Daily Archives: March 21, 2013
Two pieces of news, none of them particularly good, reach me just before dinner. They both concern our new, strong-willed but, how shall I put it, perhaps just a tad self-centred Pope.
The first one I have from Father Z: Holy Thursday Mass is to be removed from his traditional location of San Giovanni in Laterano, and to be celebrated in a youth detention centre instead. A rupture with a consolidated tradition smacking, once again, of Seventies on steroids. What I personally find questionable here is not the decision to celebrate Mass in a youth detention centre, but to deliberately break with tradition and with the solemnity rightly associated with the Holy Thursday Mass.
Father Z comments, very aptly in my eyes, with the following words:
Look. I understand what Francis is doing here. Fine. But in making such a dramatic change, I fear that he runs the risk of making these change all about him, rather than some other message he wants to convey. The same goes for all the other changes he is making. The papacy isn’t just his own thing to do with what it pleaseth him to do. The changes can become distractions, especially the way the media will handle them.
Ahem, I rest my case. I would only add that I suspect the “way the media will handle them” is exactly what the Holy Father is hoping for. I miss the same commitment when it is uncomfortable.
The second one is the decision (read today somewhere on the Internet, but I don’t remember in which language) that Pope Francis still has not decided whether (not “when”) to move in the Papal Apartments. Apparently he has “taken possession”, but he just does not live there, still preferring the hotel.
Whilst the first “innovation” is a strike at tradition, this one seems to me another blow at Papal authority.
Can’t wait for a Pope living in the youth hostel. The security must be fun.
It seems to me that the mildest thing one can say is that this Pope still has problems in realising he now is the Pope, and this changes his life forever (or as long as he is Pope).
The less mild thing one can say is that “me, myself and I” starts to be written in rather large characters on this Papacy, with a series of choices showing a rather obvious lack of regard for the wisdom of the ages, from the way a Pope should dress to the way in which he should live. Again, Seventies on steroids. All this, mind, not made in a slow and subtle way, but with a rather “look at me! I am different!” written all over it.
Someone near him should have the guts to tell him: “You are the Pope, Your Holiness. Get over it”.
I am sure I am not the only one to notice this, but I want to mention it nevertheless.
Pope Francis was elected with the vote of 91 Cardinals. A rather large majority. How possible is it that the 23 who have voted for him (assuming he voted for someone else) were all the culprits for the Curia's inefficiency?
And if this were, for a moment, to be the case, how does it square with the fact that the Cardinals considered followers of the most powerful men in the Curia present or past (Sodano, Bertone, Re) appears to have voted for him?
This reminds me of a Politburo where a great reformer is elected, but getting the vote of all those who are least willing to reform; at the end of which there is a great PR success and a great talk of reform, but the reform never comes. Think Gorbachev.
Now, no Gorbachev ever enjoyed the power and freedom of action of a Pope, and one could rightly argue that once Pope, Francis does not have to care two straws about who voted for him. Still, it looks like all those who have something to fear are enthusiastic about Bergoglio, with Daneels and Mahony oh so very excited. Again, you can reverse this thinking and imagine they voted for him to gain some points and hope he will not treat them too badly, but he won't care anyway.
Still, it is something that gives food for thought: a Great Reformer is elected, and those who are the culprits for the need of Great Reform are his most fervent supporters…
The so-called Archbishop of Canterbury has given another impressive demonstration of what happens when Christianity is taken away from a Protestant ecclesial community.
In the case of the so-called CoE, Christian thinking has now disappeared from the very top, and it is only a matter of time before the Anglicans go the way of the worst Presbyterians.
“Archbishop” Welby (remember: he is no more an Archbishop than Sylvester the Cat) tells us he is “stunned” at the “quality” of some of the so-called “gay relationships” he has among some of his “particular friends”; so much so, that he feels “challenged” by them. One reads such drivel and one is sure he truly forgot, or never knew, the basics.
If Welby were a Christian, he would know that right and wrong depend on God’s valuation of it. A sin is such because it offends God, and we know it offends God because He told us so. Things being as elementary as that, it stand to reason once Christians know a behaviour is gravely sinful they can never feel “challenged” by the outer appearance of this behaviour; because if they did so, it would be tantamount to “challenge” God’s wisdom.
If a person screws his dog, or his mother, or a child, the quality of the relationship with his dog, mother or child is simply irrelevant. An abomination is an abomination is an abomination, and how happy or loving the dog (or the mother, or the child) look is simply not part of the equation.
This elementary logic escapes Mr Welby, because the man has forgotten Christianity to become a devotee of the modern “religion of niceness”, prescribing that whenever there is what they call “love”, everything is fine. One fully understands why the man wants to meet Peter Tatchell, an avid supporter of “love” not only with other men, but with boys (though when the matter became uncomfortable he was conveniently ready to forget his past battles concerning the age of consent).
Welby is, in fact, far nearer to Tatchell than to every Christian: his concept of “quality” as a substitute for “Christianity” is perfectly aligned with Tatchell’s idea of sin, and diametrically opposed to the Christian one.
Make no mistake, in one generation (if their ecclesial community is still there) the then wannabe “Archbishop” will have no qualms in telling about the “quality” of the “relationship” some of his “particular friends” have with the above mentioned dog, mother or child, and will say he is “challenged” by that. By that time, of course, civil partnership between a man and his dog will be already reality, though the CoE will insist that those among their bishops in such a relationship promise to be “celibate”.
Mr Welby isn’t recognisable as a Christian anymore. He mentions his (so-called) church’s position on Sodomarriage as something whose reasons and roots he cannot even understand, as it conflicts with his own religion of “quality”.
Seriously, the time is approaching when the (only) Church will deny to the Anglicans the status of Christians, and ask that those Anglicans wishing to convert be baptised altogether. People like Welby have completely forgotten the God of the Christians, preferring to worship the goddess of “love” and the idol of “niceness” instead.
O what a harvest for Satan, but oh how stupid those who will fall for such a primitive trap.
It has now transpired both Pelosi and Biden (attempted to) receive communion during the inauguration Mass.
Whilst the ceremony was transformed in the usual mass-exercise of the V II era (apparently more than 500 people, many of them certainly priests, distributing communion) and we do not know the exact modality of what has happened, it seems clear to me this grave scandal was at least made possible by the Holy Father, who was accessory of their grave sin at the very least by silence.
Pope Francis is certainly aware of the atrocious work of the two Catholic Pharisees in matter of abortion. If he himself gave communion to them, he did so in full knowledge of the grave scandal they continuously give, and can certainly not hide himself behind the finger of the two perhaps having reached perfect contrition in the minutes preceding the reception of the consecrated host. The scandal given by the two being very public, their being allowed to receive in itself gives scandal.
Even if the Pontiff did not give communion to the two himself (which I find improbable, both because of the rank of the hosts and for security reasons) and the two slipped among the crowd to receive from some other priest or “Eucharistic minister” unaware of who they are or too scared to refuse communion to them, the Pontiff is responsible for it because he made it possible through his silence.
It would have been sufficient to address a warning during the homily, impersonal but clear, on the lines of “those who directly or indirectly support abortion in full knowledge of the gravity of their sin are not allowed to receive communion, and are therefore invited not to present themselves in front of me to receive” to keep both Biden and Pelosi solidly anchored to their pews without any names being made; none of the two would have dared to stand up in line and be publicly refused communion by the Pontiff, or simply ask for a benediction acknowledging they are unworthy to receive; nor would they have dared to (attempt to) receive from some other person, lest they are exposed in front of all the planet like the con tricksters they actually are.
Someone may say that this was a diplomatic exercise, and therefore had to be conducted according to the usual rules of diplomacy. Fine, and no one asks the Pope should have refused to have Biden and Pelosi at the Mass and should have asked Obama to send him presentable representatives instead. Still, when the rules of diplomacy impinge on the Sacraments, a line too much has clearly been crossed.
Nor can it be said this is not the first time such scandals happen (Pope Benedict apparently did exactly the same when he visited the US, and he certainly gave communion in Germany to “Catholic” politicians of whom he knew they gave scandal) and therefore the matter should be looked at with more leniency. Scandals committed in the past by past Popes do not justify scandals committed in the present by the present one, and no one is ever obliged to receive, or ever forced to give, Holy Communion.
The result of the Inauguration Mass is that Pelosi and Biden will now be able to continue their work undisturbed, and brag with everyone they have even received Communion at a Mass celebrated by the Pope – and very probably from his own hands – so they must be fine Catholics after all.
It is utterly irrelevant whether this is how things really stand, or not; that is, whether the two have validly received. This is how the two will be perceived by the huge number of ill-instructed and ill-informed Catholics in the US, and the Pope enabled them to continue to do so.
This Papacy claims to be on the side of the weak and unprotected. Posed in front of the choice between the hundreds of thousand of babies slaughtered every year in the United Stares alone and the prospect of seriously angering powerful people – and their President – by clearly upholding Catholic values for all the world to see, the Pope chose to please the second rather than defend the first; but he was not shy in making popular gestures in front of the world cameras, like stopping the car and go to the disabled man in the wheelchair.
Up to now, the “defence of the week” seem to be all right when a world audience is there and there’s nothing to be feared, but to stop when it becomes inconvenient; but the Holy Father wears a metal cross and used to travel by bus, so he must be a friend of the oppressed. At least of those who have not been butchered because of Biden and Pelosi.
The singer Michelle Shocked performed a rather strong tirade against so-called “gay marriage” some days ago, apparently during a concert. I do not have any idea who the woman is, or whether I would like her music (rather not, methinks; but you never know). What I do know is that over the Pond she is known enough to make a “US Tour”.
This tour now appears to be in tatters, as following Shocked's utterances several venues have hastened to cancel the scheduled performance. Faggots all over the country are rejoicing.
Now, it appears Shocked expressed herself in rather robust tones, including the “God hates Fags” so hated by those who hate God. Now, it is certainly wrong to say that God hates fags as creatures made by Himself, or as immortal souls. God loves each and everyone of his children; but to love one's child does not mean to approve of everything he does, or even not to punish him when he has richly deserved it.
God does not hate fags as human beings, but God most certainly hates faggotry in extremely high measure. He did not send an angel to destroy Sodom (which means, let us be clear about it, killing everyone in it, including women, children and elderly) because they made loud music at night, but because they were, erm, sodomites.
This simple fact escapes the modern apostles of the new religion of tolerance, to whom God is “homophobic” and should not be allowed to “discriminate” against sodomites, much less exterminate them.
They are entitled to their opinion, stupid as it may be (you can't outlaw stupidity after all, and I value freedom of expression, at least outside of my blog), but they should be coherent enough not to tell themselves Christians as they do so.
God hates faggotry. He hates it so much, that he punished it with a genocide, not sparing even little children. I really can't imagine how He could have made his point in a more forceful way than by exterminating everyone.
Michelle Shocked expressed herself, being a Proddie, in an inaccurate way, but she went far nearer to the Truth than her critics on the liberal camp.
God hates faggotry all right.