Monthly Archives: January 2013
I have already reported the rumour that Samantha Cameron would be the driving force towards the “inclusiveness” drive of the disgrace we have to tolerate as Prime Minister. There are several cues to this, not least the multiple faux pas of the same PM in matters of political correctness (the joke about the “one legged Icelandic lesbian” was memorable, though the man predictably apologised profusely afterwards) and the well-known fact he comes from a different environment.
This is a man who was known, before the “inclusiveness drive”, as a rather non-inclusive person, a member of an, erm, exclusive St. James’ Gentlemen’s club that still today does not allow membership to women, until all this became embarrassing for a PM in pectore. So, the man who lived rather well for a couple of decades with club members who think women should not be allowed to set foot in their club should suddenly not be able to tolerate that homosexuals be…. excluded from marriage? Really? Really?
Cherchez la femme, says yours truly….
We have now further rumours this would be the case, with further rather embarrassing revelations about the daughter of a Baronet, “consultant” for some firm and living in a world full of fags, seems very bent to.
Now, the impression can’t be avoided here that this entire mess is caused by the fact that a stupid man has married the wrong wife and, put in front of the choice between no sex for a long time and going to hell, clearly prefers the second option. The Germans have a word for this; which, whilst not very fine, is very apt: Schwanzgetrieben, or cock-driven. Alas, this is the destiny of many men who end up the puppets of their spouses because they have, simply, been driven by their own lust to marry a woman who will lead them through their own willie like a beef is driven through a ring on his nose. This is their private tragedy and we can only pity the poor idiots for the price of their folly. But when the cock-driven nincompoop happen to be Prime Minister, it is the country which must be pitied; though the country itself is, like the man, responsible for its own tragedy.
Faber Quisque Fortunae Suae, people used to say who did not contemplate sodomarriage and built a huge empire whilst putting sodomites to death. The sodomites aren’t put to death anymore, but the saying remains just as valid.
Considering the price to be paid for it, at least one would hope for the PM the sex is good.
Considering the woman, I doubt.
I have written several times in the past that the strong abortion debate in the United States will unavoidably cause the same discussions to be started in Europe. It’s not that there are no pro-life organisations in Europe, or that the matter is completely absent from the public debate; but certainly we are several steps behind.
This is one of the new European Citizens’ Initiatives aimed at reaching 1 million signatures. When an ECI reaches that objective, its object can be directly brought to the attention of the Commission, which has the power to initiate EU legislation in the matter. I know the idea that you need one million signatures to attract the attention of politicians and technocrats is not really smart, but I think this is made to make clear only those initiatives should be launched which have a real EU breadth and can command the attention of the public in several European countries. The initiatives must also be limited to those matters in which the Commission can propose legislation; which are, as everyone here in the UK knows, far too many.
In this case, if you visit the site you will notice the multi-lingual experience. Whilst in Europe we are undoubtedly less advanced than in the United States, it is beautiful to see how the stronger pro-life movement in the United States starts to cause a certain stir here in the Old (as in: old) Continent.
If you are more technically or legally inclined, you can jump here to read about the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case Bruestle vs Greenpeace (astonishingly, Greenpeace seems to be able to do something good at times…).
I found these lines particularly enlightening:
[Al]though [the EU] seeks to promote investment in the field of biotechnology, use of biological material originating from humans must be consistent with regard for fundamental rights and, in particular, the dignity of the person.” Id. at ¶ 32. Therefore “any human ovum after fertilization, any non-fertilized human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted and any non-fertilized human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive.”
It is a sad reality that for the vast majority of Europeans abortion is a given, a reality of life accepted without question. It will take time before more and more people start to think that this situation must change, and I am very much afraid that the biological factor will play a role as the hippies generation is largely irretrievably lost. Still, it is beautiful to see a new conscience concerning the protection of life emerging.
The Ottaviani reblog
This is given without commentary, as truly no commentary is necessary.
Please say a prayer for these brave souls, who fought from the very heart of the Church to try to avoid the biggest damage, in what was certainly the darkest hour of the post-V II madness.
The entire document – also giving background information and making clear that the translation may seem strange in order not to compromise a strict adherence to the Italian original – may be found here.
You will note that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci made entirely theirs the conclusion and tone of a study of a group of Catholic theologians, led by Marcel Lefebvre. The fact that Lefebvre could have his position so fully approved by Cardinals in such high standing within the Vatican tells you everything you need to know about the dramatic events of those years.
Ottaviani and Bacci signed the letter…
View original post 873 more words
Reblog of the day
From the otherwise rather sleepy and windy Wales, news of some importance reaches us: it says here (I know it’s the BBC, a lair of pedophiles and other perverts; but this they should have managed right) that a mother has beaten her son to death with a stick, as a punishment because the boy could not learn the Koran fast enough.
The detail gives a lot of interesting details: the woman (forget “lady”) is a university graduate; when she discovered that her son had died out of the injuries inflicted to him she set fire to the body of her dead child; she said she did so in order to avoid being killed by her husband upon discovery of the death; she also managed to accuse her husband of the killing. What a delicate person.
You might wonder: why does Mundabor bore us with this individual case of a loony…
View original post 426 more words
One of the advantages of getting old is the slow but unstoppable change of perspective age induces. When I was younger, the afterlife was for me (though by the Grace of God I have always believed in God) something so far removed into the future as to make the prospective of death an extremely remote one; something you know, about rather feel about.
Where I am now, the prospective is already rather different. I am now most certainly well past half of my existence, which means that the Day of Reckoning has now become for me an event I can see in the future in light of my past experience, because it will fall upon me in a shorter time that the one that has passed since my childhood. When one reflects about this little mathematical exercise, one begins to experience the Last Four Things as something very concrete, almost palpable. It is there, it is approaching rapidly, it is something I can easily measure with my own experience. I am, in fact,,well on my way towards it. The sobering thoughts this simple calculation provokes are in themselves enough to let one consider the aging process a very salutary one.
In a way, you can compare our perspective with investments. A long-term investment expecting to yield results in 60 or 70 years would be considered unattractive by most individual investors; when you reduce the temporal investment to perhaps 20 or 30 years, things change already. Continuing the comparison with investments, becoming old one understands how astonishingly good is the investment is that Jesus’ death on the Cross has made possible for us. There is no risk of default on the interest payment; you know there will never be a bankruptcy or “chapter 11” to destroy in all or in part your equity; the yield offered is infinite (as in: infinite) compared to your initial investment in time and effort, and the sovereign risk is clearly zero.
The deal is so good, that through the indulgences you get a huge rebate even on the (late) paying of your equity investment. Last but not least, one does not need to be smart. Provided one are disciplined in making deposits in one’s investment accounts (Mass attendance, of course; regular confession; a lively prayer life; and the Rosary, the Rosary!) one does not need to be proficient in the matter, and in fact I do believe many servants, labourers and peasants of old have obtained a much better yield than their more sophisticated, perhaps more intelligent masters and landowners.
As you get old, things start falling into place. Injustices and abuses (of which this existence is full) or even the thousands apparently blind inequalities of this world (the one is born intelligent, the other stupid; the one attractive, the other ugly; the one rich, the other poor; I could go on for very long) are seen in the different perspective of the return on investment I have just considered: painful as it is to be poor, or mistreated, or befallen by misfortunes one has not seen coming and cannot be held responsible for, these pains open the doors of an investment club of unimaginable prosperity, and the “equity investment” one makes with its own suffering and misfortunes properly employed (that is: invested in Christ, rather than in hatred or even self-pity) are by far the best opportunity he’ll ever have in life, and might well make him more prosperous in heaven, and more prosperous for all eternity, than many others who simply never found the means or the will to make a comparable investment in their eternal happiness.
This thinking puts, by the way, the usual secular thinking of “if there is a God, why am I so stupid” (or other disgraces) in perspective. The boy who died in a trench during WWI hasn’t really “lost” so much; actually, perhaps he has, just because he died to protect his Country and loved ones, actually made a great gain; similarly, the hard existence of generations of poor peasants bearing with Christian spirit an entire life of, one can easily imagine, abuse and humiliation will very probably rank higher, in the Celestial order, of those of us who manage to escape hell and can bring to the party not much more than a comfortable existence as, say, obnoxious bloggers banging on a keyboard with a fresh glass of orange juice, and classical music in the background.
Seen in this perspective, this life is like a huge opportunity open to everyone, and where more often than not the lack of opportunities here below may lead to an increase in “investment” opportunities concerning the other world.
You might say – and you would be right – this is all very well-known at least since the Beatitudes; but I do think that the older we get, the more the concept of accumulating treasures in heaven takes more defined contours, as the Day of Reckoning slowly but constantly warns us of its approach.
I do not know how good Cardinal Stafford was when he was in active service, but from what I read around one can easily think he was (and is) one of the good guys. The US Cardinal, now 80 years old, has given an interview saying he weeps for his country after the devastations brought by the big societal changes of the Sixties and Seventies, devastations that have left him “deeply disillusioned” and “alienated” from his own country.
The man is actually old enough to personally remember the Fifties and give us all a reminder out of his own life of how big the difference is between a Christian and a secularised Country. He also makes a couple of rather intelligent considerations as to the cult of “freedom” as a founding value in the United States, a concept which can degenerate in the idea that killing unborn babies is in the end a matter of “freedom”. One hears what the Cardinal says, though I would also observe for almost 200 years of the United States’ history this was not the case, so the problem might well lie elsewhere.
It must, though, be saddening and refreshing at the same time for an US Citizen to read of a Cardinal simply looking in dismay at the state his own Country has reduced itself to. It if can be of any help, I can’t say countries like Italy are so much different, though in a way they still are: the militant atheism is still rather absent and most people still have a varnish of Catholicism, but the mentality isn’t so much different and abortion is legal over there, too. The concept that freedom is freedom to do what is good and not freedom to do what one pleases is, for example, rather poorly spread, because the local priest is more likely to talk about social issues.
Kudos for the Cardinal on this occasion, though. We need more like him, and we need them assertive enough as to make it to wider circles than the readers of the “Catholic News Service”.
If you were at Mass yesterday (and if you are one of my three UK readers I’d dare say you were) you will have noticed the initiative of the letter to be sent to your MP against the Cameron, Clegg and Miller abomination squad. One can debate whether it was smart to wait until so late (I don’t think it was, at all), but there’s no doubt there was a sense of urgency, and our (as, I am sure, most) homily was devoted to the issue.
I have read somewhere (alas, I can’t always remember where I read things…) some Tory MPs admit in private they receive eighty complaints about sodomarriage for every one about Brussels. This is encouraging. I am resigned to a clear defeat in the lower house (again, also due to the fact that the Church started too late to set the wheels of opposition seriously in motion), but I want to be halfway confident we’ll have much better cards in the House of Lords, and one never knows whether the Tories wake up, finally realise Cameron has mutated them in a bunch of wannabe stiletto-heeled trannies, and decide to act.
There are rumours about a coup this at regular intervals, the latest ones only some hours old and for the moment unfounded. Still, the way I know the Tory party they have the stabbing of their leaders down to a fine art, so there’s at least a modicum of hope. This, particularly if the Church starts an insisted work of demolition of the kind of abomination that minions of Satan like Maria Miller call “inclusiveness”.
If you are one of my three readers, I know you have filled your letter, and unfortunately it is now rather too late to ask you to spread the word about the letter among your relatives and acquaintances. This initiative might be successful, or it might flounder for lack of preparation and proper tam-tam. If this were to be the case, I hope no one will be discouraged, or will lend any ear to the usual prophets of doom and assorted Wormtongues preaching the embracing of defeat in order to avoid a worse one (one is reminded of some French bishops…).
We shall see. It is good wheels are getting in motion, but one always the impression this is an army with the worst generals ever appointed.
“they claim the equality of different points of view until they get control of power, and then enforce their view on everyone else, all the while continuing to claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.”
These are words of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on occasion of his recent stay in London, and they photograph rather well the historic phase we are living. The Archbishop’s words are brilliant, and I do not think they need any comment from me.
What I allow myself to add is a couple of ancillary considerations, which I think connect well with the beautiful words above.
1. What the archbishop describes is made possible by the degeneration of most modern education systems in the West, whose only aim seems to be to create an army of nincompoops barely able to write, utterly unable to think, and extremely worried about looking good with their peers. This is particularly evident in England, the only country I know whose natives can say with a smile “I can’t spell” without realising they can’t write. In this country, there are people unable to even get the most elementary things right, like the difference between “its” and “it’s” or “theirs” and “there’s”. Many of them have an academic title of sort. They can’t write, but they can vote, and many of them in fact do; which is why the thinking lamented by the Archbishop translates into legislation.
2. Dim people have always existed, and have been allowed to vote for a long time; but in past times the prevailing Christian mentality avoided the worst, and generally prevented shameless politicians from using them to sabotage Christianity. You can put it in this way, that in our once Christian countries even the slowest benefited from a robust dose of truth and simple common sense, given to them for free and courtesy of their social and religious environment. The collapse of Christian instruction in the last generation or two has created an army of very ignorant people, the more easily manipulated because they are not even aware of being ignorant, or even illiterate. This is the favourite pasture of the modern homosexual lobby, whose aim is to lure the idiots with emotional appeals of zero logical content but great emotional impact (“I just want to be happy! Oh why, why you do not want me to be happy?”). The result is, once again, the drive to the dictatorship of idiocy we are now observing.
It is my personal opinion that all modern Western democracies have contracted a cancer; a disease which might or might not be incurable, but is certainly malignant. Democracy without Christian values becomes the dictatorship of the stupid, and I can’t imagine how this will not lead to a lot of blood being shed at some point. It is also not clear to me why political systems used to promote evil should not be punished by Our Lord, and I would think it rather more probable that the punishment will be as vast as the support for, or indifference to, the evils and perversions allowed or celebrated by most Western democracies.
Western democracies have been digging their own grave for a while, though the astonishing technological superiority and the collapse of Communism have masked the phenomenon for a while. They have now entered a phase of accelerated decay, of whom openly homosexual US Marines are perhaps the most striking example (last time I looked, even the Italian army didn’t want fags. Go figure).
We are digging our own grave, both spiritually and politically. We don’t even have the guts to say “faggot”, but we want to upheld Christian values.All in a very nice way, of course, whilst the Gestapo plans to silence every teacher and parent, and to pervert the very children.
I sometimes wonder how thick people can be.
In a rather interesting article appeared here, the author remarks on the rather clear words the Pope has been speaking in the last few weeks (particularly concerning “gender” issues), and notices with dismay the Holy Father’s words have been uniformly ignored by the media. As the author appears frustrated at the lack of attention given from media outlets to the Pope’s utterances, I dare to hazard a couple of explanations as to why this is so.
1. The secular media mention the Church only if they think it is the right time to attack Her. If, therefore, the Pontiff’s words had been picked up by the press, they would have been picked up with the exclusive aim of criticising the Pope and slandering the Church, and with the usual procession of offended lesbians and convicted pedophile priests thrown in as an added bonus. This time it did not happen, another time it will…
2. The Pope’s words are not picked up, because they aren’t news. “Pope is Catholic” isn’t going to win any Pulitzer Prize. Generally, the Press needs an angle they can exploit, like “Pope preaches against gender equality” so you can trumpet the story of “equality”, but again only if you need a story. If, say, BO’s inauguration and the anniversary of Roe vs Wade are considered news enough, no news will be built around the Pope’s words.
3. The world at large doesn’t consider a warning Pope relevant, but it would immediately notice a roaring one. As long as the Pope isn’t considered a real obstacle for the advancement of the secular cause, he will be either attacked for the fun of it or, more often, happily ignored. If, though, they should see that the Holy Father means business and is set on a frontal attack on secular society, you would experience a huge wave of abuse and slander, then the secular, abortionist, perverted euthanasia Nazis would soon understand they are now fighting for their existence as a meaningful, society-shaping social group.
Let us imagine the Vatican were to announce the removal, on the same day, of a dozen among the worst English bishops and their replacement with young hardliners with spotless reputation. Do you think this would not make headlines? Not even when he repeats the exercise in France, Germany, Italy? Really? How would the reaction be if the Pope were to say every politician promoting the homosexual agenda is a tool of Satan, and those who vote him might well pay for it with their soul? Would this attract attention? Or imagine the Pope would announce the return – after a transition phase for training – of the Mass of the Ages as the Standard, leaving the NO to those priests too old or thick to (re) learn it. Would the world start to notice that something is happening? My answer is: yes it would, and the hounds of hell would be unleashed against the Church; but even if the secularists preferred to be in denial for a while (basically, the behaviour the Catholic hierarchy has been exhibiting for now several decades) the time will soon come when a wave of new bishops and new priests, a new assertiveness or (much better) an outright crusade would force them to notice that they only have the choice between fight and death; which is, by the way, what the Catholic hierarchy will understand very soon concerning their existence in more than some Western countries.
This is, therefore, why the Pope is ignored. This is a time whose needs will not be satisfied with eloquent preaching, but with a war cry to make the blood within every elected politician in the West freeze. This is what works, not speeches in the Vatican only picked up by Catholic agencies, blogs and magazines (some of the latter, of course, very critical of the Pope for being Catholic).
Alas, and said with all due respect, you can’t teach an old Pope new tricks, and I very much doubt Pope Benedict (whose later utterances seem to indicate he is becoming increasingly more aware of the enormous threat hovering over the Christian West) will ever be ready, let alone willing, to transform himself into a roaring lion.
We must hope his successor will be made of a stronger cloth, and will perhaps trade some of the intellectual finesse for a desire to really act (in the dioceses, in the seminaries, in the religious orders; in the eradication of heresy made without waiting a couple of decades; in the excommunication whenever possible of bad Catholic politicians and in the relentless, assertive confrontation of head of states and governments). Only an open fight, and a Pope ready to really fight it, can change the narrative and lead to the turning of the tide.
Catholicism is under attack and has been for some time, and the new generation of mini me antichrists like Obama and Andrew Cuomo are becoming more and more brazen in their hostility to Catholicism; they see very well they have really nothing to fear, and the fat Cardinal will invite them to a prestigious dinner for a photo-op and a good old guffawing between friends.
After all this, should we surprised that the Pope’s words are largely ignored?
I have written only some days ago about the different perceptions in traditionally Catholic, and mixed countries, of the probability of salvation.
Today I would like to spend some words on the different views about Purgatory. Those of my generation were taught (at school, at the Catechism, and from our grandmothers) to abandon every illusion that Purgatory would be a pleasant walk in the park. “Painful” and “long” were the adjectives you would hear more often linked to it, and even as a child you knew this was something to be taken seriously. Therefore, one can safely say that the same people who were equipped with a sane optimism about their and their beloved ones’ salvation were also those with a very sobering expectation concerning the consequences of human behaviour and of their innate sinfulness. I remember here, in a rather personal matter, my grandmother already in bed with cancer assuring me, a little child, she was ill of cancer because of her sins and she hoped to land in…. purgatory after death. We are talking here (without giving too many personal details) of one of those pious women, tutte casa e chiesa (all home and church) you think are not produced anymore (except they are I think, only in much smaller numbers). I do not remember my grandmother asking me to pray for her after her death, but I think it’s fair to say the thought must have been there, and my mother teaching me the “eternal rest” the very day my grandmother died and asking me to say it every day before I go to sleep could, I reflect now, perhaps have been in compliance with my grandmother’s asking (and I know my mother prays for her every day to this day herself).
In all this, you see the working of a traditional Catholic society, in which people took salvation extremely seriously but with a fundamental optimism, worked on their salvation until the very end without gloom and without presumption, with fear and trembling but also with childish abandonment, and knew death would not mean the end of the hard work.
What would a person in the same situation today think, I wonder. If they should happen to talk about death with their small nephews, they will probably never mention Purgatory and I doubt they would mention death at all. If they do, Grandma will probably said to be going to play with the angels, utterly destroying decades of devoted daily prayers for her. As the “promotion to heaven” is considered a given by her daughters, these would not even think of asking their children to pray for the dead, or to pray for the deceased themselves. If a permanence in Purgatory in envisaged, this will be something very short, mainly a formality. Masses for the dead will, obviously, not be needed. God will certainly be nice and not cause sufferance, surely? Rex tremendae majestatis is not even in their vocabulary, let alone in their hearts.
So here we have the modern conception of purgatory: no prayers for the dead, no devotions, no Mass attendance, no need to even be properly instructed, and we all go straight to Paradise – bar the few who will have to make a short pit stop in Purgatory and, probably, Hitler and Stalin – because we are nice people, very inclusive, and always so nice with everyone.
I’ll stick with my Grandmother, thank you very much.
Interesting article about theological courage as the Cardinal virtue of Fortitude. This article seems written by two Protestants, and it is at least a small consolation to know some Protestants share our worries about the world evil atheists are trying to engineer for us, and even notice the little the Church is doing against it.
The article even mentions mega churches whose pastors still are truthful in matter of sexual perversion; this surprised me greatly, then the echoes of the mega churches we receive here in Europe is of big “minimum common denominator” churches focusing on easy issues (optimism, prosperity, health, prosperity, happiness, prosperity and prosperity) but with one and a half eyes firmly set on the easy marketability of their own particular Gospel, and I for myself have never seen a mega church (of the five or six I could experience on European TV) I would call even halfway “militant”.
What is important is that there are growing appeals to have guts, and to have guts in our everyday lives; a theme yours truly touches rather often.
To make an example, twenty years ago it would have been, in my experience, difficult to even know of a colleague strongly opposed to abortion. Today, I would immediately be able to indicate to you two or three of them. Already knowing that intelligent people have a certain stance is enough to lead other people to think, without necessity of exaggerated, invasive or obnoxious behaviour (I thank God I am a Catholic whenever I see those people in Oxford Street preaching to… er, well, no one…).
This growing consciousness is part of the slow changes we are seeing in the matter of abortion, even in Europe, and this is the way to go until our clergy wakes up.
Which, unfortunately, might take a long time.
I am no friend of JP II’s papacy. If you ask me, he has supervised and administered a 25 year-long decay of Christianity, undermining the Church’s strength with unspeakable episcopal appointments and not seeing (or not caring for) the decomposition of Catholic instruction all over the West; the last phenomenon, a slow but effective cancer whose effects we are experiencing now, poisoned an entire generation of Catholics who live and go to vote with only vague ideas about what they are supposed to believe and why. As a result, Catholicism has been slowly withering in the Western world, whilst the growth in Asia and Africa and the media successes of the Pontiff (full airports, and “icon status”) lulled the Vatican in the illusion everything is, more or less, fine.
Still, looking back at JP II’s pontificate, one can see an area where his work has been, at least in words, persistent and very counter-cultural: abortion. John Paul’s insisted returning on the issue did in time leave traces, and the slogan of the “culture of death” has now become mainstream. It is impossible not to notice that the slow swing in the abortion battle was made possible also through the contribution of an honest soul who, by all his shortcoming as a Pontiff, knew how to be stubborn on issues particularly near to his heart.
In my eyes, the times are ripe for the start of a second crusade: the War On Sodomy. If a Pope were courageous enough as to put the matter square in the middle of the sociopolitical debate, we would not have to wait many years before the entire planet starts to listen.
A Pope insistently pointing out to the total opposition of Sodomy and Christianity, and to the utter and total impossibility for everyone who aids and abets or even condones sodomy to call himself a Christian (not a Catholic, mind; a Christian) would certainly cause a huge uproar among the blaspheming classes, but would inevitably attract, in due course, the attention of the Catholic masses.
It takes time before the masses move; what you notice is rather a small shift in perception, due to natural causes as generations themselves shift, and to the natural tendencies of most to follow what they think most think, confusing error with wisdom whenever the error is widely spread. In order to shake the masses from their torpor you need a kind of shock treatment, a shift of paradigm able to bring the world to attention in a relatively short time.
What we need is a roaring Church rather than a meowing one; a Church ready to give battle rather than timid counsel; a Church not shy in letting their opponents understand once she has chosen an enemy, she will go on until his complete political annihilation (Obama and Andrew Cuomo immediately come to mind). This can ,very probably, be done in the smart way without even losing tax privileges, though tax privileges should never be in the way of Christianity and I do not think tax consideration should really be an issue. Never did a courageous Church lack conversions, martyrs, and the necessary means.
A roaring Pope starting a true war on Sodomy would in time not fail to shift the public perception on the matter. This war should not only be wages with words through encyclical letters, radio and TV speeches, tweets if he likes, and so on; but more importantly it should be founded on actual actions like the appointments of only the most rigidly orthodox as bishops, the purging of seminaries from every heretical tendency, a massive cleanup among dissenting nuns and friars, and an aggressive intervention in all political debates involving Christian values. In just a few years, sodomy would soon be seen again as a disgusting, abominable perversion that is just the epitome of everything that is wrong with Godlessness, instead of a strange but very fashionable quirk of people unjustly persecuted by bigots. The narrative of the progressive citizen who “loves his gays” and feels so inclusive and tolerant works because the progressive citizen isn’t told he is an idiot bent for hell, and even our prelates seem unable to miss any one occasion to say how oh so caring they are.
What we need now is a frontal attack, not inclusive waffle.
One quarter of the English Catholic clergy signs a letter, and be assured in Westminster and Downing Hill there are preoccupied faces already. If there was an all out attack be assured the meetings at Number 10 would have as only issue out to get out of the mess and try to save face. They are scared of a couple of perverts’ lobbies, knowing the Church is out for their scalp would scare them witless.
We have Cardinals inviting enemies of Christianity to prestige dinners instead, and even when there is a reaction (see sodomarriage in England), this is too little, and with people with no credibility whatever in the matter. The best example is Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, a man already compromised with so-called civil partnership and the least fit to tell us why we should upheld Christian values.
Some of the most most impressive statements made by speakers on occasion of the March For Life in Washington yesterday:
“How many of you were born after 1973?” Kristina Garza, leader of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, asked the crowd. Almost every hand went up. Garza nodded. Young people, she said, were conceived “with a target on our backs. If you were born after 1973, there were people out there who wanted to kill you for money.”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said this generation has grown up around technology that makes it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn. “We’ve seen our brothers and sisters on ultrasound,” she said. “We’ve Googled abortion and seen the bloody images.”
“Talk about abortion everywhere you go. Do not shut up until we’ve abolished abortion. When someone tells you to stop talking about abortion, say, ‘Join with me to stop abortion and I’ll be more than happy to.’”
Another speaker, Kellly Clinger, told the crowd about her own abortion – an abortion she tried to keep secret from everyone, including her doctor. When she developed an infection after the procedure, however, her secret was revealed. “I didn’t tell my doctor I had an abortion,” she said, “but when I awoke after an invasive exam to see what was wrong with me, my doctor was in tears. When I asked her why, she said, ‘Because I found hands and feet inside of you.’”
It will take time and effort, but I have no doubts in my heart one day will come, possibly still in my lifetime, when people realise abortion is murder, full stop.
The Heretics Reblog
Martin Luther, prominent heretic of the XVI century, believed in Mary Every-Virgin.
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact
Ulrich Zwingli, another prominent heretic of the XVI century, expressed himself on the perpetual virginity of Mary as follows:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.
I do not have texts concerning that other prominent heretic of the time, John Calvin, but I am informed from an EWTN link (whence the other quotations also come) that he upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Now let us see what a prominent heretic of the XXI century, Gerhard Mueller, thinks about the…
View original post 150 more words
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal phenomena.
No doubt, when the disgraceful Roe vs Wade ruling was issued, very many thought this was one of those moment of irreversible change, so that the return to a ban for abortion would not be more likely than a return to the horse cart. For some time the facts seemed (seemed only) to agree with them, as abortion became a largely unquestioned part of the landscape in most of the Western world.
At some point, though, the pendulum came to a still stand, and then began to swing in the other direction. It is fair to say it is now in full swing and winning the biological battle, big time. What happened is not only that the abortionists made fewer children, but that more and more people realised (or are in the course of realising) a genocide doesn’t become legitimate only because it happens to be legal.
It took a long time, though, because it always takes time for the lazy cattle we call “electorate” to slowly wake up to reality, the commonly received perception of what other perceive being generally considered a perfectly valid substitute for truth, morality, or even thinking. It took time, but it’s now happening with great impetus, and it won’t be many years until the mass opposition becomes a reality in Western Europe, too. It works, and it works because of people who were not afraid of being in the minority, ostracised, or insulted.
We see the same pattern now at work in the matters of euthanasia and buggery, with the promoters of both trying to depict the change as a generational, epochal swift in perspective, and as irreversible as flying or eating Chinese food. They might well get their Roe vs Wade, and many people (the lazy cattle) will at that point think the world has ” evolved”, and will feel very smug in the process with that feeling of “look at how good I am” the stupid seem unable to live without. When that moment comes, is when we must continue the reaction without waiting for one generation to go by, learning from the abortion issue that nothing is irreversible, least of all abominations going against the most elementary natural instincts like the above mentioned euthanasia and buggery.
We live in times when we must face (never accept, or acquiesce to) the possibility of dying in a world much different from the one we grew into; a world in which the wicked triumph and the just are insulted, persecuted, or worse. We must stay strong and continue our battle, knowing that the one who planted the ear, shall ear…
One day, thinks will begin to improve; if our day comes before that day, perhaps we will be able to attribute our much hoped-for salvation to the battles we had to fight in a hostile environment, the object of mockery and hostility in the very mildest of cases.
As I will never tire to repeat, the greatest contribution to the swinging of the pendulum would come from the Church. But the Church is, if not entirely asleep, certainly slumbering in the drunken stupor of Vatican II, and does not see the dangers accumulating, does not notice the black clouds at the horizon, and does not feel the necessity to start a serious battle now in order, Deo Volente, to avoid a much more difficult one in 10 or 20 years time.
Much sooner, actually, if the likes of Andrew Cuomo get their way.
I am eagerly awaiting for Cardinal Dolan to invite him to some highly publicised dinner.
If you want to have incontrovertible evidence that post V II “ecumenism” is nothing else than a betrayal of Catholicism, look no further than at the reactions of German Lutherans to the rumours of an “ordinariate” for local, and hopefully converted Lutherans desirous to swim the Tiber.
The reaction of some of them was, as widely reported, of an initiative in contrast with the “ecumenical” work made by the Church in the past. They are, of course, perfectly right.
The initiative of actively caring for those Lutherans (hopefully) desirous to side with Truth is in absolute contrast with the mentality, widely spread in Germany, that we must look at Lutherans not as people believing in error and endangering their soul, but of people simply choosing an alternative path to Salvation and therefore to be left in peace; and truly, in a country where a Catholic Cardinal calls Luther “the common doctor” (this would be Lehmann, if memory serves) there is not much else to expect.
The decision to provide for German Ordinariates is, in fact, the opposite of Ecumenism as widely understood by the German Catholic clergy: no surprise our brothers and sisters in state of heresy begin to notice.
If the Ordinariates were to go on, though, one would have some serious worry about what kind of “Catholicism” the poor converts would be subjected to, as the priests able to really think and believe like Catholics seem to be in the minority. The task could be left to the well-equipped and perfectly trained Panzerdivisionen of the SSPX, of course, but my impression is Archbishop Mueller doesn’t like the way they have let him look like an amateur theologian with a penchant for heresy – a stingy remark, because deserved – and therefore no request for help is, I am very much afraid, going to reach Father Schmidberger.
This being Germany, one must consider the ever-present issue of the Kirchensteuer: it may well be that the Church in Germany, faced with the losses caused by the Kirchenaustritte, the exits from the Kirchensteuer-system, has decided that it is time to graze in foreign pastures a bit more assertively. But it really doesn’t make much sense, because if Salvation is in the cards anyway and everyone has his heart in the right place, it should be rather the same what one does, oder?
I am curious to see what the new converts will be taught about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They might discover some of their new teachers are just as Protestant as they do not want to be anymore.
One of the differences a Southern European notices with the Anglo-Saxon attitude is the different approach to hell. In this respect, Anglo-Saxons tend in my experience to belong either to the extreme “hell is probably empty” (heretical) faction, or else to tend towards a Puritanical view of a general carnage which only a few manage to escape.
In Southern Europe we traditionally had a different approach, thinking rather that whilst the matter of salvation is serious, the fear of The Lord, the nearness to the Sacraments and a loving trust in the Blessed Virgin’s help would help, in the end, very many to avoid the worst. This is, I think, the reason why Catholic societies are seen as too rigid and hypocritically harsh from Anglo-Saxon liberals, whilst they are considered scandalous places full of sinners who just don’t care and are left alone by a permissive and corrupted Church from the Protestants and it is, in fact, reported the young JH Newman was utterly scandalised at the immorality he saw in Rome, an environment which was, at least for the working classes (as made immortal by the sonnets of Giuseppe Gioachino Belli) rather different from the environment he was accustomed to.
This is seen also, I dare say, in the matter of, let us call it so, the salvation numbers, often seen with great pessimism in colder climates and generally seen in a more relaxed way by the, well, more relaxed Catholic cultures (this is another thing I always notice in Northern European: they tend to seem always strangely tense at some level…).
I have been wondering for a while whether this different attitude is something merely cultural, or whether it would be shared by prominent theologians of the recent past; obviously from times above suspicion, then what happened after V II is not even worth being googled.
On the excellent Ite ad Thomam blog we find a very interesting excerpt from the great Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who interestingly enough echoes the perception of Christian societies in which I grew up. In short: it was widely believed the majority of even adult Catholics should manage to scrape through with the help of “their saints in Paradise”; the Proddies were thought to be already in non indifferent trouble; and the Heathens in serious trouble.
It would, therefore, seem if one is a Catholic grown in a Catholic country and accustomed to all the Catholic way of life, one should be fine in the end, obtaining the grace of final repentance.
There are, though, differences to consider: the society in which I grew up (and which was probably already in some state of decomposition compared to Garrigou-Lagrange’s one) basically did not contemplate the idea of not belonging to the Church, and non-baptism was virtually non-existent among those who weren’t, say, Jews. You see that also in the language, where “Christian” is used a synonymous for “person”, and “baptism name” means “first name”. Therefore, their sunny, Italian/French/Spaniard/Portuguese optimism was based on a society completely taken over by a broadly Catholic culture, and formed in a world where truly even atheists would share most of the Church’s values, and would be often either ashamed of not believing, or not desirous of telling they aren’t. Who knows how many “last-minute efforts” were crowned with success in such an environment…
What the very same Garrigou-Lagrange would say of the Italy, or France of today is more difficult to discern: whilst still largely present in those countries, traditional Catholic values progressively lose grip, as they have been transmitted more by parents than by priests for now 50 years; parents who are now dying, and dying clearly without the success a motivated professional clergy would have had. In the meantime, Atheists have become angrier, and even Catholics less Catholic; many churchgoers of today probably understand much less of Christianity than most agnostics of 100 years ago; which made the agnostic more likely to be recovered in his old age than the modern “catholics” more likely to turn to Kabbalah, or New Age wannabe spirituality…
I doubt our theologian would be so optimistic if he visited those countries today. He would probably restrict his optimistic assumption to certain strata of the population, rather than generically talking of “adult Catholics”. Say, how many millions adults Catholics do not care that their children are baptised? What would our great man say of their salvation prospects?
Which question leads us very neatly to the last point of this post: Vatican II with all its opening to the world has aggiornato Catholic Europe so much, that in it nowadays many more are at grave risk of damnation than in pre-V II times. So much so, that Countries once solidly in the hand of Catholicism are now growing a generation of unbaptised, religiously indifferent people to whom Christian values are at the most object for examination, and then approval or rejection according to personal convictions. It will not be long before the chances of salvation of the majority of them will not be bigger than if they had been born in a Protestant Country.
I wouldn’t want to be the member of the clergy, no matter how high his position, who dies having actively contributed to all this.
One of the strange types one (unwillingly) comes across on Twitter is the whiny, emasculated daisy who is all about “peace”. Whilst I dare to hope most of them are Proddies, there’s no denying our side also has her (unfair) share of them.
In their humbleness, these people know what Jesus does at any one time, and are the ones to tell you so in order for you to change your ways and become like… them.
So it came to pass that a noted politician responded to an unwelcome remark from the Prime Minister writing something on the lines of “now it’s war”. Our not very masculine hero reacted with expressions of shocked disgust at such belligerent language and, being very humble, added that “Jesus wept”. One would be curious to know whether the man was there, privy to such an extraordinary revelation, or was just an effeminate idiot in great need of growing a pair.
Still, the thinking was clear: I know when Jesus weeps, so you’ll have no choice but to agree with me in everything…
What passive-aggressive bitches.
I blame Protestantism.
First of all, let me say that **in general** I am highly suspicious of the number of children allegedly conceived by rape. This does not, my dear female reader, concern *your own* rape, and I am sure your rape was entirely authentic and an extremely traumatic experience. I refer, though, to the fact that by reading around one has the impression rape is something that in the US happens all the time, as a matter of course; particularly if we think that after all is said and… done to conceive a baby is never an automatic matter, as millions of couples will testify.
Having said that, *some* babies are (must be; it is a statistic certainty) conceived through rape.
Here is where one of those phenomena start which I cannot but call inconceivably stupid, and a worrying sign of the inability of our generation to simply think logically.
View original post 633 more words
The Supreme Court of Alabama issued aninteresting sentence concerning the life of the unborn. Two pregnant women took drugs, gravely endangering the health of their babies, and were sentenced as a result. With the usual callousness of pro-choice people, they argued the babies are not persons, merely clumps of tissues, and therefore to damage them is really not an issue at all, much less a criminal offence.
The Alabama Supreme Court answered along the lines that the exact contrary is the case, and an unborn baby is treated by the law as a life worthy of protection in a range of issues, including of course the one of their health having to be protected from their mothers’ actions. In actual fact, they said, the only matter in which an unborn baby is not protected as a person is the issue of abortion, and this only because of Roe vs Wade.
Notice here the main point: Roe vs Wade is in opposition to the way the US legal system as a whole sees the unborn baby; a (though this is not explicitly said) monstrous creation of judicial activism going not only against the legal conception of an unborn baby, but (and this I add myself) elementary common sense. I do not know anyone who does not refer to the unborn baby as a “baby” instead of a lump of cells. Even the girl informed of an unwanted pregnancy will not say to her girlfriends she has been informed a lump of cells is growing within her; on the contrary, she will refer to him as “baby” even if she wants to abort him, and she will inform a certain boy or man that he is the…. Father, which implies a son, rather than the co-agent in the triggering of the rapid growth of tissues which, like a tumour, will soon have very unpleasant consequences unless properly expunged.
In fact, the way so-called pro-choice activists want us to see an unborn baby is exactly this: they want us to see an unborn baby like a tumour ready to metastasise unless treated promptly and decisively, with the removal and complete elimination of the dangerous excrescences threatening the health of the, er, well, mother.
Hitler is among us. But now he has millions of faces.
Reading here and there, I sometimes have the impression that there is some misconception about what a catechism is.
Particularly the younger generations (those grown up in the doctrinal vacuum of the Paul VI – JP II era) must be under the impression that the one issued under Pope John Paul II is the Catechism, either believing that there was no catechism before it or that this catechism made everything that came before it superfluous.
I would like to point out to a couple of concepts and give the reader some background and reading hints.
1) A catechism is not infallible. Every catechism is nothing more than an attempt at explaining Catholic teaching in a way easily digestible for the non theologically trained laity. Similarly, no catechism is mandatory. There is an official catechism, but every catechism approved by ecclesiastical authority (particularly if in tempi non sospetti, as we…
View original post 1,268 more words
One of the funniest traits of liberals is their love for Sunday Psychology and fake wisdom.
To make an example, they seem to think people who tend to talk a lot about homosexuality (generally because they have been raised properly, in a proper Christian country, and feel as if bestiality had become the latest fashion modern society has to “celebrate”) get a lot of accusations of being, at some level, latent homosexuals.
The reasoning is: if you really hate something, at some level you like it. Smart, isn’t it? Let us think this to the end: the entire world is secretly in love with Adolf Hitler; the Holocaust is approved at some latent level by the entire world population; incest, bestiality and pedophilia are he most popular latent passions known to mankind; particularly to Liberals, who scream all the time about pedophile priests.
I always enjoy giving the usual wannabe Freud a smiling, very relaxed answer: first I let them express the concept that what one hates he at some level loves, and then I proceed to explain to them that they are telling me themselves (so they must know rather well) that they would love to screw their dog, their parents, and their children or nephews (if any)… Make sure to mention the children, if any. No, seriously.
Here is where the one or other generally get seriously offended (they can accuse you of an abomination, but you can’t do the same with them; hey, they’re the tolerant ones…), and this is the time to tell them very clearly in their face what you think of those like them, of their wannabe psychology and of the state of their brain cells in general.
This, you do in a very commanding and virile tone which says “the jokes end here, you moron”, in case they should think you aren’t masculine enough (which, by the way, liberals often aren’t themselves; which is why you see them dressed like fags even when they happen not to be), so that the air is clear from any possible misunderstanding.
I have already had three or four of these neat exchanges, and I assure you it is great fun and not only ends the debate, but takes care that the above mentioned Liberal expunges the theory from his little collection of platitudes, at least in the presence of those who were there.
I have already written in the past that these liberals are very often people of mediocre intelligence with a great desire of making themselves beautiful with some easily digestible common place; being rather slow, they will not see their shallowness, but this will not fail to impress other people moving in the same IQ regions; that is: other liberals. When many follow the same platitudes it will be called Obamania (and the money helps there a lot), or Global Warming, but it works on a much smaller scale, too.
So, my dear liberal cretin, how is your reaction to incest?
I have written some days ago about Kreuz-net.info, a site initially largely seen as the spiritual successor of sort of the old (and great) “Kreuz.net”.
It would be perhaps wise to explain first what has happened in the last, rather confused days, and secondly to say some words more about the new site now that more info is available.
Just a couple of days after I wrote my first posts about the apparently “resurrected” site, the new site went offline again. It now turns out the oh so tolerant liberals had made a massive cyberattack on the new site, forcing the provider to shut it down for some days. The site reports here about the events, and it states the provider has now also transferred the site to a more powerful server, whilst a second address with .at instead of .info is also available to reach the site. Expects further episodes like this at regular intervals.
Already this is a clear sign the new site is not linked to the old people behind “Kreuz.Net”, then the old organisation operated on a completely different level of technological means and savvy, and could withstand cyber attacks (not only from the usual faggots, but even from an organised group like “Anonymous”) on a massive scale.
The renewed operative state of the site also quenches the rumours the site would have been shut down just days after its inception from the Austrian authorities pending prosecution. On the contrary, activity seems to go on undisturbed.
This leaves the question of the precise nature and legitimacy of the new site.
The old site was run in a completely (and admirably) anonymous way. We can, therefore, not know whether any or more of those involved in the old site are also involved in the new one. Still, I cannot avoid noticing the following:
1. The new contributions, in themselves of good quality, are not written in that strange “one sentence at a time”-style of the old site; a way of writing certainly used to preserve the anonymity of the contributors by hiding their writing style or nationality. It seems, therefore, reasonable to assume up to now not one contribution has been authored by those behind the old Kruez.net site.
2. The old site being anonymous, there is no way of knowing whether the people behind the old site approve the new one, or consider it a “copycat” site trying to get at least part of the (huge) traffic of the original. The old site does not link to the new one, now have I found on the internet any declaration or endorsement or condemnation from the old authors, which would have been in any way difficult to verify if not coming from the original internet site.
3. The new site has, so to speak, a face, which appears to be an Austrian right-wing publisher apparently already in existence for many years. The new publisher invites anonymous contributions, which seems to me to indicate he would love to receive articles from those behind the old site, and hopes one day to achieve their level of journalistic quality and, of course, bite. Again, the fact that up to now no contribution seems to be linked to the old boys may indicate they do not approve of the initiative, though one cannot but notice the effort of the new publisher to offer a qualitative adequate product, and I note that up to now there appears to be no desire to use the portal as a vehicle for right-wing propaganda either.
4. All the new articles refer almost exclusively to general themes, or to Austrian issues. Not one up to now deals in the usual polemical fashion with German themes. This might be due to the desire to avoid prosecutions initiated by the German Gaystapo, but if this is the case it does not make sense to invite the sending of anonymous articles in “Kreuz Net” quality, than these dealt largely with German issues and would most certainly attract the attention of the German authorities. On the other hand, the presence of a publishing house that I imagine rather accustomed to the attention of prosecutors could well be the way to test every prosecution the German Gaystapo may try to push forward, basically saying to them “we are here, come on in, have a tea and let’s see if you have a case”. If this is the case, though, we will have to start seeing articles dealing with German issues very soon.
As it is now, the new site appears to be an honest effort; on the other hand, not only it appears still distant from the quality and prestige of the old site (which also disposed of a rather impressive net of well-placed informants the new one clearly does not have), but the suspicion of a copycat attempt cannot be entirely ruled out.
I will continue to follow the site, making allowances for regular interruptions due to cyber attacks. Already the matter whether the site will be attacked by the German or Austrian Gaystapo is very interesting, because if this is the case, this time there is a publisher and we will therefore have a very public trial and a very public sentence; if it isn’t, this would open the gates for the return of the old chaps.
One of the strange quirks of the matter is that it is now clear the old site decided to shut down to protect the anonymity of their authors, which means that there is no way to see whether the investigation would have gone on or would have been abandoned anyway. It might, actually, even be the investigation was initiated with the intent to move the authors (among them, very likely, brave Catholic priests of some influence) to shut the site down to avoid detection.
As to the old site, it is clear to me as long as the current Nazi-madness among the German prosecutors goes on there is no way people living in Germany or in Austria can start a site like the old one and avoid the risk of prosecution.
The only way the original old site can start its activity again would be by operating with authors living in countries like the United States, whose prosecutors would ask the German ones to kindly take a hike when requested to cooperate. Alternatively, there should be a clear guideline making clear the crime of Volksverhetzung (see here) does not extend to (however strongly worded) attacks to individual people or to sexual behaviour.
Don’t hold your breath.
The Little Crown of Mary is just another of those many Catholic devotions considered, erm, too Catholic by the geniuses who gave us the Second Vatican Council and assorted side effects, and that are now coming back to public consciousness and worship. You will find some nice applications if you look.
As for the Rosary, several variations are known and practiced, but the devotion revolves around the recitation of twelve Hail Marys mixed with three Our Father. The twelve Hail Marys are certainly a tribute to the “woman with upon her head a crown of twelve stars” of the Revelation, and I hope I am not very far from the truth in supposing that the three Our Father are a tribute to the Most Holy Trinity.
The man who gave the Little Crown his actual character appears to have been St Louis de Montfort, but like the Rosary the Little Crown can be expanded or embellished with accessory prayers.
The version I use is based on the division of the Hail Marys in three groups of four “crowns” each, with each group devoted to the meditation about a particular aspect of the Blessed Virgin: the Crowns of Excellence, Power and Goodness.
After the Sign of the Cross and an introductory prayer, each group of four Hail Marys, introduced by a short reflection about the relevant Crown, is preceded by the Our Father and concluded by a Glory Be. A short concluding prayer and the sign of the cross end this beautiful devotion.
Typically, though, every Hail Mary will be accompanied by short invocations, different for every Hail Mary, extolling the virtues of Mary in accordance with the Crown being prayed: these additional prayers were introduced by Louis de Montfort, and with their individual character are a great help in trying to avoid the mechanical repetition or the wandering away of the mind that, as you have certainly noticed, are never far away from the recitation of the Rosary (and which, may I add, constitute a part of his charm and challenge).
The individual prayers and the shorter time required for the recitation make of the Little Crown an ideal pious exercise when you have your laptop or tablet with you and are in the middle of a short “break” (say, a short bus ride, or the like), besides being of course easily prayed at home.
Bear in mind, though, that the complete devotions with introductory and closing prayers and the individualised invocation will require a non indifferent memorisation effort if you want to pray this devotion without external help; though you can always revert to a more simplified version if you like, like the one without the invocation and choosing as introductory prayers some perhaps already known prayers like, say, the Creed of the Apostles and the Memorare, or the Hail, Holy Queen and the Memorare again.
I am far from suggesting you should pray this beautiful devotion in substitution to the Rosary: there is simply no substitute for the Rosary, nor is the Little Crown surrounded with the power and glory that have accompanied the Rosary for many centuries now; not to mention the promises of Our Lady tho those who pray the Rosary devoutly and faithfully every day, the real Big Bertha cannon against the Devil and his evil companions.
Still, you may perhaps feel encouraged to adopt the daily recitation of the Little Crown as a shorter preparatory step to the daily recitation of the Rosary, as it will be far easier to insert this shorter devotion in your daily routine until you feel ready for, so to speak, the upgrade.
Also notice some apps allow you to set an automatic reminder, which once set up at an opportune time (when you know you are in front of your computer or tablet) will be of further help.
Modern technology can do much for us, and it is absolutely amazing how much technology is doing to revive old Catholic devotions our conciliar… stepfathers wanted neglected and ideally forgotten. The ways of the Lord and those of the Clergy are sometimes rather divergent.
I suggest you look around and see what you can find that suits your available devices and your inclination. The material on offer will certainly grow.
We must fight of course, but we must pray too. This blog is rather more focused on the fight aspect, but this does not mean prayer should be neglected; besides, you can also consider that the recovery of old traditions we were supposed to leave behind us are, in a way, also part of the fight…
Padre Pio reblog
( You’ll have to copy and paste this, I am afraid. And believe me, you want to switch the audio off….).
From Gloria.tv, a video of the body of Padre Pio after its controversial exhumation in 2008. As you can see from the video, the body is in an impressive state of conservation. As far as I know, there are no ways known to man to preserve a corpse in such a way, for such a long time and a simple look at the video will persuade you that no embalming – not attempted, as well-known from the filmed inhumation and, also filmed, sealing of the tomb – could ever reach such results.
As the seals have been opened in front of the cameras, and th estate of the tomb perfectly corresponded to the state of the tomb filmed by the original inhumation, there can be no doubt that…
View original post 67 more words
We are, as you all know, in the middle of the Year of Faith. The way I understand the Year of Faith is that this is a year in which Faith is promoted with particular fervour to react to the growing secularisation of Western societies.
If this is so , it goes without saying the promotion of Faith goes together with the promotion and diffusion of the Truths of faith, as opposed to the error. It should be also not even worth mentioning that errors in matters of sexual depravity should be, in the Year of Faith, be fought against in a particularly virulent way.
Obviously, and as in every human endeavour, words count much less than facts and, in fact, words not accompanied by the relevant facts have in all ages been mocked. Facta, non verba, says a very old adage. Now, most of us must be content with words because they are not in a position of power where they can really act (we can in our small way, of course; but I am not talking about that…). Still, every Bishop can do a lot, and a Pope can, alone, change the face of the Catholic clergy as there is no bishop he cannot remove, no religious order he cannot reform or disband, no crusade he cannot (provided they do not require real tanks) undertake. The Pope is far more powerful than the President of the United States, then he is stopped by none of the checks and balances the latter has to deal with every day. The Pope is, very simply, the person on earth who can act the most, and his responsibility is commensurate to the power entrusted to him, and to the prestige attached to his function.
Ubi honor, ibi onus.
This is the problem I see with the Holy Father. He proclaims the Year of Faith, and a torrent of very apt words falls on the world’s Catholics. Still, when it come to facts one notices very fast the Holy Father is, like all his predecessors after Vatican II – with the possible exception of the one who died too early to tell – sorely deficient. Like his predecessors, he makes more the impression of an impotent teacher in a class taken over by unruly children than of a strong headmaster with the school firmly under control.
Most recently, we are informed, some French Bishops have come to the idea that the best way to defend Catholicism is to attack it, and that undermining God’s commandments is the best way to defend them. Truly, they must be V II bishops.
The suggestion to defuse the matter o so-called same sex marriages by allowing so-called civil partnerships is as perverted as the idea to avoid robberies being made legal by suggesting to decriminalise theft. It is also extremely stupid because our geniuses should find us a country where so-called civil partnerships have been allowed without the cry for “the full monty” becoming deafening in a matter of just a few years.
Are, therefore, our French bishops so unbelievably stupid that they can’t see beyond the door of their residences? Are they so gaga that they do not know anymore what sodomy is, and that it remains such even if there is no state “marriage certificate” to sanction it? O do they have collective Alzheimer’s and do not remember what “scandal” means, and that it is their duty to avoid it to spread, let alone become legal?
The truth is, I am afraid, much simpler. These despicable men have lost the Faith, and their horizon is now strictly limited to what might give them some chance of caving in to the instance of the secular society without appearing too cowardly – if possible; otherwise, who cares… – in the process.
They have, I have told, clearly lost the Faith; then a Bishop who believes in the God of the Christians would never even think of sanctioning legal recognition of sodomy so that there be no legal recognition of sodomy… called marriage. Really, these people are evil, and evil in the most dangerous of ways, because in purest V II style they smuggle their satanic work for Christian charity or political prudence, like a closet Communist would suggest you submit to a new Brezhnev to avoid the return of Stalinism.
Padre Pio would roll in his grave.
What does, then, the Pope, who has not only the power but the duty to neutralise these people, do to protect the faith in… the Year of Faith? Has he forced anyone to retract? Has he removed any of them? How many of them are, in fact, his own appointments? The answer is: nothing. He has done nothing, he is doing nothing, he will do nothing. As long as he reigns, bishops will continue to undermine Catholicism everytime they feel they have some advantage to gain from so doing and remain unpunished. They have nothing to fear. They know it, and he knows it too.
Mind, it is not that the Holy Father cannot talk. His Christmas address concerning the fact one cannot choose his “gender” was beautiful. But if a Pope talks and refuses to act, he is betraying at least half of his office, and will be justly remembered like another Paul VI who had a clear vision of what was happening, but did not have the guts to be Pope.
Another two or three well-sounding and ineffective Popes like this one, and we will be persecuted in the public square.
Reading on the Internet here and there one gets the impression the SSPX depends on the Vatican’s goodwill to survive. The reasoning goes along the lines of “the SSPX should take what is offered now, because the Holy Father’s patience is now rapidly depleting, and he is the last chance for them to reach an agreement, after which they will be crushed/declared schismatic/ordered to disband”.
It seems to me this kind of comment is made in ignorance of what the SSPX is all about. Let me explain.
The idea at the basis of the SSPX is that the fidelity to the teaching of the Church comes before the fidelity to the Pope. Whilst generally the two coincide, and obedience to the Pope is due every time fidelity to the Church is not in question, when the Pope insists in wanting something that is against the teaching, then the faithful find themselves in the necessity to refuse that obedience they continue to be ready to pay in all other circumstances.
This is not a Sedevacantist position, as the authority of the Pope and his legitimacy in being Pope is not put into question.
It would be very erroneous to think a Pope can never be wrong in doctrinal matters, because the Holy Ghost would strike him dead if he tried. Popes have been vocally and utterly wrong in doctrinal matters in the past (think of John XXII), and the protection of the Holy Ghost only kicks in in that the Holy Ghost will (predictably) strike the Pope dead before he imposes his error as a dogma of the Church. This has never happened up to now (not even with John XXII), and therefore the Holy Ghost clearly had no reason to strike any of the Vatican II Popes dead.
Another famous episode is the way Paul defended received truth (occasionally also against Peter). Paul doesn’t mince words:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Paul was an obedient follower of the Pope, but not a silent one, nor was his obedience unconditional, in a kind of blind Fuehrerprinzip. In Galatians we read, referring to the incident in Antioch
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)
Paul opposed Peter every time he thought it necessary, full knowing the latter’s position. He did so publicly when necessary. It’s not that Peter should have been struck dead by the Holy Ghost. Peter simply happened to be wrong on a couple of issues, and not even angels would have persuaded Paul that hey, he is the Pope so that’s what it’s going to be.
A third episode is the painful story of Athanasius, about which I have written already.
The obvious consequence of this is that the SSPX will give obedience to the Pope in everything possible, but refuse obedience whenever necessary. Not one, or one hundred, excommunications are going to stop them. Not any declaration the Vatican could make that the SSPX are Schismatics, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or cats, or dogs; not any order to disband; not even an angel coming down from Heaven and telling them to, pretty please, accept the Vatican II concept of, say, religious liberty. It’s just not going to happen.
Now, I fully agree that if the SSPX had been an organisation of people merely fantasizing themselves the defenders of orthodoxy, the old excommunication would have wiped them out in just a few years. But the fact is, they truly are the defenders of the orthodoxy! Many people see it, and see that far from being rebellious to the Pope, they are obedient to the Pope in everything, except in those things which not even an Angel could persuade them to do, because it would mean to be disobedient to the very Truth from which the Pope’s authority derives. This is why the SSPX grow and prosper, whilst the V II clergy shrink and become old.
Yes, of course the Vatican is wrong, and the SSPX is right. Peter was wrong, and Paul was right! The Vatican was wrong, and Athanasius was right! It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future. It does not mean we do not owe obedience to the Church and to the Pope, it simply means we must recognise we live in one of those periods in history in which a state of necessity may apply in certain circumstances; but again, it is a state of necessity due to obedience, not rebellion.
This is a difficult post: a blog post about what a French site says the Vatican has written to every SSPX priest, which has already been proved wrong because they wrote it to Menzingen ( SSPX headquarter) and they apparently copied and sent to every priest (boy, their photocopier must be good…).
You find the English translation of what the content might be at the usual Rorate Caeli.
My comment to the text are as follows:
1. Once again, Archbishop Di Noia writes over Archbishop Mueller’s head. Apparently (but see below) no fear of being drowned in yogurt there. Good!
2. Archbishop Di Noia appears to have posed, amidst the lines of a very long letter, the following conditions:
a) no discussion of V II in the media
I wonder what the Archbishop thinks, or if he just loves to write. The very aim of the SSPX is to fight against the distortions of V II. It is not a private exercise. The role the SSPX requires from her priests, which is the reason itself why the SSPX exists, is to say things as they are. This reminds me of Mussolini, who allowed dissident books to be published provided the run was limited to 1,000 copies. This is not going to work, full stop.
b) the SSPX does not establish itself as a parallel Magisterium.
This is not very intelligently formulated and I hope it does not come directly from Archbishop Di Noia’s pen. If the Archbishop thinks the SSPX want to establish their parallel Magisterium, he has a lot of studying to do. More probably, he means the SSPX must accept every cretinous statement of the V II church (religious liberty, and so on) as infallible Magisterium.
c) presents the objections in a positive and constructive manner
I have never read a criticism of the SSPX to V II that wasn’t constructive (though they were negative, as the matter deserves). Actually, I am still waiting for the minutes of the meetings with the Vatican to see who was more constructive. I think Archbishop Di Noia owes every conservative Catholic out there, because in my book a man is only as good as his word and the minutes of the meetings have been vocally announced. Let’s take the time to read it all and see who has the better argument and logic.
d) bases all analysis on a deep and wide theological basis.
This is offensive. It implies the SSPX has up to now not based her analyses on a deep and wide theological basis. From what I could read up to now, the SSPX shames every Vatican theologian you can care to mention, obviously starting from the Pope. But again, I am waiting for the announced minutes of the meeting to see who has the “deep and wide theological basis”. I bet three pints it isn’t the Vatican.
Personally, I’d say this new “smile offensive” from the Vatican can only be one of two:
1) Di Noia wants to make himself independent from Mueller (good!), and he is trying to establish his own negotiating credentials whilst, at the beginning, trying not to anger Mueller too much, lest he be drowned in yogurt. Therefore, unacceptable demands are posed, which in the meantime establish Di Noia as the interlocutor of the SSPX within the Vatican.
2) This is a remote-controlled Mueller initiative to, again, try to drown the SSPX in yogurt: “you will have your recognition”, they say, “and you will be able to criticise VII. Provided, of course, you shut up.”
Er, well, no.
This is not the SSPX everyone of us knows, and the SSPX will not accept any “compromise” which silences them, even if they are able to do their own thing and criticise Vatican II in a very hushed way in the bargain. This is pretty much what is already allowed to the FSSP, and the SSPX priests know why they do not join the FSSP.
I wish within the beautiful palaces of the Vatican they would start to accept that the decomposition of Catholicism in the West is the result of erroneous teachings, practices, and ways of thinking introduced during – and spread or magnified after and through – Vatican II. That, and only that, will be the beginning of the healing, whilst every Catholic insistence that V II be not wrong (a statement more ridiculous with every new day) is going to crash against the wall of orthodox Catholicism built by the SSPX, a wall that will certainly not be taken down against a promise of a reconciliation. Athanasius was never lured to compromise his position by promises of reconciliation.
Besides, Di Noia’s position appears contradictory in itself: “look what damaged goods we are”, he seems to say, “please damage yourselves with us and agree with our corruption, so that we can heal together”.
Again, more than a proposal this seems a provocation dipped in … yogurt. Still, this could be an erroneous rendition of those who made the synopsis.
The belief of liberal Catholic is, as I see it, somewhat different from what ordinary Catholics (or Christians) believe. I think they would describe it as follows.
We do believe that there is a God, or Goddess of sort. This Being must not be referred to in the masculine, because the Being is clearly very inclusive.
This Being appears to have had a son, of sort. A truly terrific chap, well yes we can call him His son, because he was so good, but I wouldn’t make it too confusing anyway.
Still, just because the son was so amazing it does not mean he was always right, right? Take the matter of the apostles, where he only chose men, discriminating against poor Magdalene to kow-tow to the social prejudices of the time. We are very good and inclusive people today, free from prejudices; but Jesus, terrific as he was, probably also had his. Wonderful chap, though; wonderful!
We have therefore already seen that Jesus probably has a sexist bias (look, he always calls the Being “Father”: I mean, how sexist is that… ) and that he had no courage to defy the social conventions of the time in matter of patriarchate (he could with many others: sabbath, bleeding women, poor people, & Co., but he did not have the gut to allow even his mother to break the glass ceiling of the Christian Board of Directors…). Fortunately, we now have the Spirit, who tells us what is what.
Jesus also founded the Church; well, at least he founded one church, I mean… well… He founded one church but every church is actually his church, isn’t it now, provided they do no harm and have their heart in the right place. Actually, He did found his church, but we must not forget every other church leads to salvation anyway, so it is a matter of choice, really…. also please do not forget non-Christians are also clearly part of Christianity, then Jesus might have been a bit on the macho side (terrific chap, though; amazing! such JOY!) but the Being (let’s call Her so) would certainly not leave everyone out, would She now?
Therefore, Jesus created the vanilla ice cream taste, but you are perfectly free to choose chocolate, stracciatella or pistachio, provided it’s good ice cream made with a lot of joy and inclusiveness.
Speaking of which, the Gospels also tell us Jesus was, alas, extremely homophobic. We must not judge him for this of course, then he lived in an extremely homophobic society without today’s Good News of Inclusiveness. Still, the way the chap spoke about that open and inclusive gay community in Sodom is really disgusting, and we think it should be taken away from the Gospel because it’s really, really out of line. Must be a later interpolation, for sure. I mean, to compare gays with people who do not want to believe in him, hello? Not that it is so bad to not want to believe in Jesus, of course, but you get my point…
Also, just because Jesus was so nice we must not think he could not be gullible, or that after his death and – some say – resurrection (which you would not have been able to photograph, though) his organisation could not get it all wrong. In fact, already his appointments were very bad; look at Peter, always going around with swords and even using them, talk about non-violence! Much worse happened, though, after Jesus’ death, with a strange chap called Saul bringing in his sexphobia, extreme homophobia and wanting to judge everyone around him. Hey, Saul or Paul, who are you to judge?
He even wanted wives to be obedient to their husbands, can you imagine that? Talk about women’s liberation! What a joke…
It went on afterwards, of course. The Apostles and their successors conned Jesus, in that after his death they transformed the Church (erm, church) into something completely different from what Jesus (chauvinist and homophobic as he clearly was; but hey, those were the times…) would have wanted, and this got worse and worse as the centuries went on and the “First Christians” were betrayed (after they had betrayed the message of Jesus, see above) with a modified liturgy, the pomp and circumstances, and the riches and power of the church.
Some men of God had intervened in the meantime, like the extremely creative German monk and the holy Frenchman who established himself in Switzerland. They created stable churches alternative to the one of Rome but of course full of Spirit, and it took some time before we Christians learned that every Christian church is equally worthy, not to mention the other religions which are, of course, very worthy too, then Jesus is love and peace…
During all this time, the Holy Spirit was generally rather silent at least within the Roman Church, whilst the Lutherans, the Calvinists and the others were clearly inspired men of God. We who in the end still call ourselves Catholics had to wait for the second half of the XX century before the Spirit started to talk to us too. Before that it was, clearly, utter darkness.
Admittedly, the Spirit took a while; but when He spoke, boy, that was spectacular! A complete renewal of the Church (erm, church) started to take place, and the Spirit now started to make everything new: a new liturgy of course, replacing the old one that was such a big obstacle to the understanding with our brothers and sisters in Christ. A new way of being in the world, a world that is not the enemy anymore, but our friend, to be embraced in peace and harmony! Out went the old devotions, the stuffy things, the unbearable triumphalism, the pomp and the tiara. We reassessed everything in the light of the Spirit: confession, mass obligation, altar boys, devotions, Friday penance, war, capital punishment, fornication… the very concept of sin became a new, much more joyous meaning, then whom does it help to talk of our weaknesses in terms of sin? Why all that brimstone? Hell is probably (very probably) empty anyway, so relax and enjoy the ride! Or do you think God would be so cruel as to send someone to eternal torment? Co-me oo-n! If this were so, than I would be very clearly better than God, then I am so inclusive! So he must be, too!
And so we arrive to the present day, when the Spirit is still outpouring new, joyous inspiration. We now realise condemnation of sodomy is a sad remnant of an oppressive past, then if homosexuality is not a sin (we know this from the dolphins and the penguins, who are innocent creatures of God) how can sodomy be bad? On the contrary, we celebrate (this is something the Spirit is teaching us to do a lot: celebrating) a loving commitment between two wonderful, wonderful human beings, and we think this should, one day, also be called marriage! At the very least, we should not judge, then we have read it in the Gospel; and whilst the thing with the male bishops was certainly wrong and the homophobic remarks utterly unacceptable, Jesus “do not judge” is certainly the alpha and omega of the entire Christian message! Actually, the entire message of Jesus can be summed up in this words: do not judge. Be inclusive. God is luv. There’s nothing else to know. Let’s celebrate!
Oh, how many beautiful things the Spirit is teaching us!
Unfortunately, not all is hunky-dory. Some strange people are eerily attached to the old ways, in a sort of paleo-sentimentalism the Spirit has clearly not approved, though admittedly it tolerated it for 2,000 years. They attend Mass the old way (they really think they have to attend Mass, by the way; funny, that! Do you think Jesus would die for everyone on the Cross and care who is sitting in the pew?), they say the Rosary, and are recovering all the old and dusty traditions, and all the mistakes of the past! We try,of course,to charitably inform them about the error of their ways, and point out how judgemental, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, misguided, intolerant, fossilised, elitist, and outright fascist they are in being… judgemental; but they don’t want to listen, and get more and more in number as they are more and more misguided.. and they are so young, so young! Priests, laity, everybody!
Decidedly, young Catholics are not what they used to be… we smoked marijuana so joyously at their age…
We do not care, though. It is fun to think what the Spirit might inspire us with next, and my conscience tell me euthanasia is another issue where the official Church has remained way behind the Spirit, and which should be tackled next. We will discuss it within our group very soon, though due to the average age being somewhat over 80, we think the Spirit will have to speak rather loudly.
But we are so proud of how the Spirit speaks to us…