rorate post, which reports the Slovakian Central Bank decided to proceed with the coinage of a special 2-Euro commemorative coin in honour of the Saints Cyril and Methodius.
The EU had previously made resistance because the original design contained – shock! horror! – a.. a… a… Cross!
Seriously! If we start putting crosses on coins, where will it end?! People going to Mass? It’s the thin end of the wedge!
The mere sight of a cross was evidently too much for the satanic EU, which initially let it be known coins cannot contain religious symbols. Later, it was told this was not official EU policy, but the policy of some countries, which might make it not possible for the coin to be freely circulated in Europe.
Sadly, it is to be inferred from the post (I do not read the language, therefore relata refero) that the local Catholic hierarchy was also against the move, which once again shows what kind of asses our great and very soon forgotten Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are giving to the Church in order for Her to proceed on the glorious path of irrelevance, stupidity, humiliation and possible persecution pursued in the five decades since the Great Event.
Happily enough, some chaps at the Slovakian Central Bank are more Christian than the local Catholic Hierarchy, and show it with facts. It might well be, now, that the coins will not have legal circulation in some EU countries, but then we will have to know which countries these are, and it might make for some fun…
Notice, though, the way the EU works: they act behind the scenes to not allow something that is not officially forbidden – they are not at this point; not yet – and try to impose an unofficial code of non-Christianity even to those Countries which care for their Christian heritage, as Eastern European Countries generally do (they can be rather impressive on these matters, the Eastern Europeans: try this, or this, or this to make just a few examples).
Welcome to the EU: an undemocratic, obsessively nannying, secular monster working for the destruction of Europe’s Christian tradition and thinking.
I say kill the beast, and good riddance to bad rubbish. What once was a useful mechanism to create a common market and facilitate commerce and industry has now become an extremely expensive, nannying, and utterly anti-Christian oppression machine.
If you want a new email with Google, you must answer a question about your “gender”.
Choices: male, female, and “other”.
Mind, it doesn’t say “prefer not to say” (my gender is, in the end, none of Google’s business). It says “other”.
I have tried to select “other” to see if it worked. It did.
Alas, I’ll take my new email address from another provider.
Punctually with the Christmas season, the PC fest starts and does not fail to make headlines. After the “Winter Lights” and other rather amusing names concocted in order to avoid mentioning Christianity, the German city of Frankfurt has now another original, if very stupid idea: the “perverts’ corner” at their own Christmas Market. In fact, the market will be enlarged with a section exclusively dedicated to sodomites & Co., called – wait for this – “Pink Christmas”.
As in all PC exercises, the stupidity of all this is mind-boggling. The heroes responsible for the decision have kept the name of “Christmas” market, but have simply decided to forget everything Christianity is about. As if instead of the birth of our Saviour they were celebrating the birth of Elton John, or Stephen Fry’s first act of sodomy. Can’t wait for the Christmas market section for zoophiles, and am curious to see what colour “Christmas” will be for them.
Before some PC cretin pollutes my comment box with his senseless drivel about “inclusiveness”, let me say that homosexuals were never forbidden entry to a Christmas Market, as they were never forbidden entry in church; but clearly, a homosexual is expected to behave in the proper way in both places, and is not expected – in church, at a Christmas market or anywhere else – to find any kind of “sympathy”, “understanding” or “inclusiveness” for his perversion.
This immensely stupid initiative will be a good way to gauge how far the indifference of Germans for everything religious has come: Christmas Markets have traditionally been also a family entertainment (during the day and the weekend, mainly) and it will be interesting to see how many parents decide to avoid the place altogether, firstly in order to avoid exposing their children to in-your-face perversion and secondly because there’s no scarcity of nice Christmas Markets in the region.
It would be rather nice if this last homo-initiative were to become a commercial flop, leaving the city of Frankfurt with a double problem: a failing (former) Christmas market, and the necessity to backpedal on the homos to save what is still to be saved.
Still, I have no big hopes that much will happen; things have come to a point that without a serious work of instruction and religious education not much will seriously shock German parents, be they (nominally) Catholic or not.
If any German reader of mine happens to live or (more probably) work in the vicinity, my suggestion is to avoid the place altogether. Wiesbaden’s is – for now – much nicer anyway.
The Sinead O’Connor reblog
One of the most salient traits of modern society is the fact that people claim – and are given – credibility just because they happen to be famous.
A beautiful example of this is Sinead O’Connor. I can’t imagine any other age in which an unstable lesbian with rather hysteric ideas, a penchant for suicide and in general rather fit for a specialised establishment for mental illnesses can ordain herself – or be ordained by some other clown – a “priestess” and be taken seriously. In every other age, people would say to her “yes, dear” and care that there are no knives lying about.
Not with this lady (boy?), though. We are here in front of a person who married four times – showing an admirable ability to stick to her own decisions – threw in some lesbianism just for the fun of it, and made other rather extraordinary…
View original post 277 more words
I have stumbled upon an interesting commentary on the Bible concerning the strange way some wannabe Christians – not believing what they say themselves, and not taken seriously by anyone else – want to interpret the destruction of Sodom as the punishment for – incredibile dictu – not being “hospitable”.
I invite you to click on the article and to absorb its content; it does not deal only with the obvious condemnation of Sodom made by Jesus, but also with other excuses taken by the perverts to attempt to re-invent Christianity.
I will limit myself to one or two additional considerations, worth perhaps a second or two of your time.
1) It cannot be that 2,000 years of Christianity have been completely and utterly wrong. The idea of starting to quibble about the meaning of words written thousands of years ago cannot conceal the fact that thousands of years ago everyone knew what they meant, and their meaning is exactly what has been transmitted. That nowadays fewer people are able to understand the meaning of old expressions does not mean that those expressions should now magically mean something else.
Say, the word “wicked” has always meant something like “evil”, but nowadays some (not very smart) people use it to say “cool”. It can be argued that as I write “wicked” is used to express both, but there can be no uncertainty concerning the fact that everyone knows what it means in the context, and there’s no way to misinterpret it when you hear or read the word. But now imagine a sodomite coming up in 2000 years’ time and reading XXI Century texts saying that sodomy is wicked. “Hey”, he would say, “wicked actually also meant cool, so here it means that sodomy is cool!”.
I know the argument is stupid, but so are they. They are, in fact, so stupid to think the contemporaries and the following generations didn’t know what the Bible says, but they do.
2) Everyone who is not entirely stupid understands that Jesus is making an extreme example, meaning that those who refuse to accept his teaching are going to be punished so severely, that not even (insert here the worst wickedness known to humanity) will be punished so harshly as them. This is the only logical way to read the episode, and in fact it is the only way the episode was read as long as people took Christianity seriously.
But now imagine that Jesus would have said that not even those who don’t say “good morning” are going to be punished as harshly as those who do not accept His teaching; or those who don’t mown the lawn; or those who aren’t hospitable. Where’s the logic in that? Obviously hospitality was important in biblical times, but this still does not come even near to a justification for the bizarre argument made. Apart from the fact that the Sodomites seem to have been very hospitable, in their own pervert way…
Seriously, some people seem to think with their genitals…
Enjoy the linked article and perhaps try to memorise, if you can, the main points. It might be useful with the next smartass acquaintance wanting to show off his “alternative” knowledge…
A couple of days ago, I have let through one comment on hell in answer to a previous blog post. The very confused poster goes on with the usual confused mantras of the liberal and atheist society, as the concept of eternal torment does not seem to agree with oh how oh good oh he oh is.He also had some problems about those whom he thinks wish hell on other people. Those who feel oh so oh good always need to see the others as oh so oh bad…
I have written here my reflections on “wishing hell” to someone, but this was not about this, and the poster’s problems were much deeper seated.
I suggest that everyone with any doubt about hell reads this. Many of the most common answers to the doubts of the skeptical are found there.
Still, in the middle of the rubbish of the above mentioned post there was one observation which merits a more attentive consideration. I think I have written about that, but it is probably fitting to write another few words.
What about the loving mother, writes the horribly instructed poster. Could she really enjoy heaven knowing her beloved son is in hell? He thinks not.
Of course she does. She does it to the full, with a joy that is perfect and unalloyed.
We Christians believe in God the Father, not – if you allow me the expression – God the Mother. The fact that God is ready to forgive everything does not mean that he will forgive those who insist not to be forgiven. His justice – which puts the damned in hell, because hell is the fitting place for them – is as divine, as perfect, as absolute as His mercy.
In heaven, the saints can see and experience the perfect justice and the perfect love of everything. Whilst the reconciliation of perfect love and perfect justice may at first seem difficult for us to understand, it is not difficult to understand for them. They have attained that superior knowledge which does not allow the permanence of any question, of any conflict, of any contradiction.
The suffering of the souls in hell are, therefore, terrible, but at the same time perfectly fitting. Why? Because God says so. How can we be perfectly satisfied with such an answer? When we are – hopefully, one day – in heaven we will have a full understanding of it; for now, we accept it on faith, with the humility of good Christians who do not even think they could question or – ha! – “improve” on Christianity.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Our instruction must begin and end with this approach. We fear the Lord’s justice because we are told the lord’s justice is – as much as he loves us – frightful indeed.
It is not for us to decide whether we like this or not. It is not for us to theorise about the “justice” of this, let alone decide it cannot be so, because we don’t like it. We are not here to question, but to learn, accept, and do the best we can to live what we have been taught.
I don’t like the idea of hell. Who does, I wonder, but I accept the truth of hell. As for the logic and justice of hell, I can see – unpleasant as it is; particularly because it means a concrete danger for myself and those I love – the profound sense of it even in this life.
Christianity is not there for our liking, and cannot be bent to what we like. If we believed that, we’d be Presbyterians.
Please also reflect – the booklet linked above also touches on this – that it is not very easy to die in mortal sin. Mortal sin is not the temporary weakness, but the deliberate will to accept evil. If you read the above mentioned booklet – written in times above suspicion – you will read expressions like
“God damns only those who deliberately choose hatred and evil instead of love and goodness”.
“[mortal sins] are essentially the complete turning away from goodness and the acceptance of evil. Anything less than that is not mortal sin”
One doesn’t go to hell because he made a mistake, was run over by a bus immediately afterwards and God says to him “sorry, old boy, the bus came at the wrong time”. The deliberate intent is exactly that: deliberate. It’s a conscious choice, a taking side of sort. Obviously there will be a number of ways how one can choose the wrong side of the field without having explicitly “said so to himself” (say: by consciously and deliberately denying the existence of hell, knowing this is the teaching of 2000 years of Christianity, and feeling oh so good in the process); but even here we see a clearly rooted preference for one’s own moral law rather than for the Law of God: one has made himself god, and has gone around saying so.
God may have mercy on him, or not. If God hasn’t, I do not think anyone can complain, because it would be blasphemous to do so.
And when does it leave the mother, you will ask? Exactly where we are now: on the one hand, hell is a mystery which cannot be fully comprehended in our lifetime; on the other hand, when the mother dies she understands the perfect mercy and justice of the entire mechanism; a mechanism which, being now the other side of the human experience, she will not have any difficulty in grasping beyond any human doubt or apparent contradiction.
This is, if you ask me, another of the scary characteristics of hell: if I were to land in Hell – God forbid! – I would not even have the consolation of knowing those I love miss me and are sad for my fate. Nope. Firstly I would not love them – another extremely scary thought – because in hell I would lose every will to love; secondly they would not be sorry, because they would see the perfect justice and mercy of my – God forbid, again! – being in hell.
Hell is, truly, as terrible as that. It might be wise to reflect on this whilst we still breathe and make our best effort to keep away from there. It might not be easy to get to hell, and daily prayer – and the Rosary! The Rosary!! – will go a great deal in keeping us out of the worst.I strongly encourage everyone to pray daily for his loved ones who might be in danger, and to devoutly remember the Fatima Prayer – a prayer whose power of consolation I find more powerful with every year – in your prayer routine. Actually, if you pray the Rosary daily including the Fatima prayer you kill two birds with one stone.
Wretched sinners as we all are, there is much we can do to avoid hell, and to help others to avoid it.God’s mercy, and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin we must never tire to invoke, may well take us – or our beloved ones – out of very dangerous situations.
But if we think we can make our own religion, we have most certainly set our feet in the wrong direction.
The news of the (belated) laicisation of Mr. Bourgeois prompt me to some questions as to how these things are done nowadays.
I’d love to know whether the man will receive some maintenance from his old order, or any sort of pension, or whether he will now be employed on the sly in some lay organisation linked with his old order in order for them to continue to provide for him without officially appearing to do so.
I say this because it seems to me these things have become far too gentle nowadays, and one never knows the extent to which the likes of Mr Bourgeois are allowed to scrounge at the expenses of the Church he has (together with his vows) betrayed even after excommunication.
If anyone has verifiable, credible news about what happens now, feel free to comment at your heart’s content, possibly linking to the source…
I have always thought religious orders make provisions for their member’s retirement.
It appears this might not be so. On the one hand, dying orders like the Jesuits and the Franciscans surely must swim in real estate, as the swindling number of members leaves their structures unused and ready for the market; on the other hand, it appears in many cases no direct retirement capital provisions have been made, with the result that the cash-flow issues might become acute in the next years.
Perhaps I should be “charitable” here and call for the generous support of the old nincompoops from the part of the pewsitter, grateful for 50 years of mindless and shameless devastation to the point of helping those who have destroyed vocations to have a comfortable retirement for themselves. But you see, I am not sure it would be the right thing to do.
When those who have almost destroyed Catholicism discover that their idiocy is now falling directly on their heads, this can only have salutary effects for their own soul. After the attempt to pump money out of the masses they have so “joyously” instructed fails miserably, they might well ask themselves why this is so; and when even the remaining, small but growing minority of real Catholics tell them they have made their bed and should now lie in it, because the faithful’s own money will rather go to finance the brutal expansion of the likes of the SSPX, this might also be a real eye-opener for the poor chaps. At that point, they might discover poverty in a rather literal sense, and will feel nearer to the oppressed… Perhaps they will even discover some real humility, the one for example that does not lead one to think God was wrong for the last 2000 years, and needed them to establish a new religion based on stupidity and common places.
Most importantly, the experience might show them what goes around comes around, and if you destroy Catholicism to satisfy your own vanity and desire of a comfortable, conflict-free life you might discover what you have left of Catholicism is not enough to provide you with more than the bare necessities…
Sadly, it is easy to predict this is mot going to happen. The cash flow needs will be provided for, I am very much afraid to say, by the sale of the huge assets, and the poor asses will comfortably sail towards a fat retirement and, in many cases, an unrepentant death after all the devastation they have caused.
This might well be the last fat harvest the devil obtains from the Vatican II generation(s), before a new breed of real Catholics, steeled by the antics of the said V II asses, takes over.
Do not be worried, then, for the material welfare of this disgraceful generation of miserable friars. Be afraid for their spiritual one instead.
It has been rightly said that new ideas do not prevail because people are persuaded by them, but rather because the people who believed in the old ideas slowly die and are replaced by people raised with the new ideas.
We see examples of this everywhere, from the long process of “denazification” in Germany (which actually worked with the future generations much better than with those who had lived Nazism and had approved of Hitler) to the great damage inflicted to Catholic orthodoxy by a generation and a half of priests and laymen raised with common places and populist rubbish.
If this is true, then the consequences of it are rather banal: the work of rebuilding Catholic identity must start now, and how many Sixty-Eighters will jump on the train is not really relevant. If, for example, the Vatican were to announce the replacement of the Novus Ordo with the Traditional Mass (a feat which, if truly wanted, could be accomplished in a handful of years) the impact on old potheads would be probably small, but the impact this would have on growing generations and on an awful lot of now non-instructed adults would be significant.
This sound long-term thinking seems not to be the specialty of many priests, who prefer to pander to the lies and fantasies of their awfully instructed and worse disposed grey-haired pewsitters rather than to start injecting some sense into the head of at least the young. The very fact that a priest who denies confirmation to a young heathen should make headlines is an impressive testimony of where things are now.
The bishops should, of course, be the biggest part of the solution; alas, they are the biggest part of the problem: mainly Sixty-Eighters with no faith, no spine and no decency, they are appointed by Popes not much better than they (how do I know that? Because said Pope have appointed the bishops; by their deeds you’ll recognise them…) and they will simply not be the one who defend Catholicism, because they are the one who raped it. To them the same rule apply as to the other: they will largely die as faithless as they have lived, and may God forgive them the incalculable loss of souls they have aided and abetted.
Still, it seems to me – though I am the first to admit I suffer an almost pathological form of optimism – that a new generation of priests is slowly occupying the pulpits, and in time a new generation of bishops will flourish out of them. The old V II generation will soon go to their (doubtful) reward, and from them decent Cardinals and Popes might result. I think I have at least anecdotical evidence to show that a new blood is starting to flow through the Church’s veins, and in time it will not fail to bring the much-needed Catholic oxygen to the pews.
It will be a long work; it might be some time before renewal starts in earnest, meaning: with that assertiveness the secular world calls “aggressive”; we might, I fear, have to cope with indecisive, weak, or outright delusional Popes for a while, as the evil of Vatican II is evidently still running almost undisturbed within the corridors of the Vatican; but the signs are multiplying that those born today might get a much better instruction at their disposal than those born one generation. The problem is, those who might get a better instruction will be a lot less than those who would have get any form of instruction just two generations ago, so we have the situation of a smaller troop of more motivated people, instead of the bigger troop of indifferent ones.
I still think it will be an improvement: small professional armies have always worked much better than big drafted ones. In this, Lenin was probably right: a small minority of truly determined people can achieve much, and punch vastly above their weight.
I think we’ll be there one day. Let us pray for good priests and, in time, bishops.
The Patience Reblog
I have written only hours ago about the message of Pope Benedict to the German bishops, that they are better at being organised than at believing in God. Some mild – for my standards – reflections about the inadequate shepherds these past decades have given us followed.
In a spectacular confirmation of Pope Benedict’s words – and very probably, of the fact that the Holy Father’s talk is rather better than his walk – I read today about this story, brilliantly explained by the “Reluctant Sinner”.
Seriously, go there and try to stay calm. I couldn’t, and frankly I do not feel that I could write about this with the necessary serenity.
Before you click away, you may want to click on the link on the right, that will lead you to the small page dedicated to the daily offering to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It…
View original post 68 more words
Hell reblog, II
Interesting article on Catholic Culture about Hell. It is a pleasure to see that the invasion of the blogosphere from intelligent Catholics is slowly but surely bringing to the attention of discerning Catholic readers what a disgraceful clergy wanted them to forget or ignore. In this case the article is certainly not new (1995), but the internet is the way to make it better known.
Mr. Young doesn’t try to sweeten the pill; he is very clear on the unpleasant part, the one that in these days – when it is considered rude to say unpleasant things – is so often ignored. But at the same time – and with that mixture of common sense and good-natured optimism that is so typical of the best Catholic attitude – he sends a clear message of hope to those who may either be prone to scruples or thinking that if there…
View original post 931 more words
Hell reblog I
Father Z’s post says something actually rather normal for an orthodox Catholic, but which must sound rather strange – or worse, offensive – to the more liberal, or simply less instructed, elements.
It is remarkable that the ones who are so ready to express some kind of wish hell may be empty – in his last movie, Nanni Moretti puts the words in the mouth of a Cardinal, and I can easily imagine he heard such heretic bollocks from a true one – are the one least likely to wish salvation for those they don’t like.
I do not consider myself a man endowed with particular goodness, but I can at least frankly say that I do not wish…
View original post 515 more words
I chanced upon two very different “visions” of hell in two days, and thought I would give them to you without comment.
It goes without saying that to me one is completely right, and the other tragically wrong.
But do not listen to me.
A) Father Barron on Hell
Who do you think is right?
Please listen and read twice. You’ll notice a lot of details coming to light in both cases…
One of the most tragic consequences of the deterioration in education is the progressive abandonment of those disciplines specifically aimed at training people to think; like for example logic, philosophy and theology.
What we nowadays have instead is an excessive reliance on technical knowledge, without considering that this in itself is no guarantee of sound thinking. Therefore, whilst in the past we used to have a sufficient number of people thinking right enough as to influence the public discourse, today we have a tragic absence of people promoting sound thinking , whilst we drawn in (useful, but ultimately sterile) technical knowledge.
This is why we live among people who would know how to build a bridge or write a software programme, but never stop to think of the many absurdities of modern life, let alone act upon this knowledge.
Look at the UK. A country which allows the slaughter of (if memory serves) 180,000 unborn babies a year is so worried about whether the hounds will kill the fox in a “humane” manner (!) that it delivers itself a decade-long battle on the issue, concluded with the great advancement of civilisation that the fox may be killed with a gun instead (very natural, you see…). Of course the subtext is political here – the envy for the well-off finding an outlet valve in the supposed “care” for the foxes, of which many times as many die horribly and unnaturally on motorways and other roads without anyone thinking of banning the roads; the same mentality, by the by, is at work with the “global warming” – but this is further confirmation of the emotion-driven, logic-free way politics is made in this country.
It goes on in the same fashion in so many other aspects of real life: think of the frontal attack to our most elementary liberties from self-appointed nannies for which our health must be imposed on us against our will (again, whilst children get murdered); or the now defunct, but until very recently fiercely raging global warming hysteria. I could go on, but you get my drift: never has this country had so many people who think of themselves as well-educated but are unable to think logically, and live in a world of media-driven emotional craze instead. Their ancestors ( factory workers perhaps; or miners, or domestic servants) were in the end smarter than they are, because they lived in an environment shaped by logical thinking rather than brainless emotionalism, and the very thought of world where you can kill children but hounds cannot kill the fox would have been dismissed as a very, very bad joke. The decline of religious instruction – both Catholic and Anglican; the Methodists & Co, are apparently already extinct, and if they aren’t they don’t want you to know…) has obviously gone hand in hand with this, dumbing down religious knowledge at the same time as sound thinking was going down the drain…
Not so today: more and more babies get killed so that those who are born may be made more and more dependant from an omnipresent state teaching them that the government is needed even to breath, that is the source of morality (this is very important; religion is a hobby one can practice in private, but should never be allowed to challenge The Supreme Good, State Morality) and that it wants them to live in a un-thinking, obediently voting, semi-vegetative and, no doubt, very healthy alcohol- and smoke-free state (they’ll be able to contracept and abort at their heart’s content, though… these kiddies are so expensive…).
A country where education was progressively eroded is now experiencing a deterioration of political, moral and social thinking at all levels; because again, even if once higher education was open to only a few the mainstays of the thinking of these educated people would percolate down to all social classes, making the principles of sound thinking and acting work for everyone. Nowadays, you’d think million consider Jeremy Paxman a moral instance, are utterly unable of logical thinking, and do not know the Ten Commandments.
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
To help you to recover after the orgy of crowd-pleasing peace slogans – and worse, as I might write separately – some points from Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.
All emphases mine. Enjoy:
…although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of…
View original post 741 more words
I have read the “corrections” concerning the matter of the stupidly named boy “Lennon” and his even more stupid Facebook post and frankly find the attitude shown, of all people, by Catholics rather disturbing.
Firstly, it is good that a boy be denied Confirmation because in blatant conflict with Catholic values. It would be tragic if this were not the case. As a consequence, the subsequent news that the problems were antecedent to the posting do not change an iota in the fundamental matter.
Secondly, to accuse the liberal press of being slandering when stating the boy with the stupid name was excluded from confirmation because of the Facebook post is to imply that such a post would in itself not be a sufficient ground for refusal. Of course it is! If that isn’t, I truly do not know what is!
What transpires here is that the stupidly named boy had already given cause for concern, and the priest had – as he should – discussed the matter with his parents. But even so, it is clear that the Facebook post was a smoking gun that would have made the matter extremely thorny, and a valid confirmation under the circumstances impossible anyway. It was, therefore, for the boy a clear case of going before being kicked out, and I wonder that not many noticed this.
Please, please let us not start to relativise the importance of the sacraments ourselves: if the priest had denied the (stupidly named) boy confirmation purely and exclusively on the ground of the Facebook post, he would have done the only right thing anyway.
Let us call a spade a spade here, and a Sacrament a Sacrament. Quibbling about who walk away when does not help.
You would have thought the French are, when collectively considered, a bunch of adultery-practicing, Saddam-supporting, camembert- loving, socialist-voting football bad losers (cough… 2006 World Championship…) with totally unrealistic manias of grandeur and deserving to be (how was that? Oh yes) ” punished”. You could think that, and many among my countrymen would agree with you…
But you see, it turns out the Frenchies are not all bad. For example, the at least 70,000 who took to the streets to protest against the moral indecency and logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage” only in Paris (there were more than 20,000 in Lyon, and another almost 10,000 in Marseille; the latter traditionally rather red) actually showed there is hope even for the French.
Particularly if you consider (as you should) that this kind of manifestation is in its infancy in Europe, and it will take some time before the population at large overcomes the diffuse sentiment that to protest against perversion “looks bad” and makes one appear “backward”. In time, I can imagine this kind of initiative to take some momentum, particularly if the Church shows one or three teeth, which here or there might almost be the case.
Also noticeable is the fact that the religion with soon the biggest number of weekly practicing faithful in France (I am talking of the Muslims, of course; say merci beaucoup to Vatican II and the wonderful “renewal” a bunch of cretins brought us, and continue to ignore the immense devastation it brought…) are also on the same barricade as the Christians. This might well prove extremely embarrassing for the gauche, particularly considering many of them certainly do not vote, ahem, for the Front National.
It is my conviction that the average French politician isn’t less of a, erm, salope (Gosh, it sounds so elegant in French…) than the average English one. If I am right, then, they will soon discover the threat posed to their career by the combined forces of left and wing voters, and will start to look for ways to backpedal on the issue without losing too much face. Cue the “man-made global warming” hysteria, which has seen so many brave defenders of the planet suddenly denying they were interesting in more than next weekend’s weather forecast…
When the bubble explodes, it can go rather fast; not as fast as environ-mentalism for sure, but the dynamics can be changed in a matter of a few years, and the theatre of operation switched to the offensive. Look at the battle against abortion in the US and Europe, and compare with ten years ago…
This, if the French bishops and priests pull together as a team, of course, instead of taking example from their football team during the last World Championship…
Bonne chance, anyway…
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
I am not a mother (neither a woman, come to that), so I can’t really tell.
Still, I can imagine. I can imagine that I am a mother in the bliss of newly found maternity, a joy without equals.
But then I imagine that when the child is just a few days old, I am informed by a very reliable person that this child is going to undergo great suffering and a painful death. How would it feel? A short time later, I must leave my home in the middle of the night, precipitously fleeing those who want to murder the child. Some years of relative tranquillity go by (during which, though, I have never forgotten the fateful words of Simeon) and one day, I discover that through a misunderstanding my twelve years old child is missing, somewhere in a great city far away from me. Then I return to…
View original post 605 more words
Every now and then, yours truly attends a V II Mass in a randomly chosen Home County parish, to see what is happening on the ground, away from the oases of sound Catholicism like the Brompton Oratory. Some weeks ago, I had some pleasant surprises.
The priest – a young man, and not a pussycat like the ones I saw around me in Italy in younger years – suddenly invites the faithful to pray the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. This was the first surprise. The second was that when he started to recite it out loud, not only yours truly but two others (a man and a woman) recited it out loud, with that “better late than never” tone and a clear sense of relief that the obviously young priest was steering things in a different direction than his predecessor, certainly not a great fan of St. Michael as shown by the deafening silence from most of the pews. I took this as a sign the number of Catholics who do not rely on the local priest for their instruction might be bigger than we think… but perhaps they had it from their parents and I am wrong here…
The third and biggest surprise came at the end of the Mass, when Father came again on the prayer, explained how powerful it is, invited everyone to memorise it and said from now on it will be recited at the end of every Mass. It truly made my day.
I do not know whether a slowly awakening Bishop is behind this and we will therefore listen to more voices like this one, but I consider it far more probable that this was the initiative of an already awakened priest who wants to try to steer things in the right direction before it’s too late. The homily was good too, though to your average Mundabor it lacked some bite; but then again, to your average Mundabor most homilies do. In time, I am sure, we’ll get there; one step at a time.
Better times ahead?
The “twelve months later and nothing has happened” reblog…
Some of you will have read of my rather perplexing experiences in Bruges, Flanders. Rather a couple more – says my stats table – have read, or at least clicked on, my several posts about the Heresy in Austria.
In what appears to be the deserved punishment for the Vatican’s incompetence and culpable inaction, the heresy now spreads to Flanders, where – as I write this – no less than 211 priests have signed a sort of petition explaining things the poor idiots “don’t understand”.
Unfortunately, your truly can help with German, but he is totally at a loss to interpret that strange-sounding mixture of guttural sounds called Flemish. For this reason, I will have to rely on the always excellent Rorate Caeli for a list of those things the poor idiots – or worse; read my post about Bruges – don’t understand. They seem to…
View original post 363 more words
Several contributions have been written in the last days about the boy who was denied confirmation because in favour of so-called “gay marriage”.
What I would like to point out is, though, something different, which perhaps hasn’t been mentioned by other commenters and bloggers.
1) the Christian (sic) name of the young man is, apparently, “Lennon”. What kind of Christian name is “Lennon”? This points out to a malpractice that has started to explode some decades ago (cela va sans dire, after Vatican II) and whose consequences the clergy have refused to see: if one gives his child a heathen name, heathenism can’t be far away. Where I hail from (Italy) when I was a child there wasn’t anyone, not one, who didn’t have the name of a saint, and our Jewish classmate also had a Biblical name. The idea of calling one’s son or daughter “Moon”, “Led Zeppelin”, “Katana” or things like that would have been inconceivable, much more so in the case of the name of an openly atheist, drugs-taking, feminism-abetting, deluded cretin as in this case. When priests have allowed children to be baptised with stupid names as a matter of course without any resistance, they have paved the way for the situation we are living today. A priest would be expected to at least question the Christian spirit of parents who want to christen their son “Testarossa”, “Touring Superleggera” or whatever other madness goes through their mind, even when they are not – as in this case – explicitly atheistic in their meaning. A Christian name is supposed to be…. Christian.
2) I commend the priest for his decision, but according to how long the boy had been under instruction one wonders how things could have gone so utterly wrong as to let the boy think he can be in favour of sodomarriage and ask to be confirmed. Whilst I wasn’t there, it is not improbable – and irrespective of this cases it is certainly what happens in many other cases – that the priest either left the instruction to people not much better in their Catholicism than (uummphh…) “Lennon”, or did so in such a hushed, softly softly, weak way that the poor boy just did not get that one can’t be a Catholic and a supporter of sodomarriage at the same time. Which is a simple message, and should not be difficult to convey.
3) I have read around that the parents have told themselves “surprised” (or such like expression) at the priest’s decision. More of the same. Beside the fact that I am not surprised that people calling their son “Lennon” should tell themselves “surprised”, once again one wonders what has gone wrong. The parents should have been, methinks, ashamed for their son’s antic and should have apologised for it; alternatively, they should have said that whilst they respect their son’s decision and blabla, it is clear to them confirmation is out of the question under the circumstances. I have read nothing of the sort, but wait for developments. Obviously, questions can be asked as to the Christian instruction the boy has received; but come on, he was called “Lennon”…
In the simple world of Mundabor, people either are Christian with an acceptable degree of seriousness (which I seriously doubt in people calling their son “Lennon” in the first place) or they call themselves heathen and have the gut to accept the consequences; also because the consequences are going to come to them whether they public accept them or not.
As was, very probably, the fate of the original “Lennon”.
Very strange contribution some days ago on Rorate Caeli, with Archbishop Gullickson writing about the controversy and saying that he is a friend of the SSPX, but clearly implying they are in his opinion behaving in a rather stubborn way, refusing to consider that not everything can be perfect in life and that one should be able to accept the one or other little inconvenience and injustice for the sake of a greater good.
Archbishop Gullickson is, from what I can read around, a good Archbishop and a friend of true Catholicism; but frankly, one cannot but be unpleasantly surprised at the mentality his message betrays. The idea – coming from one who described himself as their friend – that the Society would now be doing, in the end, not much less than throwing toys out of the pram for a laudable, but misguided desire of perfect justice is so out of touch with the reality of the last 40 years, that one must despair this generation of VII churchmen will be able to even get what is going on.
What the Archbishop seems unwilling to understand is that the SSPX is fighting against a very grave, fundamental corruption of the entire way the Church thinks and acts. Their opposition to the New Mass, for example, is not the result of the fact that they consider it sub-optimal, or a questionable way to celebrate the liturgy. Their opposition to the Mass is due to it being the result of a radically wrong thinking, which engendered a dumbing-down, a Protestantisation and a general loss of sacredness of which the Novus Ordo is but the most dramatic and most tragically wrong expression. Their refusal of the Novus Ordo is the result of the refusal of the entire poisonous mentality behind it. It’s not a matter pf wanting to be right in everything, or to have everything set up to perfection. It is a battle for the fundamental way in which the Church thinks and acts; or, to use an imagery I often employ, a battle waged to help the Only Church to regain soberness after the drunkenness of populism, bad or outright heretical theology and utterly manifest desire to please the world rather than convert it that we have witnessed in the last fifty years; starting with Paul VI, soon to be beatified in order than V II be beatified, and continuing (albeit in a generally less drunken way) in our own age, with Neocatechumenal Masses, Assisi III rubbish, and the like.
When, therefore, the Archbishop invites his “friends” of the Society to be a bit flexible and stop being a fuss already, he clearly misses both the nature of the problem and the concern it represents for orthodox Catholics like the brave priests of the SSPX.
For a “friend” of the Society, the Archbishop shows a rather alarming disregard of why the SSPX exists in the first place, and why the “solution” ventilated by him is utterly impracticable.
Friend or no friend, after 40 years of existence one would expect those prelates who write about the SSPX to at least have an in-depth knowledge about what the SSPX is about, instead of assuming they are making a fuss over, in the end, secondary matters.
And this is the knowledge of a friend of the SSPX, and I do not doubt a rather sincere one.
Imagine the enemies!